When does photographic understatement succeed?

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11772933&size=lg</p>

<p>Other grasses besides broom sedge can provide an understated foundation for certain kinds of landscape shots.</p>

<p>Here is the larger file (or portion thereof) from which the other was taken:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/general-comments/image-attachment?comment_id=18195939</p>

<p>The star of the photo was intended to be the old house, but the understated dogs standing in the shadows stole the show--more obviously in the larger version. I have never thought of understatement as being a technique, of course, but I suppose that one might think of it thus--or think of what techniques promote a sense of understatement, if that is the sense that one wants to convey. None of this crossed my mind when shooting, of course. it was only after posting the pictures of the broom sedge that I remembered this recent shot with its own rich grasses.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>That's a strong image there Lannie, great light hitting on the buildings, subtle. There's also a good crop in it I noticed, but which gives more emphasis on the dogs. The original is strong in that there's no particular point of focus in the image, and the eye can wander and wonder around. There's this one tree that's almost in the middle, I would have placed that one exactly smack in the middle of the frame, making it the center, without it claiming the center of interest.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>http://www.masters-of-photography.com/M/meyerowitz/meyerowitz_market_full.html<br>

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/M/meyerowitz/meyerowitz_theresa_full.html</p>

<p>Understatement, hidden statement ?</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Understatement - de-emphasis of the obvious, sometimes used to establish irony. In photography and visual arts is seems pretty subjective, but I think of photos by Atget and Harry Callahan, I suppose maybe Stephen Shore. If I might, here's one of mine, that I feel is understated, but then I look at it and I feel that the understatement masks visual tensions...but I don't know. Interesting topic.. <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3084/3142989709_244c78f88d_z.jpg?zz=1" alt="" /></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Understatement seems, but often isn't, effortless. It seems, but often isn't, simple.</p>

<p><em>"What makes for a successfully understated photographic treatment?"</em></p>

<p>Nuance. Subtlety. Layers. Counterpoint. Technique that coheres with content. Similar qualities that make for a successfully overstated photograph.</p>

<p>Langella wants his audience to be "overwhelmed" with emotion. Most actors are overstating, using exaggerated gestures and facial expressions which, from the stage, can translate to what a viewer regards as understatement. What is exaggerated on a stage in a huge theater under powerful spotlights doesn't "translate" as overacting or overstating something . . . because it's a scene, a dramatic rendering.</p>

<p>Understatement is an audience's or a viewer's perspective, not an actor's or photographer's.</p>

<p>A photograph is a reality itself and not necessarily a statement (either under or over) about another reality.</p>

<p><em>"I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody."</em> Is that scene overstated or understated?</p>

<p>Both, of course. That's why it's so gut-wrenching and memorable.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I am off on a trip to Vermont for several days, but if anyone wants to take Landrum's suggestion about personally quoted images on undestatement and comment the personal as opposed to third party photos we (myself, Fred, Lannie) have posted, I for one will not eat or attack the critiques for constructive comments. On the contrary, and that was also what Lannie requested. Attack!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I like to see other persons' photos cited from time to time along with their words, Arthur. I believe that one thereby does get a better sense of what drives them, and perhaps it is also the voyeur in me that wants to see inside persons' heads--whether through their words or their images.</p>

<p>Not everybody wants to see inside mine--or should want to.</p>

<p>This is not a critique forum, in any case, and so we don't have to worry about persons attacking our photos. We don't post them here for critique but to make a point. I would cite more famous photos except that I am pretty illiterate on what has been done historically in photography. I used to never think about esthetics very much. After meeting you and John, Fred, Phylo, Dan, Luis, Julie and many others I think a lot about it now. Esthetic analysis requires a lot--and I mean a lot--of reflection. One wonders why one does indeed like the things one likes, and then one starts to wonder why one shoots what one shoots.</p>

<p>I wish that we could bring the ghost of Freud into the conversation.</p>

<p>I wonder what I am running from when I retreat into the countryside to get my old-house pictures, etc. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Understatement is an audience's or a viewer's perspective, not an actor's or photographer's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't know why not. Even though the intentional act of photographing / processing as an act or state can't be made to be anything lesser than it is, the photographer can still integrate a mindset of understatement towards making photographs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but I think of photos by Atget</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that's inevitable. Atget's capability of zeroing in on his subjects by rendering them descriptively, but without ever completely closing the door for interpretation either, for the world of dreams. And that's why they succeed, for being transitional.<br /> ---------<br /> I was just browsing through a book of Atget and I found a print of mine in it which I had completely forgotten about. I never knew what to think about it, maybe that's why I had forgotten it. But seeing it now it strikes me as a good example an 'understatement statement' photograph. It is a bit of a classic/cliché, the 'empty parking lot' photograph, but I like the distant, understated McDonald's sign in the background, which is what made me make it. It gives it a context of massive consumption - the opposite of understatement - in an emptiness of available space.</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, what I am getting at is that what a viewer perceives as an understatement may actually require overstatement or exaggeration on the part of the photographer. So, we need to keep separate the supposed understatement of a photographer from the perceived understatement of the viewer. A viewer may perceive what he considers to be an understatement but it may have taken an overstatement on the part of the photographer to get the viewer there. Much like exaggerated gestures and poses from an actor can still be perceived as "under"-acting. </p>

<p>I don't know if there was a value judgment in Lannie's OP, that somehow understatement is to be admired. It doesn't seem like Lannie was necessarily making such a judgment. But just to be clear, I think understatement may be one of those qualities like "candidness" and "spontaneity" that are way overrated, almost to the point of silliness. Some of my favorite paintings, films, photographs, dances, and even people and places are very moving and alive overstatements.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>what a viewer perceives as an understatement may actually require overstatement or exaggeration on the part of the photographer</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's the spirit, Fred--sort of like planning two hours so that a shot looks spontaneous.</p>

<p>As for value judgment, 'tis the preference of the moment for me, for some reason. Perchance too much shock and awe lately in other sectors of my life. . . ?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>A few steps backward in order to try to answer a few direct questions.</p>

<p>Phylo</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Going back to the original question, maybe <strong>photographic understatement</strong> succeeds the most when it's unintentional at the core</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I might be wrong, but I find the question of statements - under- or over - especially interesting if it is a question seen from the viewer and not the intended statement of the photographer. <br>

Arthur</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am puzzled by the logic of your argument, and perhaps you can mention why you put these two movements together (<em>impressionism/fauvism</em>).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>However, when I mentioned the impressionist, the fauvist and why not the cubists together it is because they all tried to break down reality into its most significant forms, colors and lights. Furthermore during the period 1860 to beginning of the 20th century most of these painters moved in and out of these "movements". Few of the painters were only involved in one movement. By overstating colors (fauvist) forms (cubist) or light (impressionist) - very simplified categories, I know - they were rather over-stating than under-stating anything as far as I see it.</p>

<p>Arthur you further write that I : </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>insist so often on the necessity of reality</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p> I must say that I do not recognize myself in that category. My photos use mostly "pure" reality but for something else than just registering the thing - but that is another discussion, I would think, so I would suggest to weave that out in this thread.</p>

 

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Fred, yes. Understatement may take effort ( if that's what you mean that it may take an overstatement on the part of the photographer to get the opposite through to the viewer ), I centainly don't view it to be effortless in process by definition. Just like I don't view overstatement to be something requiring necessarily more effort. I think they're both a startingpoint, overstatement or understatement, a mindset, after which the process follows.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, I'm cautious about overstatement or the opposite of understatement being likened to shock and awe. I think one can make overstatements that have the depth and slow revelation of understatements. And understatements can be vapid as well as understated. Shock and awe is something else. It's the quick and (often fleeting) wow factor. But not all overstatements are of the high-impact wow variety. Citizen Kane comes to mind. An overstatement but hardly shock and more slow and refined level of awe.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Shock and awe is something else.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, I know, Fred. I was psychologizing out loud about things that are not inherently photographic.</p>

<p>Photographing barns and rural scenes is a refuge for me right now. With those kinds of subjects, understatement is the default, I think.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>My I take and example from my own photos as an input to this discussion. The photo below is intented as an understatement of reality, but also as an over-statement of a state of mind (man/nature/loneliness...). </p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Anders, I think that minimalist treatments are typically overstated to some degree in their understatement. Maybe Fred already said that or words to that effect.</p>

<p>Nice photo, in any case.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie's seems to me the only example of an understatement. The ones posted here by Anders, Barry, and Phylo seem to me overstatements. They overstate a minimalist aesthetic or approach. Phylo's points quite decidedly to Macdonald's and the three posted here by Anders, Barry, and Phylo overstate the vastness of space and the solitude of the lone subject. Lannie's understates the house and even the relationship of the house to the trees. It doesn't point to anything, seems random. No drama. The others have much more drama, which tends toward overstatement.</p>

<p>Here's <a href="../photo/5993151&size=lg">one of mine</a> which Lannie just happened to comment on which seems either overstated or understated . . . I can't decide and don't really care that much. It is cliché (much like Phylo's at least as far as being a cliché) and so is an overstatement of sentiment but is not all that dramatic, more subtle lighting and elusive perspective. What Anders mentions seems important. Aspects can be overstated and other aspects understated. There is no fine line of distinction and most photos participate in both.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Nice one, Fred, although I had not thought about it at all in terms of either over- or understatement.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie's seems to me the only example of an understatement. The ones posted here by Anders, Barry, and Phylo seem to me overstatements. They overstate a minimalist aesthetic or approach. <strong>Phylo's points quite decidedly to Macdonald's</strong> and the three posted here by Anders, Barry, and Phylo overstate the vastness of space and the solitude of the lone subject.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends if we're talking about the content or the concept.</p>

<p>Yes, it does so quite intentionally/decidedly, pointing towards the sign. But the McDonald's sign is understated ( for effect,yes, but that's the deal with both overstatement and understatement ) as a sign of big consumerism, by it being placed in the distance against the backdrop of the empty parkingspace's, safe for one car. Of course, the understatement can only claim to exist in the photograph as a function of its opposite, namely, an overstating of the emptiness of the parkinglot. But that's the content, which doesn't make the picture conceptually an overstatement, if a distinction is to be made between under and overstatement.</p>

<p>I have another one with a McDonald's sign in it, it's not the only element in the photograph, but it plays the same part again if you will as in the first picture, but as an overstatement, the sign/"meaning" claiming its space visually instead of being lost in it.</p>

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

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Uh, Phylo, I see the "over," but where is the "under"?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>The first image is more an example of 'understatement' obviously, like I already mentioned when I posted it the first time.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I'm sorry, Phylo. I saw the caption and mistakenly thought that it was referring to the McDonald's photo as an example of both.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Let me just say that my point of the photo I uploaded with a lonely person on a beach is exactly as stated by Fred, overstated. But, all depends on "stated in relation to what". Minimalistic images could be understated in relation to "reality" but might be overstated when it comes to the statement (sic!)<br>

The attached photos is maybe the reverse : overstated in relationship to reality but understated when it comes to the intended message. In fact you need to know the history of the Professor in question to be able to "read" it. </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Let me just say that my point of the photo I uploaded with a lonely person on a beach is exactly as stated by Fred, overstated. But, all depends on "stated in relation to what". Minimalistic images could be understated in relation to "reality" but might be overstated when it comes to the statement (sic!)<br>

The attached photos is maybe the reverse : overstated in relationship to reality but understated when it comes to the intended message. In fact you need to know the history of the Professor in question to be able to "read" it. </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Let me just say that my point of the photo I uploaded with a lonely person on a beach is exactly as stated by Fred, overstated. But, all depends on "stated in relation to what". Minimalistic images could be understated in relation to "reality" but might be overstated when it comes to the statement (sic!)<br>

The attached photos is maybe the reverse : overstated in relationship to reality but understated when it comes to the intended message. In fact you need to know the history of the Professor in question to be able to "read" it. </p><div></div>