The material representing the immaterial

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis, you may choose to see "armchair quarterback" as an insult. I see it as a statement of fact. You have often judged what other people do (i.e., your reviews* of Josh's and Arthur's work, your comments about the ham-fisted use of symbols by some in this thread). I, myself, do it all the time with sports, even ones I've played. I do it when I comment on landscapes, with which I have very little experience from behind the camera, though quite a bit more as a viewer.</p>

<p>*You, yourself, used that word.</p>

<p>Here's a definition of "armchair quarterback": <em>someone who thinks that he or she can make better decisions than the coaches or players while watching a competitive sport on television.</em></p>

<p>You are like the guy watching television. You're not in the photographic game (at least so far as any of us can <em>see</em>) but you're reviewing the photographic decisions and statements of others. It's allowed here. And you do come up with many great insights. But it still is what it is.</p>

<p>You've chosen to make yourself at least a bit of an outsider by not showing your work, a decision you're entitled to make. But I'd think you'd recognize that it has to compromise you on a photography website at least to <em>some</em> extent. I'm not suggesting you post photos. I'm suggesting you be realistic about some of the ramifications not posting photos has.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Thanks again, Fred. Be advised that unlike you and the others who engage in the traditional PoP Meow Mix cattyness, that my commentary on the im/material was not aimed at anyone. It was made <em>in general, and from personal experience.</em> Compromising positions are OK by me, now that you mention it. I hereby accept all the ramifications you and anyone else cares to throw.</p>

<p>It's true I did not do what I would have considered full reviews of Arthur's and Josh's pictures, only a few honest comments. Josh and I have made the peace over this <em>in public</em>, so I think it is safe to assume since it is a moot point between us, that it should be for you, too. Thanks for your generous, heart-felt suggestions.</p>

<p>...And you had the temerity to rail against my proper use of the word "principal" (no, not in the big guy at grade school sense, silly) ? LOL!</p>

<p>_______________________________________</p>

<p>[What's easier? To get a 2nd account (is that taboo?), or changing my name to "armchair quarterback"?]</p>

<p>______________________________________</p>

<p>Fred, it would be better to continue this hissy-fest in email, don't you think? I won't reply, but it really has nothing to do with the thread. Methinks you're compartmentalizing.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis, I'm surprised you didn't notice that I was making a visual pun on what I knew was your proper (and surly) use and spelling of the word "principal." I've always thought of you as professorial, as an outsider to the class, so it seemed the perfect picture to draw.</p>

<p>Yes, indeed, Luis, take the higher ground and call an end to the cattyness, just as you yourself are finished practicing your own brand. No thanks, I'll address it head on when it rears its ugly head and I won't do it in an email.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>It is significant I think how many of the recent OPs (about 8, including this one) are concerned with aspects or qualities of the photograph that seem to go beyond the apparent or physical side of what we view, in that transition from subject matter to subject and to the realisation, the latter of which often addresses the viewer in non material terms. That is part of the power (or potential power) of the image, what Tiezzi seemingly refers to when he describes his beautiful world of experience (visual or otherwise) as the <strong>"blue orange"</strong>. Some idea, or other immaterial aspect, that leaks out of the image, and whether intended by the photographer, or not.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, I don't think the other recent OPs are concerned with <em>"aspects or qualities of the photograph that seem to go beyond the apparent or physical side of what we view . . . which often addresses the viewer in <strong>non material</strong> terms."</em> I think that is YOUR concern. Please note, I'm not putting that down, I'm just saying I think it's your perspective and the terms in which you think of these things and put them. It's not my perspective nor are they the terms in which I would put them.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Arthur, </strong>when you say "... an immaterial aspect, that leaks out of the image, and whether intended by the photographer, or not.", is it correct to assume that you implicitly meant immaterial aspects also leak <em>into </em>the image, whether intended or not?</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>Among recent OPs, those of Doubt (in which Anders and others talk of essence, something which is immaterial as much as material), Viewing potential, Character, and What don't your photographs communicate have several entries relating to immaterial aspects of the image. These are the contributions of others, not only me. That they may not be part of your photography or approach, Fred, I can understand. None of this is subject of "putting you down" or "putting me down". Neither is a serious option in my books when I'm discussing and appraising for myself various different ideas. Some simply wish to talk down to another - a waste of valuable time!</p>

<p>Luis,</p>

<p>I was referring only to those ideas that "leak out" of an image to the viewer. Instead of leak out you might prefer to apply a similar phrase, "appear upon further viewing". Some believe that great photographs have that potential, to transcend the apparent visual message by suggesting to the viewer some immaterial idea or statement. I can live with that, in fact am inspired by it.</p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p> I much prefer to talk adamantly about the way I approached a given photograph than about the way I approach ALL my photographs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, me too I can ensure you ! I do many things with photography. If you go to my homepage here on PN you will see three photos that surely were not shot in the way I have argued in this thread. I have spend most of the day shooting the demonstrations that took place in Paris against the government's retirement reforms. In this case I surely went to shoot very intentional photos like most would have done. Shooting "PARIS" is totally another story. </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Rather than a 'leaking out' or a 'leaking in' I view the photograph ( or the viewer's experience of the <em>image in the photograph</em> ) as the entanglement between physical fact and psychic effect.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Just another thought snippet, there's no any more or less "essence" ( of a subject, material or immaterial ) to be found in one photograph compared to another, than there's an essence to be found in a temperature reading. They are all units of / on a scale, but never quite <em>about</em> the scale, unless "essence" simply means giving the definition of something.</p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p> unless "essence" simply means giving the definition of something.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It seems to me that it surely does not simply mean that, <strong>Phylo</strong>, reading what we have discussed throughout the last days in this and other threads. </p>

<p>A problematic that I don't think we have had on the table up till now in the discussions is that "essence", "quintessence".... cannot be expected to be found in one single photo, but might more likely emerge for the viewer in series of photos.<br>

Photos showing essence are then like words in a poem or like strokes in a painting.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I have a question, mostly for Anders and Arthur, but also for everybody else. This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical or leading question. It requires a longish example to get to what I'm wondering about:</p>

<p>When you think of Proust's stroy about the madeleine cookie, what is it in that story that is so effective? It seems to me that what that story does *for me* is not located anywhere in the precise immaterial experiece that the cookie provoked in Proust (it reminded him of his childhood visits with his aunt); rather it is the generic shared idea of "remembering childhood" or even simply "a remembering that is provoked by taste or smell, etc." It provokes me to think of similar experiences of memory, but, of course, my memories are not of Proust's aunt. What Proust's story does, why it works or is affective to me is that it touchs on a common sort of sensation (in fact, though I thought I have clear memories of reading Proust's story, upon just looking it up again, I find that I had the details wrong; I had remembered it as being his mother that he was reminded of, not his aunt -- but that makes no difference to my affect ... thereby confirming my feeling that the details are not what "works" in this story).</p>

<p>Finally, getting to my question for Anders and Arthur. In your pictures of Paris or whatever you are using as examples in this thread, is it really "Paris" or whatever that you are expecting or hoping will be conveyed or is it something more generic; sort of a "this is what it's like to be in a place you love" or "doesn't this remind you of that time/place where you felt ... [whatever]"? In other words, like Proust's story, it's not about the aunt and the tea, it's about the sort of amorphous child/eating/being-loved experience? The former is not, cannot be known to a reader who did not know Proust's aunt; the latter will be knowable to anybody who was a child in comparable circumstances.</p>

<p>It seems to me that if this is true, then "immaterial" is simply an attempt at "reaching across" to find memories of shared experience which is pretty much inevitable in almost all photography that does not make an effort *not* to be so (art-photography often tries *not* to be so). Any claims to locate the <em>particular</em> source of the sensation (Paris or Proust's aunt) depend entirely on the viewer also having experience/memories of that particular instance of Paris, or aunt/tea/cookie event -- and would mean that only very few people (presumably none, in the case of Proust's by-now-dead aunt) would be able to "get" the picture.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, for me there's often a play between the generic and the specific. When I do a portrait, I use a specific person and am aware that a generic expression may be expressed, that people may relate it to an expression or memory that is meaningful to them. But, just as I am aware that Proust's story is very much about the aunt (whether I can access that aunt or not), I am aware that my photo is also very much about the particular person who is the subject. And also about a lot more than that, as it's about light, pose, gesture, me, you as viewer, etc. True, those who don't know the subject cannot really verify their projections onto that subject. But they at least know that I was in touch with the subject, and their ability to empathize will put them in touch with the fact that they are looking at a subject and not simply a reflection of themselves. Whether their projection is accurate can be of greater or lesser consequence to me as photographer and to the subjects themselves. Sometimes, a comment that a viewer will make will be of profound import to one of my subjects. Other times, comments get dismissed with a knowing smile. It's not the accuracy of the projection that matters (usually) in the scheme of things. But that there is a sense of something being there, even if it's a sense that the photographer and the subject have a relationship, is significant. I think that mitigates the universality or generic-ness of what we see in a photo or what we read in Proust's story.</p>

[jtk]

<p>IMO Julie's commentary on Proust seems more relevant to photography than other posts here. Most others have chased words rather than ideas, memories, or anything related to images ("essence" etc).</p>

<p><strong>Alfred Stieglitz and Minor White both addressed these issues from photographers's perspectives. </strong></p>

<p>1) "Equivalent." Surely we're all familiar with that? Stieglitz's concept has been avoided here because it's photographic and visual, doesn't provide much opportunity for bloviation. </p>

<p>2) A fundamental Minor White assignment was to "capture the essence of" a certain place, such as the town in which the class was working: find the image, photograph, process, print it in one day/night, bring the finished print to the group the next morning.</p>

<p>The teacher (selected and appreciated for her/his obvious accomplishment, not a mere "authority") would say little, send the group back to try again: like the famous zen master/student/one-hand-clapping koan story. After several days of this, the teacher would draw attention to the image that least relied on the sappy/symbolic/"pretty" stuff, therefore might be closest to the otherwise-meaningless "essence"</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>While working on an answer to this very well formulated question of Julie, you might appreciate a image of Proust's cookies of his aunt Léonie, <a href="Madeleine … de Tante Léonie">des Madeleines de tante Léonie</a>, that you can find in any baker shop in France.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>John, without starting a ping pong exchange, is it not possible to communicate without insulting those that have tried to advance this debate?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>chased words rather than ideas, memories, or anything related to images</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Bloviation</p>

</blockquote>

<p>..........<br>

For those especially non-English speakers (me for example) <em>Bloviation</em> means: To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner.</p>

<p>Not withstanding the form you choose, which does not help communication between us, you are very right that we couldt go "back" to the "old masters" that certainly were working on the same project - not least in the case of Paris.</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Anders, thanks for emphasizing my points so precisely. </p>

<p>Incidentally "the same project" to which you refer (really the parallel approaches of Stieglitz & White) was "photography," which they didn't accomplish with bloviation. Perhaps we should remember that photography and "equivalents" are still pursued today, just as are many other fundamental ideas, such as focus, clarity, and significance.</p>

<p>Note that I didn't refer to Stieglitz and White as "old masters". I mentioned them only because they directly addressed the "essence" question, and did it in their own individual ways with photography.</p>

<p>Julie's reference to Proust (memory, evoked by scent) entailed her thought and perception, was entirely lucid: <strong>the parallel to photography is perfect</strong>...whereas wordplay with "essence" has been related to photography only at the most primative (symbolic) level.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Thanks John. Always appreciated. Your sincerely.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Julie, first a side comment.</p>

<p>To me, the question you just asked, and the way you asked it (in a non-snarky, non-dismissive manner, framed clearly, simply and openly, inviting additive responses) represents the kind of communication that can make threads like this worth reading, or worth getting involved in.</p>

<p>Earlier in this thread, I was trying to make a point similar to the one that (I think) underlies your current question--which I interpret to be, roughly, "what the heck are we talking about?" These terms (essence, material, immaterial) have been used in non-congruent ways throughout most of the thread.</p>

<p>According to my best understanding of the word, an "essence" can be said to exist <em>in a literal sense</em> only in the context of chemical compounds, perfumes, etc.</p>

<p>When used in any artistic context, that term is being used <em>metaphorically, poetically</em>--the word doesn't refer to anything whose existence can be objectively confirmed. (What may represent "the essence of the mystery of love" to some, may be meaningless dreck to others.)</p>

<p>And when applied to images, "essence" would refer to attributes <em>of the subject</em> of the image (e.g., to the essence "<em>of the city of Paris</em>"), including <em>the way the image is presented</em> (dreamy, poignant, bitter, whatever)--<em>not</em> to the image itself, <em>not</em> to the photograph itself.</p>

<p>Even the best images can only only <em>suggest</em> (or <em>evoke</em>) in a viewer, these "essential" feelings <em>about a given subject</em>.</p>

<p>Similarly, the term "capture" is only metaphorical (just like "essence"), when used in an artistic context. To say, for example, that Anders' image "captures the essence of Paris" (a perfectly reasonable thing to say, between photographers) actually means, when articulated more carefully, that Anders' image "is strongly evocative" (to a receptive viewer) of "essential qualities of Paris". (There's no literal capture and no literal essence, and the entire statement is entirely subjective and metaphorical.)</p>

<p>To me, the term "essence" is analogous to the term "character", when that word is used in discussing a portrait. A skillfully-done portrait may suggest the character <em>of a person</em>; a skillfully-done photo of Paris may suggest the essence <em>of the city</em>. But "character" doesn't reside in the portrait itself, and "essence" doesn't reside in the photo.</p>

<p>I haven't read the Proust story (shocking, I know) so I can't respond with any more precision. But as I understand your post, I agree with you. Since no two people share the same subjective experiences, and everyone's memory is different, I think you've stated it well:<em> </em></p>

<p><em>"It seems to me that... 'immaterial' is simply an attempt at 'reaching across' to find memories of shared experience which is pretty much inevitable in almost all photography that does not make an effort *not* to be so."</em></p>

<p>I would go a little further, perhaps even suggesting a modification of your statement to say:</p>

<p><em>"It seems to me that... the 'immaterial' is simply those aspects of a photograph which transcend material depiction, and depend on memories of shared experience for their effect on a viewer. Almost all photography involves this kind of 'immaterial' dimension."</em></p>

<p>Even family snapshots.<em><br /></em></p>

[ernest-b]

<p>A small correction to one of my paragraphs above:<br /> ------<br /> And when applied to images, "essence" would refer to attributes <em>of the subject</em> of the image (e.g., to the essence "<em>of the city of Paris</em>"), including <em>the way the <strong>subject</strong> is presented</em> (dreamy, poignant, bitter, whatever)--but <em>not</em> to the image itself, <em>not</em> to the photograph itself.</p>

<p>------</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"Even the best images can only only suggest (or evoke) in a viewer, these "essential" feelings about a given subject."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Without commenting on "best," I don't think it's correct that "the viewer" is necessarily experiencing "feelings" related to a "given subject." </p>

<p>Photographs are not necessarily references to "subjects," though they certainly are much of the time: "The Grand Canyon." "My cute cat." etc. Those are not similar to photos of people involved in mysterious emotions...they're qualitatively different. As well, some photographs stand on their own, simply as photographic prints/displays or as questions.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p><strong>Julie</strong>,</p>

<p>in regard to your well-presented argument, I believe that the generic immaterial concepts or feelings, memory induced or other, such as that of family love, are those at what I might call the first level of appreciation. Many photographs, paintings and sculptures seem to me to work primarily at that first level, if they do so at all. They don't need specific reference and their message is quite clear, but simple. I am looking now at one of Harold Mante's images from his text on "Color". Dozens of primary school Spanish children (girls) playing on a beach and hamming it up a bit (the fun of children) for the camera, each one distinct but unescapably wrapped in her formal school costumes. Distinct or a collectivity? The first level of appreciation is one of the joys and innocence of youth. Looking further, one recognizes that they are all not just individual but also part of an ordered society and one might extend the thoughts to how will these kids function in that very ordered society, albeit their individuality before the camera? How will each unfold as an adult?</p>

<p>A book can involve us in more complex suggestions of immaterial ideas and concepts, but for a photograph or a series of photographs to do that is rather a tall order. For Mante's photo to do that, it might have to be accompanied by other views into the life of these children, or other images confirming, contrasting or extending the opening visual phrases of the former one.</p>

<p>Ideas communicating through photographic works is challenging. Essence of a place is but one idea amongst many ideas. The generic case you mention conveys something to more people than your more specific case, perhaps. However, the problem is that both may communicate ideas on only the first level of appreciation and not go farther. Whether of a generic or specific nature in the beginning is probably unimportant, but in order to go further than the first level of appreciation, an image, or series of images, has more work to do than the cases mentioned. Does this mean a more complex image with several layers of meaning (like various sentences of a written work, combining and leading to the enshrinement or deposition of an idea?), or several images in an overall work of communication, I don't know? It may even be possible in one excellent if complex image, whereas a simple image can communicatec effectively to the first level of idea (or feeling) appreciation.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Photographs are not necessarily references"</em></p>

<p>Yes. Thanks, John.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>Okay, John, I'll gladly modify:</p>

<p>"<em>Even the best<strong>-realized</strong> images can only only suggest (or evoke) in a viewer, these "essential" <strong>responses to depictions of</strong> a given subject."</em></p>

[jtk]

<p>On another thread <strong>somebody</strong> said it was easier to evoke a desired response in writing than in photography. </p>

<p>Certainly there's a lot of unevocative photography (simply beautiful or purportedly symbolic), but I think there's even less evidence of evocative writing, here or anywhere else (for context, I'm reading Melville and can't yet say what's going to be evoked in the depth and complexity).</p>

<p>Here, unless someone's making a clear and felt case, or asking genuine questions (eg Fred), we see opinions or interminable, heavily hedged paragraphs, which seem intended only <strong>to get</strong> (rather than evoke) a primative a talk show kind of response: <strong>agreement/disagreement</strong>. Which is not similar to "evoked." What I'm writing here may draw emotional responses but that is unintentional...my words cannot be as evocative as what I hope for from occasional photographs. </p>

<p><strong>Julie</strong>, through her use of simple <strong>analogy</strong> (re Proust recently), evokes more from me than she does when she assembles elaborate written constructions. In other words, one skillfully expressed concept has (for me) evoked more than elaborate chatter could have. <strong>And of course</strong>, her images evoke even more.</p>

<p> Over the past year or two, <strong>Fred</strong> has moved a conceptual mountain by asking questions rather than relying on opinions or answers....his writing is increasingly evocative, and I don't think my usual agreement is even relevant.</p>