The material representing the immaterial

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you respond to the photos of Demand, or to those of Van Gogh's shoes, in the sense of an immaterial message or idea? How would you put one or two of them into words. and possibly even texts, which would elaborate upon what they comminicate to you? I am curious.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, I don't really get what you mean by "immaterial message". Do you mean a spiritual message ?<br /> For me there's only <em>the message, </em>and it's not physical obviously, since it's a feeling I might have, a thought, something that strikes me upon looking at a work of art, painting, photograph. It communicates on that level, which is simply beyond words, it doesn't need words, it mocks words. <br /> So I <em>wouldn't</em> put the painting or photographs into words ( just like I wouldn't put a poem into a picture to describe what / how it makes me feel ), why would I, how <em>could</em> I ?, unless I would want to in a critique context of the given work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can you point to any single image or series of photos that contain a strong commiunication of ideas that can or have moved the viewers?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think just about any good photojounalism visual communicates our relationship with the world and has the capacity to move us as such as viewers. But I don't think it's about <em>communication of ideas, </em>it's about communication of / through photographs, or paintings,etc...which may form ideas, impressions.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Short answer: As with any other art form the immaterial is implied. The actor didn't really die. The other actors aren't really grieving. We aren't really being chased down a dark alley as we read the crime novel. The paint on the canvas isn't really Jesus being crucified. The film wasn't really shot during the D-Day invasion. We are given suggestions and our minds fill in the blanks with automatic responses that the author, actor, producer, composer, photographer expected from us.</p>

<p>The long answer will have to wait.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

 

<p>I will apologize for taking so long to reply. It's been a very busy day.</p>

<p>Some questions are too complex to answer effectively. Identify and illustrate the essence of a cemetery is one of them. At some point you must produce a photograph to do the job. That is to say that the assignment requires you to stop thinking about abstract ideas and push the shutter button. I used the analogy of a woodcutter. Suppose the wood chips he chops out of a tree trunk were pictures instead. Which one does the best job of telling you what a tree is? </p>

<p>My approach to this sort of thing always leads me back to the same place. I must think through my camera for the result to be photography. Perhaps pursuing the best picture to show the essence of a scene is too difficult to attempt. Any number of them might do. But as I pointed out earlier the success of a message or idea in a picture requires the cooperation of the viewer as well. </p>

<p>I think it would be more practical to follow a slightly different course of questioning. Rephrase the question about the essence of the subject into " What is important about the subject?" Then, "What do I want to tell you about it?" Then, "Here. Let me show you." Now you have converted a passive quest for an insight into the nature of the subject into a directive leading to action on your part which takes you directly through the processes necessary to make a picture. The essence you suspect lies at the heart of the subject will have to wait for later. </p>

 

<p>Let's say for a minute that you truly believe that the comments you made about the photo of the tombstone in the cemetery describe the essence of the scene. The elements are all there. It's a tombstone with a shadow on it all right, but what are relationships among the parts? The head of the shadow reminds me of the little boy found in so many Hummel figurines. He has a round head with hair swept up in the front. You say the figure is actually a girl. How can one tell from the photo itself which one is correct? You talk about some impact the tombstone makes upon the girl, but it turns out that she has her back to it. How does the photo sort his out? What impact? How do we know a connection exists without your explanation? This is the sort of thing I mean by chasing your tail. The explanations lead you in circles. Instead of clarity they lead to more questions and story making. I'm having a hard time seeing the merit in this spiral of speculation.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Also Arthur, I don't think that because each viewer will have a different trigger / interpretation to an image, that that means that the image isn't communicating something immaterial, something beyond what it depicts physically. The immaterial is precisely <em>not</em> a checklist of what's in the photograph and doesn't need to be something that we can and must all agree on.</p><div></div>

[AJHingel]

<p>I find that Julie's very categoric approach to "perception" and it's predominance to other forms of relationship to our surroundings is fairly radical and of little help for us to understand photography in general.</p>

<p>I can follow Julie in her arguments if I try to understand her own photographs and constructions but this can only represent one approach among others to what can be done by photography. In the moment our scenes are not simple forms and textures but human life and settings, PERCEPTIONS can only be one first step that has to be complemented by WORDS whether pronounced, written or thought in order to reach a level of understanding that makes communication between us on what is going on, possible giving meaning to the scene.</p>

<p>So, surely one can formulate that : </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Everything originates in perception. There is no material/immaterial divide; everything that we can/do know originates in perception.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>However, in some way I find this way of presenting the question like the old story of the hen and the egg. Julie chooses the hen - or is it the egg?</p>

<p>I get somewhat confused when Julie then writes :</p>

<blockquote>

<p> "essence" is an artificial construct. It's trying to force a perception, plucked from the current flux, to carry the load of a lifetime of memories of previous perceptions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me one cannot jump between "perception", "meaning" and "essence" without loosing our mind or at least the reader. This is why in our recent discussion on "essence" no-one (I think) dared approaching the concept of "meaning", apart from with reference to context, and even less the concept of "perception", apart from maybe with the word "feelings".</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p><strong>Ernest (et al),</strong></p>

<p>Upon re-reading your thoughts, I perceive of them differently. Thanks for your time in putting them down very well. I must have some neurotic genes that cause me to jump to defend my viewpoint in making the photo, not always acknowledging its limitations, in either fact, or in its accuracy of communication of an intention. I think there is a sort of concensus begun by Fred, Julie, yourself, Phylo and Albert (and perhaps others, with Phylo and Dan providing their observations regarding other images possessing their out of frame viewer perception of ideas (or other immaterial thoughts)), that the additional meaning we take from a material image depends upon the ability of the photographer to stimulate that, but also to our own subjective perceptive abilities or biases.</p>

<p>If I correctly remember seeing a re-run of the film The Seventh Seal, Bergman's knight or crusador is playing chess with death, and elsewhere a chariot (a hearse) is running wildly through a town square, the clock of which has no hands. These are strong visual metaphors which strike us immediately, which we can think about and extend to our own mind, outlook and situation. In that manner, as I think Fred pointed out, we are effectiively and quite unequivocably called upon to think about the immaterial ideas of life and its meaning, and of death (although the presence of death as a character is very materially evident in Bergman,s film and requires no elaborate guesswork by the viewer, in that sense like my tombstone), and to create our own mental perception of what the cinephotographer has shown us from the material world (I guess Julie may argue, perhaps with some reason, that we do not create mental perceptions, but have them upon viewing the image. Whatever the case, the interpellation of the image itself is strong). </p>

<p>I think I understand the problem with the word "immaterial", which may be too much related to legal jargon, to "unimportant" or to a ninteenth century religious philosophy (immaterialism). I am accustomed in using the Quebec equivalent of the language of Voltaire to think of "immaterial culture" as being that distinct from matter (poetry, essays, etc.), as opposed to our constructed heritage. Read instead "ideas" or mental perceptions (the type one creates from the "springboard" of a visual stimulus) instead of "immaterial" in the OT, if that clarifies the original question. </p>

<p><strong>Albert,</strong></p>

<p>One of your comments was "You talk about some impact the tombstone makes upon the girl, but it turns out that she has her back to it. How does the photo sort his out? What impact? How do we know a connection exists without your explanation? This is the sort of thing I mean by chasing your tail. The explanations lead you in circles. Instead of clarity they lead to more questions and story making. I'm having a hard time seeing the merit in this spiral of speculation."</p>

<p>The girl or woman has her back to the tombstone, indicating that she is not at all aware of its projection upon the tombstone, a "symbol of death". That is important to me. If she had her shadow projected while she was looking at the tombstone that might be analogous to a hearse running through the town with a clock indicating the exact time, rather than a clock with no hands, as Bergman shows. What I am trying to do in this set-up, as it was a set-up rather than something perceived and snapped on occasion, is to relate life and death.</p>

<p>This part of the original concept doesn't show the person (need we?) to tell the story. It was shot a few years ago, under a different height of the sun in the sky (different month), whereas the original I took (shown below) was done 20 years ealier, with same model (one who I need not pay, except by affection). Although I hate concept titles (too invasive) I called it "Life Cycle" for the publication I mentioned to Ernest. An artist in our region saw the image and prefered the croped version, but he works mainly with fragments that he works into more complete images with other elements. I don't know which one I lean to, they both (to me) accomplish a similar thing, although I sometimes think the whole picture (the 1988 or 89 one shown here) is too indicative of the meaning, requiring less effort.</p>

<p>Albert, I have to digest your other welcome thoughts, as those of some of the other's more recent posts.</p>

<p><strong>Phylo</strong>,</p>

<p>I absolutely agree with your last post (and thank you for your contribution of an interesting image), but, like the posts of Ernest, Albert, Anders and yourself, I need to reflect more on your comments. My thanks to you four for maintaining and advancing the discussion. </p>

<div></div>

[AJHingel]

<p>Arthur, my immediate reaction to the photo is based on religion and my relation to death. I think that any interpretation of the photo of the tomb and the shadow is very dependent on our religious affinities. With my protestant background (I'm however a convinced atheist) I find the shadow somewhat heavy-handed. What the image strive to express is memories, lost relationships, loneliness, loss of orientation in life after the death of a relative. A tombstone is the symbol of all these feelings and more. The shadow is unnecessarily as I see it because the tombstone already represent the link between the dead and the living.<br>

The photo below has the same orientation but is somewhat less heavy and even with a touch of irony and distance - as I see it.</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>"What the image strive to express is memories, lost relationships, loneliness, loss of orientation in life after the death of a relative." (Anders)</p>

<p>Anders,</p>

<p>You are refering to my 2nd photo I think. I find your comment most interesting in that regard, as my own intention/perception has little to do with those thoughts. It is perhaps less personal and more existentialist (heavy handed) because it has simply one hard fact, the "life cycle" that we are not always aware of, and its inescapability.</p>

<p>I do not feel that at all when viewing your nicely composed image of the cat. I enjoy the pleasing textures and tones and the "point" composition of the cat in the image, increased as it is in its effect by its strong dark-light contrast with the other elements of your image. On an immaterial level of ideas I might be inclined to think the cat is beside the remains of his owner, but that doesn't work as the remains are ostensibly of a much earlier time. I have trouble fitting the cat into the image, not from an aesthetic material viewpoint, but from the immaterial one. Could you elaborate a bit on the presence of the cat and the cross and on your "immaterial" as opposed to material perception or intent?</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>No problem, Arthur, that was a graceful recovery.</p>

<p>I'm no expert in semantics and its jargon, but the metaphor of "a visual language" is often applied to photography. And, according to my crude and limited understanding of semantics, when language and meaning are considered, it's accepted that there is no such thing as an "absolute meaning" or "essence" of any statement, visual statements included. Rather, there always are multiple possible meanings--corresponding to "interpretations"--which are generated by, thus dependent on, the individual perceptions of those involved. In short, a statement can be said to have an "intended meaning" (on the part of its creator) and a "received/perceived meaning" (on the part of a given reader, listener, or viewer)--but never, except in a poetic sense, an "essence".</p>

<p>With your uncropped earlier version of this photographic statement, your intended meaning is--for me--much easier to perceive. My eye goes instinctively back and forth between the woman's head and the shadow of her head on the stone. The fact that she's looking off to one side communicates--to me--that she is oblivious to the tombstone that looms three feet behind her. But because her body language seems--to me--rather rigid, and possibly apprehensive, I could imagine, without further prompting, that she is subtly aware of the tombstone and is uncomfortable because of it. To me as one individual viewer, this uncropped version comes much closer to communicating your intended idea of a living person "<em>who is being challenged by the gravestone on which her image is thrust.</em>" In it you've presented all the visual elements of that idea, and they form a balanced composition as well.</p>

<p><em>However.</em> (And please don't be offended.) When I consider the <em>gestalt</em> of this photographic statement, whether cropped or uncropped, I perceive an additional strong visual element that interferes with, and overpowers--for me--your intended meaning.</p>

<p>The intrusive element is what I cited in my first post: i.e., the strange spatial relation between the bench and the tombstone. <em>They're much too close!</em> <em>Why? </em> That question follows automatically, and my thoughts and unconscious feelings are diverted instantly into possibilities that you clearly did not intend.</p>

<p>With the uncropped version, it is easy for me to imagine a Gahan Wilson cartoon brought to life: as the hapless victim sits on a bench on a sunny afternoon, pretending all is normal, a hungry tombstone moves silently across the grass, slipping up from behind, ready to gobble her. The weird proximity of the tombstone, coupled with the dark, large, centered shadow, yields an overall unsettling, heavy-handed (to use Anders' term), questionable visual statement--for me.</p>

<p>Yes, I know you had nothing to do with planning that graveyard or positioning the bench. But <em>by using</em> those specific elements to make the visual statement, <em>you have incorporated them </em>into the statement you made. And the questions raised by their odd spatial relationship tend to crowd out other, subtler thoughts that might have been raised--at least, for me.</p>

<p>Please understand I'm not trying to beat a dead tombstone, only to clarify my own "intended statements".</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>Arthur</strong> the photo of the cat and the tombstone is by superstition first of all conveying the symbol of death, the black cat and the symbol of the dead, the tomb stone.Superstition also tells us that cats are in the league with the devil, can predicts death and bring bad luck. A black cat on a tomb stone is therefor not innocent. Nothing can be more immaterial. This is the first level of message.</p>

<p>The photo has another level which you also hint at. It conveys an agreeable message of esthetics by presenting the scene in balanced composition and with oh so nice colors and light effects. Had it been in black and white it would maybe have stayed on the first level of message.</p>

<p>Of course the relation between the cat and the dead is present also as another immaterial dimension but exactly because it is immaterial it does not "count" that the cat is very much alive and the tombstone seems to stand over a person that is dead since very long, that the cat cannot have known.</p>

<p>Finally the photo is also material by necessity because these immaterial aspects of the scene need to be presented in a photo. A cat, a tombstone and half a small wall of a tomb, a stone wall i the background as well as green grass.</p>

<p>If I referred to the heavy-handedness of the photo with the shadow if is maybe because you here force a one-dimensional message on the viewer by shouting on the rooftops for all to hear of a relationship between the stone/the dead person and the shadow/the woman. The cat scene is in four layers immaterial/immaterial/immaterial/material for the viewer to appreciate by layer or together in pairs or all together - like a book to open.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Ernest,</p>

<p>No problem for me at all with your own perception of my images - on the contray. When someone has explored all the ramifications (like the question of the person relaxing but not knowing her shadow was being cast, which came later in your analysis). I do think you are quite sensitive about the proximity of the bench to the tombstone. When I next see her I will tell my artist friend about that, although I doubt it wil change her mind about having her own tombstone crafted in theform of a stone bench for her progeny or others who come to the cemetery and wish to relax (like my subject) and have a view down onto the river from the cemetery heights.</p>

<p>Anders,</p>

<p>Your "book" is interesting although I could not relate to that in this case. However, the layers in an image are often those that unfold in our minds after an initial observation, as much as those that might come from a return to an image to see if therre are other things of interest. I am afraid that in the short timeI have been looking at it that hasn't happened (maybe I should look further, my fault), but it is a pretty image and the cat myth is recognisable now that you mention it. </p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Yes, Arthur, we (you, I, your artist friend) all have our differing perceptions and values, which inform our differing ideas of what is "normal" or "usual"--in life, and in photographs. Memorial benches are not uncommon.</p>

<p>I want my remains to be cremated when I die. I have not the slightest qualms about the flames involved.</p>

<p>But if you were to present on Photo.net an image of someone stoking a fire 3 feet in front of an ornate 19th-century gravestone, I would (like many people, I suspect) look at your photograph and think, "What's up with that fire?"</p>

<p>Maybe I'm just hypersensitive.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Arthur, you asked for my way of relating the cat/tomb photo to the materiel/immaterial dichotomy. Personally I don't think it is very productive approach helping us to understand photos.</p>

<p>I see photos as the contrary of "what you see is what you see" (Frank Stella) and can only refer to photos as a images that have to be "read". If the viewer is illiterate or doesn't wish to invest the needed efforts he/she cannot see the meaning behind the appearance. Immediate perception is therefor almost always false or at least a superficial approach to images according to my approach to photography and image-making. It would be like perceiving the content and quality of a book by its dustcover.<br>

It is also here I see the interest of the discussion on "essence".<br>

However <strong>Arthur</strong>, I don't want to try to direct the thread in another direction than the one you search.</p>

<p>A quotation to chew on, if I dare: "<em><strong>we see in images what is missing in the perception</strong>"</em><br>

or in the original langage "nous ne voyons en image que ce qui est absent dans la perception" (Sartre "L'Imaginaire")</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Anders</p>

<p>The material-immaterial does not in my mind represent a bifurcation or dichotomy, but rather a <strong>co-existence</strong> of the two. That is the raison d’être of my OT and the question of whether the material can effectively represent the spiritual or the ideas. </p>

<p>I wouldn't be bothered if your image is not understood as you may wish it to be. I have looked at it carefully and have thought about it, not just superficially, as I am sure you did with my example. Each person brings different experience and aesthetics to viewing and like it or not we are each subjective in our evaluation.</p>

<p>Your OT on essence I thought interesting, although I don't think there was any consensus of all on what essence means to each. I tend to view it as you do, I think, in the sense that the essence of Paris is much deeper than the material evidence we see in many photographs of it. While I have only had the pleasure of about a month and a half in the city, split on various occasions, my perception of Paris has been also been via a handful of Parisian friends who have visited us in Quebec City on various occasions, who communicate with us regularly by email (le "mail") and who have transferred to us some of the human essence of that city. Because there are so many cultural connections between Quebec (the second largest French speaking entity after France) and France, the sense of France and Paris is quite on going and alive. </p>

<p>Is Sartre's quotation (it should read in translation "only see" rather than "see") referring to the viewer's perception, or the photographer's perception, or both? If mainly the viewer's perception, I guess he is thinking about what happens in one's mind in terms of perception after seeing something that does not hint directly at that during the act of seeing.</p>

<p>If that were the point, I would agree in the sense that the generation of a mental response in the viewer is part of the process and need not be related to what he perceives in the material image.</p>

<p>Anders, I think that the thread is quite related to your essence thread and to Fred's thread on viewing potential. We all bring different baggage, including cultural perceptions and values, to the reading of an image, a sculpture, a book or a film. The ability of a photo to generate immaterial from the material is fascinating, variable with the individual, and perhaps the highest level it can attain. Notwithstanding yours and other contributions, I would think that would be of more interest than it seems to be in this forum. Well, it's not over 'till it’s over, as my old hockey coach would say....</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Possible need for precision on my prior English text:</p>

<p>"I have looked at it carefully and have thought about it, not just superficially, as I am sure you did with my example."</p>

<p>or perhaps in better English (?),</p>

<p>I have looked at it carefully, and have thought about it, as I am sure you did with my example, and not just superficially.</p>

<p>The two mean the same, and I want to be sure they communicate the same. Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Arthur, first of all you are right that the Sartre quotation should read "only" but it should be a "not only". I think it should read: <em><strong>"we see not only in images what is missing in perception"</strong></em>. It makes a difference. Sorry. I will still leave it to you and others to interpret it!</p>

<p>Be sure that I have no regret if others "read" my pictures in other ways than mine - not to mention that my own reading changes with time, mood and learning.<br>

In fact (my) photos are never simple statements, but images that should invite for an active reading which we may be sharing due to common cultural, philosophical, political affinities, and levels of knowledge and experiences, or not. What is important for me is that they are "read" not treated as fast-food products and rapidly consumed by immediate perceptions. I cannot and wouldn't dream of controlling this process of reading by the viewer apart from introducing in the photos some appetizers that make the viewer look at the photo at least twice (colors, compositions, beauty - you name it) because it attracts - it is attractive, (if I succeed). I'm seldom using the chock effect of something ugly or repulsive - but it works surely too for attracting attention. The photographer can as you have tended to do in your shadow/tombstone photo or I in my cat/grave photo use all the tools available to us as photographers, only limited by our skills, competencies and experiences and to a certain degree by our equipment, which I would not underestimate. </p>

<p>I agree with you that this discussion is closely related to the essence discussion which was far from finished when we all got somewhat exhausted. <br>

My previous comments did not in any way suggest, or I did not intend to suggest, that you have not looked at the photo in question with attention. I'm sorry if it was interpreted like that.</p>

 

[ernest-b]

<p>Arthur and Anders, a naive question:</p>

<p>Doesn't that quotation mean in English, <em>"We <strong>do not</strong> see in images, what is missing in [our] perception?"</em></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Anders,</p>

<p>Yes, I understand your objectives and I do the same (or try to), on the subject of picture statements and added dimensions to images. Otherwise, photography for me would only be a so called "pedestrian pleasure".</p>

<p>Ernest,</p>

<p>I believe an accurate translation of Sartre's statement</p>

<p>"nous ne voyons en image que ce qui est absent dans la perception" (Sartre "L'Imaginaire")</p>

<p>is rather:</p>

<p>We <strong>do not</strong> see in (an) image <strong>but</strong>* what is absent in the perception </p>

<p>(in other words, the "ne - que". rather than the ne - pas" grammatical form)</p>

<p>* (or you can probably read) "except" instead of "but"</p>

<p>Is he alluding to the fact that our mental perception deviates from our visual perception, or perhaps that we want to fill in the visual perception with things that we believe are missing from it? Possibly the latter? It would be best to see the accompanying text of his statement before deciding what context is being considered by Sartre.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>So a loose translation of Sartre's intent might be,<em> "We 'see' in an image, what we do not perceive"</em>?</p>

<p>Or more explicitly, using an English idiom, <em>"We 'read into' an image, that which is missing from our perception"</em>?</p>

<p>(Obviously the second formulation would not apply, if Sartre was making a formal distinction between "seeing" and "perceiving". I haven't read the work you cited, nor do I have it close at hand.)</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>Ernest</strong> "ne-que" means "seulement" and can be translated into "only" or maybe here "not only" - I would believe.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Anders, thank you. Maybe: <em>"We only 'see' in an image, what we do not perceive"</em>?</p>

<p>Stated in this way, it would make a strong distinction between Sartre's (presumed, here, on my part) definition of "seeing" as a higher mental activity, and "perceiving" as a lower one.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I did not dare say it Ernest - but I agree. However both are necessary.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>My reading of the "ne (voir)-que" is translate to "not (see) - but", or, in English, and related apparently to what he is saying:</p>

<p>"We only see in the image what was absent from our visual perception of it"</p>

<p>Again, the mental perception or analysis of the image differs from our visual perception of it, or we are adding to the basic information received.</p>

<p>If so, Sartre is talking about the immaterial, in addition to the material of what we see.</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Yes Arthur, that is how I read it too. We get nearer and nearer to something between perception and what we see and can identify in images - might it be essence ?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I think essence can certainly be one of the immaterial qualities. There are as well other ideas, values, concepts, or statements about man, humanity or the spiritual, in addition to the essence of a place or a material subject, which are of that immaterial nature.</p>