Transcendence and Transformation

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Thank you Don, for the transcript of Winogrand's interview.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, "lie" or not, humans cannot help but to tell stories, to find the narrative, "illusion" or not. in what they see.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In first instance it seems to me that we have a terminological issue. Each word and each combination of words does not necessarily mean the same to different people.<br>

Communication has, in many cases, to deal with potential and actual misunderstanding.<br>

It's the same about photography:</p>

<ol>

<li>I see something that strikes me somehow;</li>

<li>I photograph it to make a visual representation of it;</li>

<li>the constituent elements and my ability to keep more or less of these elements in control determine the extent to which there is congruence between the intended visual representation and the actual visual representation;</li>

<li>the viewer normally does know anything about the context of a photo. He/she knows only the photo itself. The constituent elements of the photo "hit" the viewer in his/her entirety, stimulating any possible emotional, sensorial and rational response;</li>

<li>upon this the viewer comes up with his/her own visual representation following the image.</li>

</ol>

<p>According to this, the coincidence of the initial intent of a visual representation and the final visual representation must happen by mere chance. If this is not a lie, it's in any case an unexplainable sequence of action/reaction, with low correspondence between reality, intention, outcome.<br>

So there are different phases of transcendence and transformation, and their degree of determinism is very, very low.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luca, your description of photography (presumably how you shoot) seems more passive than mine would be. I'll put Numbers 1 to 5 in my words, the way I (tend to) work, though there are always exceptions.</p>

<ol>

<li>When I photograph, I often prefer to be the one who is doing the striking, rather than something striking me; </li>

<li>I photograph to create a story, to express something about what I see or to make my own visualization of what I see and/or how I feel;</li>

<li>I experience a tension between my own control of constituent elements and a letting go, the allowance for accidents . . . accidents that are not just random or chance but that I believe happen because I open myself up to them. It is significant that these accidents happen to me and likely the same accidents wouldn't happen to or be seized upon by another photographer in the same way;</li>

<li>Much more than the constituent elements of a photo will be hitting a viewer. Viewers do not start with a clean slate. They have their aesthetic history, their cultural milieu, etc. already as a beginning. Many things aside from the photo itself will affect their response. Photos often suggest their own context to viewers and that can be quite strong and influential. Most Americans in the forties seeing Eisenstadt's Times Square kiss were immediately struck with the context of that photo because of the elements of the photo itself. Eisenstadt was savvy enough to know that in advance. Communication requires a shared language, a language full of recognizable signs and symbols. Photographs communicate to at least some extent. That doesn't happen only by chance, though chance plays its role.</li>

<li>The viewer kids himself if he thinks he is coming up with his <em>own</em> visual representation following the image. He is being very influenced by the choices a good photographer has made, by the way the photographer is using language. The photographer is like a poet choosing words. Amid all the mystery and wonder of poetry, and even the gut instincts and spontaneity of the poet, there's a lot of deliberateness and a fair amount of predictability of at least <em>some</em> part of the creating and the response.</li>

</ol>

<p>Good photographers and visual artists know very well how certain of their choices will influence their viewers. There is always an exciting element of chance but it does not reign, rather it flits around playing with everyone and everything that comes in its path. Artists spend a lot of time studying how light affects the human eye, how the human eye travels, what historical clichés or icons have been established that they may utilize, comment on, or undermine, what various responses are to color and color combinations, how visual texture translates to feelings, etc. There is a lot not left to chance. The consistency of vision of most artists and the consistency (to an extent) of response of most viewers at least at some level of response belies the overwhelming level of chance in all this.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"unbound open ended narrative"</em> <strong>--Josh</strong></p>

<p>Yes, that unboundedness seems to be where transcendence can happen. I think that unbounded space . . . imaginative space that can even be provided by physical space(s) in the photograph . . . is space available to both the photographer and the viewer, space that can be shared, and space that can be unique for each of us.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Most Americans in the forties seeing Eisenstadt's Times Square kiss were immediately struck with the context of that photo because of the elements of the photo itself."</p>

<p> I disagree. They were also struck by the title in the LIFE magagine layout (which preceded the picture) which was <em>Victory, </em>and the caption, which was "<em>V-J Day in Times Square", which clearly and specifically established a timespace/cultural context.</em> Nothing 'suggestive' there.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Eisenstadt was savvy enough to know that in advance."</p>

<p> Here's what he reported about taking this picture:</p>

 

<dl><dd>"In Times Square on V.J. Day I saw a sailor running along the street grabbing any and every girl in sight. Whether she was a grandmother, stout, thin, old, didn't make a difference. I was running ahead of him with my Leica looking back over my shoulder but none of the pictures that were possible pleased me. Then suddenly, in a flash, I saw something white being grabbed. I turned around and clicked the moment the sailor kissed the nurse. If she had been dressed in a dark dress I would never have taken the picture. If the sailor had worn a white uniform, the same. I took exactly four pictures. It was done within a few seconds."</dd></dl> <dl><dd>"Only one is right, on account of the balance. In the others the emphasis is wrong — the sailor on the left side is either too small or too tall. People tell me that when I am in heaven they will remember this picture."</dd><dd><br /></dd><dd><br /></dd></dl>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, as you say, <em>"they were <strong>also</strong> struck by the title . . ."</em></p>

<p>My saying that they were struck with the context through the elements of the photo does not suggest that they were not struck by where they encountered the photo and what the title was. I've often stressed how the context of our viewing a photo and information we may have about a photo is crucial to our experience of it. So I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.</p>

<p>The main point, anyway, was that <strong>elements of a photo</strong>, even without titles and accompanying magazine articles, <strong>can provide documentary context and narrative</strong>. Do you disagree with that? Do you agree that Eisenstadt's photo, even without a title or if found outside the magazine issue where it appeared, provides a lot of its own context?</p>

<p>As I mentioned, and the quote of Eisenstadt's you supply states this, dress was a key element.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"Then suddenly, in a flash, I saw something white being grabbed. I turned around and clicked the moment the sailor kissed the nurse. If she had been dressed in a dark dress I would never have taken the picture."</p>

<p>Modernist twitch-muscles on the hoof 8-)</p>

<p>This is a good time to mention the other photo of the same subject at about the same moment</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kissing_the_War_Goodbye.jpg</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Don</strong>, I don't understand what you mean by "modernist twitch-muscles" relative to Eisenstadt's description of his picture taking at that moment.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"As I mentioned, and the quote of Eisenstadt's you supply states this, dress was a key element."</p>

<p>The contrast of the clothes rather than the clothes.. I think there is another quotation on the subject about if the sailor had been dressed in his whites, he wouldn't have shot.. There can be no doubt that the clothes situate the subject in time and history, and one can infer 'WWII', 'USA', and just maybe 'parade' from it.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_essedi]

<p><strong>"Don</strong>, I don't understand what you mean by "modernist twitch-muscles" relative to Eisenstadt's description of his picture taking at that moment."</p>

<p>It wasn't two people in an embrace, nor two people in uniform, but the contrast (and by inference the composition) that got his attention "in a flash"...things tending towards the abstract.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"</em><em>The contrast of the clothes rather than the clothes."</em> <strong>--Don</strong></p>

<p>For me, that abstracts and simplifies it too much, even though Eisenstadt himself suggests it. As I've said, photographers and artists aren't always the best ones to speak <em>fully</em> about their work, especially in a brief paragraph.</p>

<p>Though I'm not surprised the contrast of the clothes may have been the motivating factor for taking the particular shot he took, I think Eisenstadt was already so ingrained in thinking and working politically and relative to big picture events. He'd already shot some of the world's most well-known heads of state, etc. He probably didn't even have to think about what kind of clues Times Square and people's dress would provide on V-J day. It was like that language was already part of him. But I don't think his speaking of the contrast of the clothes as the key motivator for this shot in any way diminishes his own sense of the clues that the <em>type</em> of clothes and the act captured also give photographically. I think he wouldn't have shot if not for the contrast of the clothes, but I think he would recognize that the look and style of the clothes and the uniform in the case of the sailor are key elements, perhaps even more fundamental to his purposes. The contrast was the spark but Times Square and the style of clothing could be like the two sticks being rubbed together.</p>

<p>Thanks for the explanation about "modernist twitch-muscles." I agree that the spark and his immediate motivation, <em>and the motivation he chose to emphasize by talking about it</em>, was this abstract notion of contrast. I'm also aware that he starts the paragraph by saying he was watching a sailor for quite some time. How did he know it was a sailor? Presumably by his clothing. It was a given for him and he didn't have to think about that being information the viewer would get from the photo. He watched the sailor, not just any guy on that street, for a reason. Then, beyond that, he keyed himself into the more abstract consideration of dark/light contrast. That contrast could be the more transcendent element at work here, precisely because it is more abstract than "informational." But it deeply affects what we actually see and, therefore, how we <em>feel</em> when we view the photo. I also wouldn't dismiss the embrace. Though he would not have taken a picture of the embrace without the contrast he was moved by, he also might not have taken a picture of what he considered to be an insignificant gesture even had the contrast been present. On that day, motivated by what he was and with all that was swirling around him personally and historically, the contrast was photographically profound but not exclusive of all the other key elements that were motivating him. Had there been a sailor dressed in black handing money out of his wallet to a girl dressed in white, even with all that contrast, I don't know that he would have taken that picture. The embrace and the uniform did very much get his attention.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong> So I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with."</p>

<p> First, I am not disagreeing totally with anyone, only partially, in matters of degree.</p>

<p> The title of the article and caption below the picture itself undermined the notion that "...viewers were immediately struck with the context of that photo because of the elements of the photo itself."<br>

I'm not saying that the title and caption superseded the picture itself, but definitely preceded and affected how viewers interpreted it. If it had been captioned "New Year's Day, Times Square" and the Article titled "In with the New" it would be a totally different (and I would suggest forgettable) picture. I was disagreeing with the notion of the "pure immediacy" with the context of the photo. It wasn't pure, the viewers were textually set up for it by LIFE's editors.</p>

<p>__________________________________________________</p>

<p> <strong>Don, </strong>I had nearly the exact same thoughts you did reading Eisenstaedt's account. There are many lessons for street photographers, documentarians, perhaps all of us, in that paragraph. Our reading of the image is not like A.E.'s was while making it. It is now much more of an historical document, not to mention icon, than the way he saw it. Eisenstaedt was, like Max Headroom, projecting himself a little bit into the future.</p>

<p> I would suggest that his concerns with the graphic aspects of the image (and weighing them as equivalent, or greater than, the content, are what paid off). Somewhere, a long time ago, I saw a reproduction of his contact sheet from that roll, and there are many lesser images on it (and amongst them some of us would kill to have made).</p>

<p> I would suggest all of this is related to transcendence -- and the literal.</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>He watched the sailor, not just any guy on that street, for a reason."</p>

<p>Fred...the reason is in the quote: "I saw a sailor running along the street <em>grabbing any and every girl in sight. </em>Whether she was a grandmother, stout, thin, old, didn't make a difference."</p>

<p>BTW, A Navy photographer, Victor Jorgensen, took a picture at almost the exact same time, from a few degrees to Eisenstaedt's right of the same couple. He captioned it "Kissing The War Good-bye", but it lacks the identifying features of Times Sq. and there's too much white there. It is not copyrighted, either.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"I was disagreeing with the notion of the 'pure immediacy' with the context of the photo."</em> <strong>--Luis</strong></p>

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, if I wanted to talk about <em>pure </em>immediacy I'd be sure to put the word "pure" in front of the word "immediate." I didn't. You seem to be disagreeing with something and you are making a good point specific to this photo, but you projected that something onto me by introducing it as a disagreement with me, as if I had said it. I have stated in various threads, especially the Nude thread of a couple of weeks ago that I think "pure" doesn't really exist and is overused and over-relied upon. So, please don't suggest that my saying that viewers were immediately struck by cues of history and era in the photo itself is equivalent to my saying that those elements were somehow <em>purely</em> responsible for the reactions or even primarily responsible for them or the only immediate influences on them, as if I were intentionally excluding or minimizing other contextual influences.</p>

<p><em>"</em><em>Fred...the reason is in the quote . . ."</em> <strong>--Luis</strong></p>

<p>Yes, and there are likely other reasons at play as well, some conscious to Eisenstadt at the time and later on, some not conscious.</p>

<p>None of this is to say that photographic works aren't often over-interpreted and analyzed. When I've heard what people read into aspects of my own photographs, and I'm aware that the motivation is sometimes just an abstract gut visual thing, perhaps that I liked the way skin looked against a certain color rather than that I was thinking about blood or something, I have been surprised . . . and appreciative.</p>

<p>In Eisenstadt's case, only he could answer (and then I'm not sure he even could in hindsight) whether he would have been as compelled to photograph a guy not in a sailor suit, an average joe, "grabbing any and every girl in sight" on that particular day. I think <em>sailor</em> had something to do with it. [i, myself, may be projecting here. I can be such a cliché when it comes to sailors! ;)))]</p>

<p><em>"I would suggest all of this is related to transcendence -- and the literal." </em><strong>--Luis</strong></p>

<p>How so? Josh, Don, and I, among others, have addressed how this is related to transcendence, especially regarding Eisenstadt's photo. I'd love to hear what you might add. Thanks.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>Food for thought.</p>

<p>I tried to say that in my view every player in the photographic game brings in his/her being, from different perspectives. You know from my previous posts in other threads that the "<em>blank slate</em>" is no issue for me: human viewers are never blank slates.</p>

<p>As to "<em>Good photographers and visual artists know very well how certain of their choices will influence their viewer</em>" I'm inclined to believe that it largely depends on the type of photography and the personal approach. But pretending to know how to influence collective perception and emotions seems a bit presumptuous to me.</p>

<p>I believe there is no deterministic relationship between <em>intended impact</em> and <em>obtained reaction</em>.<br /> Photographers might have some indications on these collective perceptions and emotions, but they can't be sure. Ever.</p>

<p>The masters of colour working on the light effects of their work to produce certain visual effects pursue this.</p>

<p><em><strong>But</strong></em></p>

<p>Photography is different from painting, and it is different from poetry. The photographer controls the visual message to the extent to which he/she is <em><strong>willing </strong></em>and/or <em><strong>capable </strong></em>of directing the setting and the behaviour of the subject. In painting, mastering the technique is mastering the visual effects.</p>

<p>A painter can control everything. A poet can control the use of each word and their combination.</p>

<p>I wonder about the capability to deterministically influence collective reactions and emotions,</p>

<p>According to his own statement, Eisenstaedt conceptually framed a situation and captured - presumably mastering the technique - the moment he felt was "right". Besides other moments, which according to him were "wrong".</p>

<p>Winogrand said (I hope the quotation is right) "<em>I photograph to see how things look photographed</em>". Isn't that an admission of lack of control on the appearance of the subject photographed, and indirectly on the impact on the viewer?</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - </strong>It was this: ""...viewers were immediately struck with the context of that photo because of the elements of the photo itself."</p>

<p> The "immediately" part I read as primary according to you, and I described that (not you) as "pure", in the sense of "unmediated". Except in its original publication, that was preceded by text that set up the viewer, narrowing the range of interpretations, and er....transcending the suggestive straight to the specific context of the picture. I'm saying the two cannot be separated.</p>

<p> I'm very glad to have suggested it, because you have clarified your position, now one of multiple, concurrent, things immediately happening (to which I suggest the viewers first saw the title of the article, instead of opening the magazine serendipitously to that very page the picture was on, meaning the title (Victory) came first).</p>

<p> The topic has been heavily plumbed by you, Luca, Don, Josh and others. I added the photographer's account because it showed how in the act of photographing, AE was transcending the content, into, as Don remarked, graphic quasi-abstraction. I don't have much to add to the volume of quality commentary already made on the subject.</p>

<p> I've been to the statue made after this picture in Sarasota many times. It's so much more literal than the photo, stripped of its native background. Lots of people photograph each other either duplicating the pose or looking up the woman's skirt...</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"</em><em>But pretending to know how to influence collective perception and emotions seems a bit presumptuous to me."</em><br /> <strong>--Luca</strong></p>

<p>While I don't find the suggestion of some level of predictability of response to certain visual choices a pretense, I don't mind being considered presumptuous when it comes to making my photographs and considering my own role and even my own visual power.</p>

<p>I agree that a photographer and a painter can't be certain of the response, but I think they can obtain desired responses or at least foresee responses to greater and lesser degrees.</p>

<p>What Winogrand says is unpersuasive to me in terms of the potential of a photographer to affect viewers. Well-known photographers and "successful" artists say a lot of clever-sounding things that have great metaphorical value but, when considered outside the metaphorical context in which they said them, they often don't hold up substantively. The value of Winogrand's statement about the difference between a photograph and the photographed is in asserting the difference between a subject in the world and a photograph of the subject. I don't know what Winogrand's views on pre-visualization are, but I know there are at least some masters of photography who do talk about pre-visualization and I tend to believe that they know, at least to a great extent, what their photographs will look like when they are taking them. The fact that Winogrand may have thought he had a lack of control in determining outcomes when making his photographic decisions doesn't mean he did have a lack of control. Or, the fact that he may have said it with emphasis at a certain time doesn't mean he really believed it outside the context in which and the specifics about which he was speaking at the time. Or, he may, indeed have had a lack of control or he may have chosen to have a lack of control and that may be unique to him and not suggestive of how other photographers work or could work.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>*What Winogrand says is unpersuasive to me in terms of the potential of a photographer to affect viewers.<br>

I read that quote as part of his motivation.<br>

*Well-known photographers and "successful" artists say a lot of clever-sounding things that have great metaphorical value but, when considered outside the metaphorical context in which they said them, they often don't hold up substantively.</p>

<p> Those that are unknown actually say much less with much more. What is it they say about philosophers? :-)</p>

<p>*"The value of Winogrand's statement about the difference between a photograph and the photographed is in asserting the difference between a subject in the world and a photograph of the subject. I don't know what Winogrand's views on pre-visualization are"</p>

<p> GW was partially addressing pre-visualization as well. He did not agree with the Adamsian view.</p>

<p> GW and Szarkowski were trying to get the medium to recover from a near-drowning in the saccharine period as exemplified in The Family of Man book & exhibit. They conspired and decided to focus on <em>the descriptive qualities of the medium, which other contemporaries were also doing, but they went public, and hard.</em></p>

<p><em>This is good on Winogrand...<br /></em></p>

<p> http://www.americansuburbx.com/2010/01/interview-monkeys-make-problem-more.html</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>What about time?</strong><br>

Certain types of photography allows for pre-visualization, there is time to imagine how the picture will look like. There is also time to develop a photographic relationship between photographer and subject <em>before </em>pressing the shutter.<br>

But sometimes the photographer does not have this time. There are photographic situations which build up and decompose in seconds.<br>

<strong>What about individuality of viewers?</strong><br>

We have ascertained that no viewer is a blank slate. I believe that the single elements constituting each being are potentially innumerable. There certainly is the possibility to address a certain group of these elements.<br>

Does this mean a preliminary mapping of these elements and their groups, before starting a photo session?<br>

Does this mean the preliminary identification of the classes of individual elements to map photographic composition, location, lighting, etc. onto them?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Luca</strong>, I think someone with really honed pre-visualization skills (I am not one of them) can do it in less than an instant. It takes no time at all in some instances. Pre-visualization does not require staging or a set-up or much time.</p>

<p>There is a lot of individuality of viewers and viewers will interpret differently and feel differently toward their responses. A lot of what we hear from viewers are their feelings about their responses, or if it's not too oblique to say, their reactions to their responses. I think the initial responses often have more similarity than is given credit for because, by the time we hear about them, they are filtered through individual interpretation and personal feelings. So, a classic-style hat on a man tends to have a timeless quality, it tends to have a transcendent quality. More so than one of today's black ski caps. The timelessness suggested by the classic hat is more universal (<em>more</em> universal, not absolutely universal) than individual reactions to that transcendence or timelessness. For some, timelessness and transcendence will yield sadness, for others joy. For some, it might remind them of their childhood or their father and yield warmth; for others, hatred. But if we go just on these emotions, we miss something: the timelessness which the photographer knew how to portray and knew would <em>likely</em> be perceived, even if unconsciously.</p>

<p>A photographer may, if so desired, rely on the recognition of photographic symbols and icons. If I use an erection in a photograph of mine, some viewers will respond with horror, some will be turned on, some will want it censored, some will think it's lame, some may laugh. In most cases, it will be seen sexually, though, and I can probably count on that when considering what I may want to communicate. I don't have to consider it in advance. If I'm at a shoot and doing some nudes and I grab an unexpected shot of a guy who happens to get an erection in the course of the shoot impulsively, though I didn't plan it, I can certainly assume that it will give the photo a certain sexual tinge rather automatically.</p>

<p>Now, I can play against type if I want to work at it. Perhaps, knowing all this, I want to undermine the sexual reaction or at least cause viewers to question it or look deeper into it (or do this for myself). Could I do a nude figure study, non-sexually, and include an erection as a mere aspect of the study, perhaps as a hard and straight non-sexual contrast to a soft, round belly or something? Maybe. I could try. And the way I would try is by knowing what would work to undermine the sexuality that would be otherwise likely in an erection. I would figure out ways to make it more about shape and abstraction than about what it typically means. I would do that by using other elements of design and visual acuity that I could reasonably predict would offset the sexuality of the erection. </p>

<p>The example I gave suggests a fair amount of thought being put into the endeavor. My claim would be that some of this stuff, at some times, can take place almost instinctively and instantaneously as we become more familiar with our craft and its tools.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, thanks for that link. I'll read it and see what it sparks! My guess is, knowing a bit about Winogrand, it will aptly convey his own needs, relationship to, and vision of his photographs and how he uses photography and deals with the process. But it won't speak to the general possibilities of how photographs can be made by others and what can be accomplished in a photograph. What I have read of Winogrand strikes me as the voice of a confident individualist. What I've read up to now convinces me of a solid, fascinating, and one man's approach to photograph-making. It convinces about certain potential uses of the medium. It doesn't convince me that other photographers would operate under the same assumptions, interests, limitations, or influences.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Looking at Winogrand's images, words that come to mind are "casual," "fleeting," "obstruction." Regarding the latter, I'm often aware of parts of things I can't see in the photograph. Those denials (of seeing) become photographic presences. Just one small way in which the photograph is, indeed, not the photographed.</p>

<p>In the link Luis provided, most of his answers seem tongue-in-cheek, but in a significant way, much like many of Warhol's statements. Poignant. Pithy. Recently Bill Palmintieri, who is no longer around, tried to build an aesthetic and a definition of art around Warhol's statements. I thought Bill's was an extremely unsuccessful endeavor. Warhol wanted to be and was great at being provocative, evasive, and cutting to the heart of matters, but I never took what he said as universal defining statements about art. Same with Winogrand regarding photography in general. Warhol made important and valuable observations and points. So does Winogrand.</p>

<p>Winogrand is a grand moment in photographic history. He is, as I surmised, not making claims on what photography can, should, or will do. He's telling us about his approach to photography, what he does with it, how he sees it, how he works. And, I suspect, he's purposely avoiding giving us a clear picture, likely because he partially believes there can be no clear verbal description of what he's doing.</p>

<p>Many of his statements and ideas are fascinating and inspiring. They don't, however, limit what photography can be. They simply expand on what it has been up until he came along. He is nudging the art and craft of photography along. When he says <em>"there is no photo that has a narrative capability"</em> I simply translate that to "I, Winogrand, don't go narrative and I am not concerned with it in my photographing. I mean to undermine that view of the photograph." I respect that and admire his exploration of non-narrative capabilities of photographs. His statement is not persuasive as a generalization to what is actually possible in photography. But his words and images together are extremely persuasive about what he's doing and what he's looking for and looking at. Though he lapses into talking about ALL photos having no narrative capability, I simply don't hear it that way. It's like using the royal "we." When the Queen says, "We are going to the ball tonight," she doesn't literally mean all of us are going to the ball tonight.</p>

<p>I give Winogrand credit. He isn't intentionally making false and unsupportable statements about all photographs. He's carving out a niche for himself. He's entitled to be <em>presumptuous</em> enough to speak as if he were royalty, about all photographs, when he is actually talking about what he likely thinks of as an important step in photographic movement and history. I fault no photographer or artist for verbal hyperbole. It may just go with the territory of trying to put into words what is better accomplished visually.</p>

<p><strong>Transcendence:</strong> His discussion of the relationship of form and matter and how that relationship is significant (and different) in "real life" and in photographs seems to me to address transcendence. This important relationship, between form and content, can transcend both the specific subject matter and the particular forms. Back to the pepper, it's why the photograph of the pepper is about a pepper and about more than a pepper. It's photographic form is significant. That form helps it transcend its pepper-ness. Additionally, Winogrand's visual perspectives are often off-kilter, having a found quality, a somewhat less "formal" quality than many more traditional photographs. And the obstructions he often includes in the foregrounds also represent a "threat" to traditional (cleaner) compositions. These aspects of his photography can be considered transcendent because they address historical problems, concerns, and assumptions. They go beyond the specifics of their place in his particular work, while they are still vitally important to his individual photos.</p>

<p>On a continuum, I'd put Winogrand more in the showing camp than the telling camp. That's all. His work shows me a lot and forces or helps me to look at things a particular way, a photographic way. But nothing about his work or his words convince me that photographs don't or can't have a narrative.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>If I'm at a shoot and doing some nudes and I grab an unexpected shot of a guy who happens to get an erection in the course of the shoot impulsively, though I didn't plan it, I can certainly assume that it will give the photo a certain sexual tinge rather automatically. Now, I can play against type if I want to work at it. Perhaps, knowing all this, I want to undermine the sexual reaction or at least cause viewers to question it or look deeper into it (or do this for myself)."</p>

<p> Are you saying the P-ness of penises can be point, counterpoint, or both simultaneously? :-)</p>

<p><strong>Fred -[On Winogrand] "</strong>But it won't speak to the general possibilities of how photographs can be made by others and what can be accomplished in a photograph."</p>

<p> Why not? I can see you claiming that about yourself, but as a universal declaration? <em> </em></p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, we likely wrote simultaneously. Please see my longer response after having read Winogrand for a more complete statement about the interview.</p>

<p>I didn't intend the statement you quoted just above as a universal declaration and I don't see it as such. I've criticized Winogrand, himself, several times for making a universal statement ("Photographs don't have any narrative capability at all"). What I'm saying in the quote you've isolated is that Winogrand's interview applies to Winogrand and is a significant take on how he does, and likely how many others do, photography. I and others work and think differently from him. His statement only applies in a limited fashion to all photographs and to my own work. It is useful but not decisive and I think he was wrong to universalize it and basically claim that no photograph can be narrative. Mine are. And others I've seen are.</p>

<p>At the end of my longer post about the interview, I brought it back to the subject at hand, transcendence. Two things: What do you think about Winogrand's statement that "photographs don't have any narrative capability at all"? And, how do you relate the Winogrand interview to transcendence?</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"Photographs don't have any narrative capability at all"</p>

<p>actually, the correct quotation is ""The fact that photographs — they’re mute, they don’t have any <strong>narrative ability</strong> at all."</p>

<p>Motion pictures have narrative ability; we will see whether the hat is being put on or taken off. Still photographs have the capability to support the narratizing of the viewer or the photographer. People exist in narrative the way fish exist in water. We tell stories about what we see, including photographs.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>If I see a photo of a guy in formal attire, bowing to the Queen, holding his top hat in his hand, a hand that's blurred and which blur is implying a downward motion, the photographic narrative is that he is not in the immediate process of putting his hat on. The continuous action implied is the bowing motion of the body and the sweeping downward motion of the hat. It is not, for me, simply a meaningless moment frozen in time. I won't know whether he just took the hat off to bow or whether he took it off earlier, but of course if the scene of the motion picture of the same event doesn't start at the beginning of this particular action, I won't know that either.</p>

<p>I don't care whether, in actuality, someone just put that hat in his hands or not. I won't care whether the photographer has manufactured the downward blur and in reality the gentleman was completely still for several moments. I care about what I'm seeing in the photograph and what it suggests narratively to my imagination. I don't think Winogrand cares about the actuality of the events either. I think he cares about the photograph, as I do. In the case of most pictures like the one I describe, I think there is <em>some</em> mapping between what the photographer was doing (and meaning and saying) and what I'm seeing and understanding narratively.</p>

<p>The medium is not the issue for me. It's the handling of the medium by the creator and by the viewer. David Lynch rarely comes out and expresses a narrative clearly and sequentially in many of his motion pictures. There are photographs that have, for me, a much more discernible narrative than Lynch's motion pictures. And not only for me as viewer, because I sense more of a strictly narrative intention and utilization on the part of the photographer in many photographs than I do in Lynch's films.</p>

<p>Narrative requires my <em>imagination</em>, both in still photographs and in motion pictures. Imagination can be at play when the photographer creates a photo and when the viewer views it or when the filmmaker makes a film and the viewer views that.</p>

<p>Hell, architecture has narrative. The Guggenheim Museum imposes more of its own story (suggestive rather than literal though it may be) than the Whitney does.</p>

<p>I don't take Winogrand's words as any sort of a treatise on art or photography. I take them as the stream-of-consciousness and very genuine impressions of a guy whose main means of expression is visual, not verbal. Philosophers write theses. Artists generally don't and I don't take their words and statements that way. I'm much more understanding and completely forgiving of the meaningful contradictions artists and photographers make than I would be of a philosopher making those same contradictions. Reading and seeing Winogrand in these interviews, I come away with the impression that he is speaking off the cuff and that it's somewhat counterproductive for us as listeners to build a more universal photographic thesis out of his musings and very effective evasions.</p>