Square framing, centered subjects and symmetry in photography - the poor relatives?

[aplumpton]

<p>The following photographs are hastily chosen, but may illustrate what I think Julie may be referring to when she declared that in some cases the frame doesn't physically exist, that the photographer as well as the viewer may be suggesting or expeiencing things (thoughts, state of feelings,...) that occur outside the frame. I apologize if my examples are a bit limited, but I would also encourage others to provide images that support an "unframed perception" (which is no doubt a form of non-visual communication or understanding). </p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>and the second and perhaps less evocative:</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, for me there's a difference between what will take me out of the frame in terms of "thoughts, state of feelings" of the viewer and the photographer, on the one hand, and what will take me out of the frame compositionally and visually. As I think about it, I'd probably say that all decent photographs (ones I want to pay more than passing attention to) will take me, to some extent, outside the frame on the former level. What I see will blend with my own experience and feelings to elicit a response. Yet, only a small subset of those photos will actually compositionally or visually point me outside the frame in a uniquely significant way. I think all compositions, since they frame things out, do suggest what's beyond the frame, but I think some do so much more as a key to their being than others. I find both your examples definitely suggesting thoughts and feelings outside the frame, but not pointedly suggesting a continuation of the visual world outside the frame to a strong degree for me.</p>

<p><a href="http://thelightofmanydays.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/robert-frank_new-orleans-1950s.jpg">Trolley, New Orleans, 1955</a>, by Robert Frank suggests visually, compositionally, and concretely what's outside the frame, not only because the train windows form a series that seems to be interrupted by the frame, the folks at the edges cut off a bit, but because strongly implied visually is what the people are looking at, which is not in the frame (although it is suggested by reflections in the windows above).</p>

<p><a href="http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_168763_346731_robert-frank.jpg">Butte, MT</a>, by Frank, is another similar example (without any reflections that might, but I don't think do, undermine the notion of what's not in the frame).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photoeye.com/magazine/articles/2008/images/05_21_gunslinger_01.jpg">Gunslinger with Camera</a>, by Frank, is another one.</p>

<p><a href="http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://whitenoiseofeverydaylife.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/streetcar11.jpg&imgrefurl=http://whitenoiseofeverydaylife.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/robert-frank-the-americans/&usg=__Gmy3n6icua62VnSxoMaocj9AYh8=&h=421&w=598&sz=228&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=OUPbb1dKDyi7TM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drobert%2Bfrank%2Bphotos%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1">The middle photo</a>, by Frank, of the gas station -- to me -- is less about compositionally or visually suggesting what's outside the frame and more about my mind wandering beyond the edges.</p>

<p> </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>The first one works very well for me -- it is not bounded by the frame; it comes forward to meet me.</p>

<p>I can talk myself into the same thing with the second (color) one, but I would need a quieter mind than I have at this minute to properly interact with it. (Both are beautiful spaces. Thank you.)</p>

<p>For another experiment with out-of-frame symmetry, try looking at Irving Penn's portrait of Picasso:<br>

<a href="http://www.nga.gov/press/exh/208/index.shtm">http://www.nga.gov/press/exh/208/index.shtm</a></p>

<p>For me, his (Picasso's) eye locks so forcefully to my own that I feel as if my eye becomes part of the composition; a symmetrical binding. Does it do that for anybody else?</p>

<p>[<em>Fred -- ... thank you. We are taking turns trying to be </em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Sullivan_Macy"><em>Anne Sullivan</em></a><em> ...</em> ]</p>

[Julie H]

<p>[i posted at the same time as Fred. Just to be clear, my Anne Sullivan comment to Fred in my previous post was directed at his post before this last one, i.e. the one at Jan 31, 2010; 10:37 a.m.; it does <em>not</em> refer to Aurthur. ]</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"For me, his (Picasso's) eye locks so forcefully to my own that I feel as if my eye becomes part of the composition; a symmetrical binding. Does it do that for anybody else?"</p>

<p>Absolutely - a riveting portrait, but not just the eye lock, a lock also into what we perceive (know) of Picasso's personality and being.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Another one that I think is really interesting. Not as forceful as the Penn one, but I think it depends on your bodily responses to complete the effect. See if this picture doesn't make you listen, or at least make you think about sound; it's Nadar's <em>Pierrot Listening</em> (1854-55):<br>

<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/nadar_pierrot.jpg">http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/nadar_pierrot.jpg</a><br>

The head and hand on the left balance the full weight of the rest of the body on the right. I think it's the concentration of the face and the gesture of the hand which ask or urge you to be included (physically) in the out-of-frame shared stop-and-listen moment that gives the proper weight to the left side.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Another Picasso photo-portrait. Well-known, but I forget the author (not Penn, nor Karsh, Davidson, Doisneau or Miller. Avedon?) and couldn't find that on Google. His expression and eye do drag you into the image, though.</p><div></div>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2347092"><em>Arthur Plumpton</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 30, 2010; 12:16 p.m.</em><br>

<em>A very simple holiday snapshot, yet involving symmetrical and asymmetrical elements, as well as centered subjects.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, what a wonderful holiday photo, only to be spoiled by the very distracting "horizon line", which is defined by the ceiling. It's tilted, just slightly, but enough to get my attention - immediately. If you're going to do shots like this, those details are EXTREMELY important. It's "off" by -1.25 degrees.<br>

I took the liberty of correcting the photo for you so you can see what I see.<br>

Please accept this observation as a suggestion to improve your craft, it is by no means a critique.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p><div></div>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>"For me, his (Picasso's) eye locks so forcefully to my own that I feel as if my eye becomes part of the composition; a symmetrical binding. Does it do that for anybody else?"<br /> Absolutely - a riveting portrait, but not just the eye lock, a lock also into what we perceive (know) of Picasso's personality and being.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The image online is a mere shadow of the original print, when we are talking about the eye <em>locking into. </em>In the original print you can clearly see the reflection in the eye of the outside landscape and a tree standing in it. <em>Mesmerizing.</em></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Bill, I had noticed it, also in the edge wall vertical lines, but I guess I was a bit unbalanced by the sight of my friends enjoying their Versailles Louis XIV "jig". A pity that Louis spent so much on his castle and so little on supporting New France (New England progress did a lot better with its Royal patrons), although he did send all those "daughters of the king" (Filles du Roi) to the New World in the mid 17th C, which helped to ensure I would eventually meet the one that could put up with me.</p>

<p>Phylo, that effect is undoubtably forcefull, but the "opaque" eye also has its own effect in connecting with the viewer.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Arthur, yes it was forcefull, it was in Paris where I saw the Penn / Avedon exhibition, enriched with the photography of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiro_(photographer)">Hiro</a> ( an Avedon " student " ).<br>

But those prints though, those <em>photographs</em>, they left me <em>humbled, </em>best photography experience I ever had. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Here's a photo of mine with a partial comment from a viewer:</p>

<p><a href="../photo/8548152&size=lg">Untitled 5</a></p>

<p>Is that a reflection on the TV or is it on? Looks like it is a reflection, is the photographer visible? With the person at the window with his shadow, i get a strong sense of of the photographer involved in completing a 3 point geometry. Further enhanced by the angle of the room and the shadow looking for you.</p>

<p>When i observed that this piece had a geometry that extended outside the frame. Motion was what i saw, my eye movement was engaged and had become a significance for me. I find that kinetic awareness as a tool is not often considered or intentionally used in still photography.</p>

<p>________________________________</p>

<p>Here are two other examples from Moholy-Nagy, who was also talked about by the viewer who commented above in terms of still photographic kinesis:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_1987.1100.499.jpg">Scandinavia 1930</a>,</p>

<p><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sTqVIl4_vmA/SjD3-jriy5I/AAAAAAAAGH8/0ocDw67XCCA/s400/moholy-nagy.radio.jpg">Radio Tower Berlin</a></p>

<p>Both of these, I think, achieve their three-dimensionality with an obvious extreme perspective. But I think there's a bit more to it, which is that they seem to depend on the viewer to complete the perspective, to ensure the depth. It is outside the frame and with the viewer that the true perspective is achieved only with the viewer's presence. Other photos with depth don't seem to rely as much upon the viewer's actual positioning or being. With many three-dimensional photos, I can imagine that depth being there even without me, with just what I see in the frame. In the first of the Molohy-Nagy photos, the sailor's eyes looking at us helps us become part of the scene, helps transgress the frame. But that's almost too easy as an example. In the second, we don't have those eyes, we just have the perspective, a perspective which seems to <em>expect</em> the viewer.</p>

<p>As I think back on the origins of the thread, especially the matter of symmetry/asymmetry, I consider that much of the symmetry/asymmetry we see and experience is dependent on the viewer's relationship to the photograph and completion of the visual composition. The viewer's place <em>visually</em>, in addition to his place literally, narratively, thoughtfully, and conceptually is significant in rendering and completing a symmetry or an asymmetry.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"As I think back on the origins of the thread, especially the matter of symmetry/asymmetry, I consider that much of the symmetry/asymmetry we see and experience is dependent on the viewer's relationship to the photograph and completion of the visual composition. The viewer's place <em>visually</em>, in addition to his place literally, narratively, thoughtfully, and conceptually is significant in rendering and completing a symmetry or an asymmetry." (Fred)</p>

<p>Yes. The variants of the interplay of symmetry and asymmetry, in the image and in the mind, of both author and receptor of the image, are fascinating and potentially forcefull. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>Your <em>Untitled 5</em> has me laughing -- because when I first looked at it I stared and stared -- and liked it very much but was thinking to myself, "this is not an example..." then I finally noticed the man on the left (outside) and BOOM, the circuits closed and I was <em>in</em> the composition. Especially effective when it pops into consciousness like that.</p>

<p>So, now that the other man is there, it's, just a perfect example of what we're talking about. I think Josh's comment nails it:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>With the person at the window with his shadow, i get a strong sense of of the photographer involved in completing a 3 point geometry. Further enhanced by the angle of the room and the shadow looking for you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have an unrelated comment on <em>Untitled 5</em> that I don't think any of the many commenters have said (I speed read the lot but I may have missed it). To me, the picture has many, many interesting details, but the overall impression that I get is of an animal (maybe creature is a nicer word?) in the zoo. A wild thing crouching behind bars. Possibly dangerous. There is a shadowy, jungly look to that room. (Not sure how I would explain the TV and the chairs, but maybe it's an urban jungle ...)</p>

<p>Back to the examples, I don't get as much of the effect from the <em>Scandanavia</em> Moholy-Nagy but I do get it very strongly from the <em>Radio Tower Berlin</em> photo.</p>

[felixg]

<p>Bill P:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“Next time you go to the doctor for that physical, ask him if he's self taught.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like the pilot, last time, the doctor is a completely different case from a photographer and/or philosopher who do not have lives in their hands</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Those of us that put in the thousands of hours of schooling, did the work,<br /> passed the tests, graduated, have earned the right to a bit more criedibility<br /> that those people who were "winging it"...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well ... thank you (genuinely) for the explanation. I do now see where our philosophical differences lie. I personally feel that those of us who put in the thousands of hours of school, tests, graduation, etc, have in many ways <em>less</em> credibility than those who spent the same time actually doing it.<br>

Not that I think the study/instruction time were valueless: far from it. But they were investment which upon which only experience out there winging (including learning equally by both successes and mistakes) it can capitalise − and then, how much value they have depends utterly upon what we do with them, not on the simple fact of having acquired them.<br>

For me, a single stunning image from a winger (and it can be squarely symmetrical − it's happened many times) trumps all my study, testing, graduation, in a moment. For you, I understand, the assessment is different. Long may our differences feed us.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"I personally feel that those of us who put in the thousands of hours of school, tests, graduation, etc, have in many ways <em>less </em>credibility than those who spent the same time actually doing it." (Felix)</p>

<p>So very true. They still occasionally let me play at work in my non-photographic and non-arts sector (process development in the natural resources sector), in which I do not consider that many years of education (almost a decade) and subsequent experience have necessarily given me enhanced credibility compared to many research amateurs or technician colleagues. I have had the pleasure of working with some highly gifted less formally educated colleagues who have earned their credibiity through their personal abilities, love of the sector, hard work and often brilliant innovations. I believe that this applies in many areas of human activity.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, that's great. I'm glad <em>Untitled 5</em> worked for you that way. ;-)</p>

<p>Very cool interpretation, by the way.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1706103"><em>Felix Grant</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Feb 01, 2010; 02:42 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Bill P:</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>“Next time you go to the doctor for that physical, ask him if he's self taught.”</em></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Those of us that put in the thousands of hours of schooling, did the work,<br />passed the tests, graduated, have earned the right to a bit more criedibility than those people who were "winging it"...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well ... thank you (genuinely) for the explanation. I do now see where our philosophical differences lie.</p>

 

<p><em>Like the pilot, last time, the doctor is a completely different case from a photographer and/or philosopher who do not have lives in their hands</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Felix, it looks like you never studied counterpoint with my Father!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I personally feel that those of us who put in the thousands of hours of school, tests, graduation, etc, have in many ways less credibility than those who spent the same time actually doing it.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Felix, I went to schools where we DID the work, we didn't read about it.<br>

Those thousands of hours of schooling taught me how to get great results every time, not just occasionally by "winging" it.<br>

I never relied on a "winger" when I needed results on a location shoot.<br>

That's what clients pay for, results, not luck.<br>

And let's face it, not everyone who goes to school has "it". Sure there are many people who are great at passing tests, but in the field..............<br>

Nice chat, as always,</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2347092"><em>Arthur Plumpton</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 31, 2010; 02:27 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Bill, I had noticed it, also in the edge wall vertical lines, but I guess I was a bit unbalanced by the sight of my friends enjoying their Versailles Louis XIV "jig".</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I thought !</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em> A pity that Louis spent so much on his castle and so little on supporting New France (New England progress did a lot better with its Royal patrons), although he did send all those "daughters of the king" (Filles du Roi) to the New World in the mid 17th C, which helped to ensure I would eventually meet the one that could put up with me.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was brought up half WASP. I know the drill. Intimately.<br>

The other half is Brooklyn Sicilian. Don't aks (sic). Capice?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[felixg]

<p>Bill P:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>“</strong> Felix, it looks like you never studied counterpoint with my Father!<strong>”</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>[smile] It's true ... rumours of my involvement with your father are wholly unfounded :-)</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Fred and Arthur -- and everybody else (hello all you quiet people!):</p>

<p>I have two quotes that are about the "out-of-frame" connections that we've been working on. (This interests me greatly, as you can probably tell). These quotes could really be the core of a new thread, but I don't have the time (or the will) to be a proper thread shepherd:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As the image becomes translated into a bodily response, body and image no longer function as discrete units, but as surfaces in contact, engaged in a constant activity of reciprocal re-alignment and inflection.<br>

-- <em>Elena del Rio</em>, Body as Foundation</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>[Flesh] is definitely not a determinable, impermeable border between the self and the world (or the self and the other) that fixes this self in a final way. As a physical membrane that sheds and reconstitutes itself continually, the flesh is never always the same material but always a contour in process, the flesh exists provisionally both as a permeable, shifting physical perimeter, a limbic surround of virtual containment, and as the visible trace of the human body (whose contours are never stable in one's own or an other's visual field). Metaphorically as well as materially, the flesh is an envelope, a "limit" inscribing the juncture between inside and outside but also the <em>site of their joining</em>.<br>

-- <em>Amelia Jones</em>, Body Art/Performing the Subject (1998)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>... "the site of their joining." That is what interests me.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Julie, your interest in the "out-of-frame" connection, and as your choice of citations well indicates, is a great one, and to my mind a very important definer of the nature of human existence and human communications. You are right in saying it, and your examples deserve a separate thread. I do think it should be well related to photography and art, although your examples show how important it is in all communications. Perhaps like you and others I like to see photography transcending the merely pretty picture, or amiable or representative record, and take on more powerful communication objectives, those outside (coming or going) links of psychological or philosophical nature that bring the three elements of - artist - product - viewer - together.</p>

<p>On a secondary theme, it is hard to have a continual and progressive discussion in a thread. Sometimes we become part of the "quiet people" and sometimes not, and sometimes we intercept an on-going discussion without full compatability (perhaps not the best word to use here..) with the theme. After a morning of intense and useful discussion with a work colleague, I am rather away from any PNet theme, of course, and I think that such multiple interests we all have can brake our involvement in discussion, just as the many on-going discussions elsewhere on PNet can also do that. There is also the time factor. We are not always ready at some moment to offer something that perhaps we still consider only half-baked. And sometimes we get involved in tangential causes, sometimes not realising we are a bit off-track. This can have an effect on the flow and the perception of other possible contributors. Having been guilty of all these sins, I guess I am just reflecting on the sometimes difficulty of carrying on, to a more fruitful end, a purposeful discussion. But my hat is off to you and several others who can steer the discussion back to important aspects and offer new thoughts.</p>

<p>And offering new thoughts (or new to the receiver thereof) is I suppose essentially what this forum intends. It is often very exciting to assimilate some of these ideas into one's photographic work. That is partly why I engage here. I seldom tire of hearing the ideas and intentions of others, like yourself, Fred, Felix, Phylo, .... and the list is quite long.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Quick comment: I find Felix G's photos compelling. There's far more to them than peripheral matters like "composition" or "beauty." Fixating on those such factors would rob the images of their significance.</p>

<p>The potential to go beyond form is one of photography's distinguishing potentials. Another is the "gift," per Christian theology ("freely given") and the Buddhist aphorism "enlightenment favors the prepared mind." </p>

[sobeystudio]

<p>John- 'the Buddhist aphorism "enlightenment favors the prepared mind.'</p>

<p>I thought it was 'Chance favors the prepared mind' - Louis Pasteur</p>

<p>I like both:)</p>