Character

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, thanks for that link to the article about Barthe. (BTW, I counted 28 instances of the word "I".)</p>

<p>A really insightful comment comes when Ms. Dorfman refers to Barthe's one chosen portrait of his TRUE mother and settles on the one of her at five years old on the bridge, <em>"although it doesn't look 'like' her."</em> Ms. Dorfman puts the word "like" in quotes.</p>

<p>First of all, I think it's noteworthy that he chose a portrait that has someone else, her brother, in it. That, like props and environment, can add to story and especially to human dynamics.</p>

<p>More importantly, the emphasis and nuance Ms. Dorfman gives to the word "like" is worth considering. Portraits can be a likeness even when they don't look like the person. We've talked before about the importance of seeming. I think a successful portrait may both make intimate the <em>thereness</em> of a person (such as Dorfman attributes to Lennon in Leibovitz's and many other portraits of him) and also remind us that the portrait is NOT the person. That negation can bring us to feel closer to the person. The distance of the "likeness", the "seeming", can be of great value in actually increasing the character we (both photographer and viewer) give to and discover in the portrait.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"I agree with John that the writing of articles where there are editors and academic papers where there are teachers is different from a more personal type of writing."</p>

<p>Absolutely, Fred. Like many of us, I've (sorry!) written my share of academic papers and monographs and have never used the "I" word in them. That's the (very reasonable and specific) convention, intended no doubt in part to convey the perception of lack of bias.</p>

<p>I wonder what John cares to think about Phylo's example of the 20x24 inch Polaroid camera negative/print of a portrait, and whether he thinks that imbues character to the photograph, or not.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Fred yes, I also like the notion from the article how photography always seems to be about change. Like how a person photographed, when looked back at in the photograph, <em>once *was* and unknown of their future to come</em> ( but known by the viewer that's looking at the photograph and is familiar with the subject ). Perhaps character is not about change - as in fixing it like in a photograph - but about chang<em>ing.</em> Those two can collide as much as they can merge and maybe that's the nature of a photograph, to give the viewer / photographer a substance on which this colliding and merging can take place, <em>will</em> take place.<br /> ----------<br /> I suspect that the 20*24 Polaroid camera imbues lots of character to the photographs it renders, if not only for such a huge camera's own presence / <em>insistence, </em>when used.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The character of a photograph as created by the photographer is one distinct quality. That of the photograph, as the photograph, is an anomaly. It existed in a split second (or maybe a once timed period) but is no longer real, that is, what it portrays cannot exist now except as some unshakeable ghost of "then". The boardwalk man in the light clothes, where is he now, and the persons around him, whom he probably never met even then, what relation is there now with them? The camera never brought them together. Only caught a few breaths.</p><div></div>

[jtk]

<p><em>"I wonder what John cares to think about Phylo's example of the 20x24 inch Polaroid camera negative/print of a portrait, and whether he thinks that imbues character to the photograph, or not."</em><br /><em></em><br />In the presence of the physical object it'd seem reasonable initially to use "character" to <strong>ask</strong> ourselves what we were seeing, as a lead-in to meaningful responses. If we got stuck with that word it'd indicate something about our ability or willingness to communicate. See P.N ratings for context.</p>

<p>Asked about the photo's "character," most of us would surely refer to specifics...making observations about the effects of the gigantic optic, the nature of Polaroid vs other media, maybe speculating about the studio situation and process, sharing relevant gossip. I doubt we'd vapour long about "character" if we actually confronted the print. Prints may elicit more significant responses (do, IMO) than the online images (again see P.N ratings), perhaps because so few online viewers are familiar with them.</p>

<p>"Character" is a place-holder, not a dimension, quality, or even direction sign. It's like the word "quality," which has been degraded to imply "better than."</p>

<p>fwiw, rastafarians sometimes use "I-man" rather than "I" to counteract personal narcissism, the tendency to separate themselves from others or to self-aggrandize. Jah :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"Do some/many/all of your photos have a character you are aware of and can describe?" </em></p>

<p>Fred's question. I wonder if we, as photographers, are the best people to talk about our own photos. Fred does that well and at length, but I think he does it to enforce his particular way of seeing, rather than "what's seen"...recent example being his hairy old sea captain. </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Eye</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>"I wonder if we, as photographers, are the best people to talk about our own photos."</p>

<p>Affirmative, John, and sometimes because it is hard to get other photographers to react to them in an analytical manner, except in one on one off forum discussions (and contrary to the curious general public, however general their viewpoints oft expressed).</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, the point of my story about the sea captain was to relate a missed opportunity. I started the story by saying the photo was now in a holds folder and it's there for a reason: precisely because I'm well aware that what I saw when I took the picture and what would have made a more significant photo was NOT seen in the photograph that I wound up making. My commentary about the photo was not meant to enforce my way of seeing at all. It was meant to relay a funny story about the supposed sea captain AND it was meant to suggest that I learned from my failure at the moment of capture to tell more of a story, beyond mascot sea captain, with the framing I did. I've often talked about the <em>difference</em> between what one sees at the time of shooting and what one may feel at that time and what is actually imbued in the photograph. I well know the photo did not get imbued with what I was talking about in my commentary. Thanks, though, for emphasizing that. In your post following that picture you said that my writing added something to the photo. It was an interesting story but it doesn't make the photo any better and doesn't change the fact that the photo lacks what the commentary tells, whether I had told more story literally or more figuratively with the eventual photo I had made. That is why I often hesitate to write text to accompany my photos. I think a lot of people add text as a substitute for what they couldn't imbue the photo with and I'd prefer to hone my photographic vision and not rely on writing. I think text makes a fine accompaniment to a photo, including my own, as long as the photographer doesn't substitute that text for photographic substance and as long as the viewer doesn't make false assumptions about what the text is trying to accomplish.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>I think a lot of people add text as a substitute for what they couldn't imbue the photo with and I'd prefer to hone my photographic vision and not rely on writing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's true only if one - as a viewer - is chained to think in category's like 'photographer' <> 'writer' or 'photograph' <> 'text'.<br /> <a href="

photograph by itself is one experience but the photograph with text is quite another experience "</a> ( 12:14 )<br /> There's no reason why one experience ( text ) should be lesser than the other or seen as a substitute for the photograph. Both ( photo / text ) can form a perfect whole.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, yes, as I said, <em>"I think text makes a fine accompaniment to a photo, including my own."</em> My hesitation about text is only if THE PHOTOGRAPHER (not the viewer) uses it as a substitute for what's not in the photo -- for instance titling a photo "SADNESS" when there is no visual evidence of it (I see that situation all the time on PN). I'd encourage that photographer to photograph sadness or express some semblance of emotion visually. On the other hand, if the photographer does express sadness or some sense of emotion in the photo and then titles it "MY FATHER'S SADNESS AT THE DEATH OF MY MOTHER" that photo and accompanying text do, as you suggest, create another experience.</p>

[dan_south]

Do my photos have a character? Possibly, but I would prefer that the viewer to decide what that character is. I could only

list objectives; the viewers can list honest impressions.

 

One time I reviewed photos that I took at a friend's wedding and decided that they looked distant and detached. I made a point

to be closer to the subjects and to engage them more at my next event. I think my event photos have a more involved

character than those older, more distant ones did. So I suppose that character can change over time. However, I still tend

to take event photos from a position where I can be an observer of candid moments, so some degree of detachment is inevitable.

 

When working with more than one camera I sometimes include one of the cameras in a shot. That's my regular prop/non-human

character. I can't post one this very moment, but one such shot is featured on my website this week.

 

Do my photos say something about my character? I hope so, but it's difficult to look at one's own work objectively. I like

beauty, order, good light, technical excellence, unique perspectives, a dash of humor, and I never want my subjects to ever feel embarrassed about having their photo taken. I would like to believe that I am communicating these values in my work, but ultimately that's not for me to determine.

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"</em> My hesitation about text is only if THE PHOTOGRAPHER (not the viewer) uses it as a substitute for what's not in the photo -- for instance titling a photo "SADNESS" when there is no visual evidence of it (I see that situation all the time on PN).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But who is doing that judgement, the viewer, right ? I don't see photography or a photograph, as something having to adhere to <em>a visual evidence, </em>with text or without.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>OK. Everything is sadness. Everything is happiness. Everything is everything. Every photo tells every story it wants to and is perfect as it is. Far be it from me to try to improve what's already given as perfect. No adherence. No learning. No changing. Everything as it is . . . forever and always.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>No, that's not what I said, that's what you are saying. It has nothing to do with the use of text, your example of sadness, it might just be an example of bad work.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>How would you make an assessment that a photograph is bad?</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>How would you make an assessment that a photograph is bad?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't and I was talking about <em>text and photograph</em>, which for me doesn't have to be in a manner that what's expressed or communicated in the text has to be visually evidenced in the photograph ( like in a photojournalism context ), and therefore does not make the photograph bad the way <em>you</em> assessed the photograph to be "bad" ( lack of photographic vision ) in your 'sadness' example, for it not providing an evidence or hint of actual sadness in the image ( two people crying doesn't necessarily do that either )and therefore "having to rely" on text . You're viewing this only on the level of the photograph. I'm viewing it on the level of <em>text and photograph,</em> as one <em>possible</em> piece of work, without hierarchy. The 'sadness' example might as very well be bad work, as such, or simply a bad photograph. I don't know since it's your example. But it wouldn't be bad per definition, or only because the text was "only a substitute" for what the photograph couldn't conceive / evidence.<br /> In this context I agree with Duane Michals when he says that too many photographers rely too much on <em>photographic</em> vision, or only on that what is seen in front of the lens.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>You are right that it is the viewer who has the job of defining the character of another's work. Character is probably manifest on many (horizontal) levels, and maybe a number of them at once. The character of technical excellence and order in composition and ordered subjects characterise your professional and/or travel work, as a character of fantasy may be evident in another's work, or a character of anxiety in another.</p>

<p>Fred, Phylo,</p>

<p>I hesitate before putting a text/title with an image and I know that I shouldn't generally do it. Much better in many cases for the image to remain untitled, to let the viewer approach it without coaching. Text that is visually incorporated with the base photographic image can be like an opera - theatre, music, song at the same time - acceptable and even bonified, but the composition of the whole is rendered more complex and difficult to do well than a single image or a single text alone. One of my Champlain triptychs provides his text with one of the three images, but it didn't work as I had envisaged, perhaps more in a compositional and harmonious sense than by virtue of the nature or meaning of the text, which I think was appropriate to my images and objective of evoking another time.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"which for me doesn't have to be in a manner that what's expressed or communicated in the text has to be visually evidenced in the photograph" </em><strong>--Phylo</strong></p>

<p>Nor for me. The situations I was thinking of were where the photographer claims that they want the photo (or thinks it is) expressing what's expressed in the title. A title can, of course, be just a companion. But many people use them as descriptions. If I call something that's in color "black and white" I may be being creative, ironic, complementary, whatever. But if I say I'm calling it black and white because I think it's black and white, the evidence (the fact that it's in color) says I'm wrong. No, photographs do not have to "adhere to visual evidence" by any means. But when a photographer specifically uses a title (which is often done) to <em>describe</em> the emotion shown in a photograph (I don't do this myself), then the description could be off and the photographer could either re-describe or elicit from the photo what he wants the photo to be showing.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, I just reread your post to which I responded above. Actually, I think we're on the same page. I took you "enforce his particular way of seeing" more strongly than you intended it, because in my captain story I was trying to say I didn't see that one well when I took it. But I realize that you were distinguishing that from enforcing "what's seen", which you said I don't do, and I agree. I certainly try not to do that when I speak or write.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, let's just split the difference.</p>

<p>Yes "enforce" is too strong ... "massage" is closer to the mark...</p>

<p>The particular case of "old sea captain" is closer to "enforce" but that's still not the right word... you eventually described what you'd actually seen (and not photographed)...you were thinking about two images, one of which wasn't photographed. From my own experience I know that this sort of distinction, which is something like "wishful thinking" can be difficult. You seem to have created (not "not enforced") a new, and much more significant, image with words.</p>

<p>Again, many of the images you've shared will remain "under-developed" until they're combined with narrative (and not mere reflection, larded with "I"). Most have more potential than as simple photographs or even as "body of work"..they seem half-way to photojournalism or theatre. Weston again: for me his work became far stronger in the context of Daybook II, which also happened to include the best reproductions of his most representative images up till then...some still seem "better" than his original prints.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, perhaps there is that element of wishful thinking. I'm looking back at the situation and considering that now I might take a different, more inclusive, photograph. As a matter of fact, I'd have little interest in repeating that situation. I'm glad to have moved on. But I have learned something from the experience. It's not so much a matter of doing it differently if I had it to do all over again. It's more a matter of making different kinds of decisions in the future.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The dichotomy of the PoP forum, and recent posts exemplify this for me, is that personal philosophy of how what and why we photgraph (our approach) gets entangled, diffused and quickly deadened with the issues of semantics, with comments on the use of I (questioning of the photographer's motives in discussing his work), but most importantly, with the the incessant reference to the dead photographers of a small part of our globe, what they would or did do, rather than taking the issues head on.</p>

<p>I have no problem discussing Euripedes, Kant or Weston in a 3rd person philosophical discussion. Yet, a need exists for a forum or sub-forum for serious photographers (and not only armchair quarterbacks) capable of encouraging, sharing of personal ideas and evaluation of realisations. Yes, I know that the critique forum exists, and I do not care that one of my regional Grand Prize images gets a 3.7 rating or that another gets a 6 and yet had trouble meeting minimum acceptance in the same meetings and for an international photo exchange. What is missing from such ratings or "critiques" is the "why", which is ultimately the most valuable to the photographer. When I mentioned that the general public give more and sincere ratings of exhibited photographs (my reference being my summer gallery) I was referring to this. Anyways, we can forget the ratings, I couldn't care less about them and their anonymity, but can we not develop a forum (even this one) where we stick to the evaluation and sharing of ideas on each other's work, rather than ignoring Photo.Net member's work or hiding behind what Weston or Adams or other such regional (whether they be German, Chinese or American) photographers may have thought?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I look for a different kind of character in my photos now. Whereas the photo of the so-called sea captain (poor guy, I wish I knew his name) had a certain mascot character, nowadays I'd want and do go for just the kind of character that the photo which would have included him masturbating might have had, had I photographed it well. It could, of course, merely have been exploitive . . . or not. In those days, I wasn't quite ready to show what there was to show, because it might seem to reflect on me in a certain light. Nowadays I'm less concerned with that and more likely to be OK with whatever light reflects on me, being a little less self-protective and a little more open to pursuing what challenges me and may challenge others with discomfort. Do you think the difference between the photo of the guy as is and a hypothetical one of him masturbating nonchalantly at a fair is one of character? It may speak to his character. Taking it or avoiding it may speak to mine. But I mean the character of the photograph.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, your boardwalk photograph brings the people together forever. If I think about the moment, I think of it as fleeting. If I think about what I'm seeing, I see visual relationships. The expression of the man to whom you refer is not clear to me. I wonder if a bigger version of this would show me more or if you might have brought his expression out more. It's hard to tell where his eyes, if at all, are focused. Limbs seem to play an important role, the way the elbows in the foreground line up in tandem with the backs of heads and seem to lead my eye to the gesture of the man with shorts whose leg is bent at the knee with his foot resting on the bench. There's eye movement (mine) and other sorts of dynamics set up by the relationship of the backs of people, a strong profile, and the guy on the move facing me more head on.</p>

<p>Can you explain what seems to be your distinction between <em>"the character of the photograph as created by the photographer"</em> and <em>"[t]hat of the photograph, as the photograph"</em>?</p>