When does photographic understatement succeed?

[macmoss]

<p>The most clearly overstated images you will find easily are the landscapes here on photo.net, as well as similar ones that adorn the nature calendars in every bookstore. I go to the top rated landscapes here intermittently, and am invariably appalled. I really don't like to be negative, but you have raised an interesting subject.<br>

<br />By contrast, just browse through the fine art nature photography by the world's renowned nature photographers in any library.<br>

<br />The contrast is startling. As someone who previously spent a lot of time with landscapes, I think the modern trend, to oversaturate, oversharpen, and over "pop" everything, is disheartening.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I Agree <strong>Mac</strong> but the problem is that as far as I see it you can over-state and still succeed a photo, just like you can under-state and also succeed. Most over- as well as under-statements are clear failed however.<br>

The Mac Donald photo of P<strong>hylo</strong> is at a first glance a clear example of over-statement and yet it might be just stating the matter of fact of reality in a Disney-type-of-world where over-statement is the statement of reality.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Most over- as well as under-statements are clear failed however."</em></p>

<p>I don't see it that way. Except to say that most photos fail, of course. But I don't think over and understated photos fail more than others.</p>

<p>What Mac is describing, to me, the oversharpened and oversaturated landscapes, is not overstatement. It's tacky, trendy, and silly, perhaps kitsch, just bad photography. I maintain that on a more significant level overstatement is often larger-than-life, like Citizen Kane. And understatement tends to be quiet, less pointed, less directional, and less self-conscious. Self consciousness can be powerful, as in Citizen Kane. The Birds is another overstated film. Much of Hitchcock is. Great stuff. Gone With the Wind, on the other hand (IMO) is overdone, even overblown, and perhaps also overstated. Heath Ledger's performance in Brokeback Mountain is one of the finest examples of an understated performance I can think of.</p>

[acute]

<p>/rant<br>

I think the challenge is the same in any style of photography: one needs to engage the viewer but avoid being boring. Once the viewer is willing to spend some time contemplating the image, the photographer has succeeded. A shocking image will engage the viewer instantly, but the element of shock is not enough to provide content worthy of contemplation. On the other extreme an image might present sufficient content to contemplate, but there might be nothing to draw the viewer initially into the image. A good balance is to have something that captures the attention coupled with something that provides the content. And the content should never be so ample as to lack any central theme. If it is too busy the viewer will never engage the imagination. It is better to present less and allow the imagination to fill in something on its own. Just rambling here, but I think I’m not too far off the mark. And finally: an image should create a reality of its own instead of trying to represent something that the photographer witnessed somewhere. Nobody cares what the photographer had seen: the viewer cares about the image in front of him.<br>

/no rant</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I go to the top rated landscapes here intermittently, and am invariably appalled. I really don't like to be negative, but you have raised an interesting subject.<br>

<br />By contrast, just browse through the fine art nature photography by the world's renowned nature photographers in any library.</p>

<p>The contrast is startling. As someone who previously spent a lot of time with landscapes, I think the modern trend, to oversaturate, oversharpen, and over "pop" everything, is disheartening.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Amen, Mac. If there was a single decisive factor impelling me to post on this topic, it was and is the continuing tendency to overdo it in post-processing. I <em>hate</em> that (and that, Fred, is about the only place where my own value judgment is going to come into play on this topic).</p>

<p>I guess that I find it all the more offensive in works that purport to be about nature. Nothing is less natural to me than excessive post-processing.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Overstatement and understatement are artistic/photographic tools. I don't think of overstatement as excessive (or simply bad) post processing. Overstatement and understatement are about levels of significance and the relative importance of various qualities. It is about attention, exaggeration, nuance, blatancy, etc. It's not about bad processing choices or overuse of Photoshop slider bars. Oversaturation is not an overstatement. It's not any kind of statement at all. It's usually quite mindlessly applied.</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Can't agree with that as a general statement. Understatement is often a device that is employed by the photographer. It certainly is in literature, where, like in photography, understatement can be unintentional or intentional.</p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>The Birds is another overstated film. Much of Hitchcock is. </p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Fred</strong>, I always thought that the strength of Hitchcock was his consistent under-statements (the Birds an exception). I'm always dead frightened when nothing what so ever seem to take place in his films !<br>

What I meant with the sentence that "<em>Most over- as well as under-statements are clear failed however" </em>was that it is when we start using such means for any statements that we take risks - and this is where the risk to fail is greatest. Playing safe would be always simply to produce what viewers would expect to see which is neither too much nor too little of any effect reproducing what viewers define as reality.<br>

I agree with <strong>Andrew </strong>that the core of the question posed by <strong>Landrum </strong>is the relation between under-statement (and over-statements) and succeeded photos. It is indeed a question of balance between catching the attention and transmitting a statement by means of over- or under-stating.<br>

However it cannot only be a question of the common critic of over-saturated photos, which most of us share, but a question of means of statements. For me over-saturation are just un-esthetic processing of photos that however do satisfies a demand that seem to exist among viewers, whether we like it or not (ref. raters). </p>

 

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>The Mac Donald photo of P<strong>hylo</strong> is at a first glance a clear example of over-statement and yet it might be just stating the matter of fact of reality in a Disney-type-of-world where over-statement is the statement of reality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. The color McDonald's picture, with its almost sculpturesque saturated "Disney-type" sign, works well, should be viewed, in relationship to another photograph I made of an actual large sculpture called the 'Flamingo' by Alexandar Calder. Put next to each other, the red curves of the <em>Flamingo</em> sculpture echoes those of the curves of the McDonald's sign and vice versa, and consumption and art seem to play on and off of each other. <br /> The juxtaposing / sequencing of images can be done in an overstated or understated manner too, for obvious or more subtle effect.<br /> But I've also found that under, and sometimes even over-statement, often gets lost on viewers / non photographers who aren't reading the sometimes subtle visual language of photography as fluently as photographers ( most ) have learned to do.</p><div></div>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>Phylo</strong>, reading literacy is a serious problem in many countries, including the US. Visual literacy levels are probably even worse despite the central importance of images in our societies. Visual literacy is taught very little in schools and only marginally part of school curricula.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>This conversation is irrevocably doomed. Nobody seems to understand or want to understand the use of understatement in poetry (for example, Haiku) or in the visual arts. As an example of a general nature, much more often than not Hollywood creation is excessive overstatement, whereas we are aware that the small film producer, often foreign and even 3rd world, creates films that are purposely understated yet entirely significant in their evocation of something of value. No Oscars Or Cannes awards perhaps (but who really cares) We do at least know where to look, no? But in photography, hardly.</p>

<p>I am not looking for critique (x/7) by posting a few example images in this tread, but simply to share with others the concept of understatement and creating a purposeful discussion that might lead somewhere useful. No replies at all simply suggests that others prefer to hide behind the images of others, or simply do not have what it takes to analyse a fellow members images, or have an overstated ego that clearly prevents that. </p>

<p>So we talked at one point that P of P was in fact the ideal venue to discuss the photographic approaches of its members (At that time some may remember that I was proposing a complementary forum for that purpose). Having a companion philosophy forum to do that was universally frowned upon. "We can do that in the P of P forum". That statement about the catholic nature and utility of P of P can now be forgotten. There is little interest, even among those who consider photography as an art, and among those who think that philosophy is a necessary adjunct to that. Most of the posters seem only to be playing to their personal gallery or audience, with little need to interact. Come, state, leave.</p>

<p>Maybe consuming a few bottles of wine at a nice inn in the remote Vermont countryside can alter one's judgement. Without denying that, I think not. If only I could read ONE or TWO insightful comments on the use of understatement in the arts, that would at least recognize the importance of understatement, of the unseen, of the mysterious, or of the subtely implied in photography, and I might think the OP worthwhile. To see and discuss and image that does or does not do those thing, would be nice. As it stands (and I can assure you I am still standing, notwithstanding...), I see little that has graced this OP in that sense. You need only read back over the comments. And as for intention previously and unanimously expressed about seriously discussing the images of one's fellows, ....... let's stop this charade and forget it. It will be perhaps wise to look elsewhere for that type of interaction, although the net does not seem to be the privileged place. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Drats! 10 minutes of re-editing is too little for wine-os. Missed it again. Not important.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Uhm, riiiight. Here's a picture of a ship arriving too late to save a drowning witch. A good record too.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So we talked at one point that P of P was in fact the ideal venue to discuss the photographic approaches of its members </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ha, is that an understatement or an overstatement ?</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Well, "understatement" turns out to be a more complicated term than I imagined it to be. I have used it in virtually all of the ways discussed above, but I was not consciously thinking about when I was using the term one way and then another.</p>

<p>This increasing complexity happens with all discussions of interesting concepts, of course. Discussions of "justice" and "freedom" in philosophy proper are good examples. Persons tend to talk past each other until they realize that the word "just" has so many different meanings. The same is true for "freedom."</p>

<p>My barn photo ( http://www.photo.net/photo/11769352&size=lg ) was not about the issue of post-processing. A discussion of sunset photography would have been primarily about that. I myself should have been more aware that here is a potent but complicated concept. I had no idea what I was getting into. That is not the first time, of course. It is often said that "War is the unfolding of surprises." I should have to say that philosophical discourse is also about the unfolding of surprises. I am grateful to Fred, Arthur, Phylo, and others who have brought a more profound set of usages into the discussion than I ever anticipated.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders, that's interesting about your perception of Hitchcock. To me, Psycho is deliciously over-the-top. The climax of North By Northwest, on Mount Rushmore, is quintessentially an overstatement. The carousel scene in Strangers on a Train . . . overdone to perfection. Yes, of course, the homosexual tension in Strangers on a Train is quite understated as are some of the tension-building devices even in The Birds, particularly Tippi Hedren's first boat ride out to Rod Taylor's house. And even the Psycho shower scene is understated at least to the extent that we never actually see the knife touch Janet Leigh's skin but I still consider the scene well overstated. Just listen to that scene without even watching it! Hitchcock probably brilliantly balances back and forth between under and overstated, but if I were to choose one as overriding, I'd stick with overstatement.</p>

<p>__________________________________</p>

<p>I'm thinking that it may be in the very nature of art and photography to overstate. The very act of framing (using a lens) and even the more negative or reductive act of eliminating what's outside the frame are, perhaps, already overstatements. The statement would be, "I saw X." But it may already be an overstatement to frame X in a way you choose and show it that way. That seems like a bit more than (a bit over) a statement of X.</p>

[richard_g]

<p>Poor Arthur. I am not a good enough photographer to tackle understatement in photography so well. I'll post one image and point to one book. In poetry I am reminded of a wonderful book by a former US poet laureate, Ted Gooser, called the Poetry Home Repair Manual. He points to understatement all the time. Set up a poem with a well chosen title and some declarations early in the poem are unnecessary. Avoid redundant adjectives. The first door to understanding understatement is perhaps to acknowledge the viewer's perception of an image as a key component of its effect. For instance, an aerial shot of lots of children lying in the sun by Munkacsi at Bad-Kissingen in 1929 always disturbs as someone born in 1960 and knowing of the holocaust. I have this uneasiness around any image of multiple figures reduced to geometry. I agree with Barry Fisher's analysis of his own picture above. Lots of open space, some tension. It's subtle. But like Piet Mondrian, is it understatement? I find Mondrian powerful and don't think of understatement. I am thinking of something wryer with understatement, like the image below. The foreground slope, breaks up the formality, and the darkened baluster is like a blackened tooth in the smile of a beauty....<br /><img src="<a href="http:/www.flickr.com/photos/richardgm2/3606388758/" title="Palazzo Pitti by Richard GM2, on Flickrhttp:/farm4.static.flickr.com/3603/3606388758_ab039c1202.jpg" width="500" height="348" alt="Palazzo Pitti" alt="" /></p>

[richard_g]

<p>Ran out of time trying to link from flickr. Can't find it on my HD. It's at Richard GM2's photostream.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>Arthur</strong>, luckily if I may say so, the ten minutes stopped you from elaborating. Frustration over these threads is shared by all I would think, but somehow, someone, sometimes ends up with writing contributions that bring our understanding of the subject matter forward. A certain responsibility lies on the shoulder of the initiator of threads but mostly, as I see it, a series of smaller parallel exchanges are the rule of the game that are difficult to discipline. No rational, ever progressing, flow of arguments seems possible. So much different from what many of us would like to see (me, without doubt, being one of the violators of the that objective).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So we talked at one point that P of P was in fact the ideal venue to discuss the photographic approaches of its members</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes we had that discussion and I supported it. I even introduced a naive thread of such a discussion, which was deleted by the moderator immediately based on a made decision that PofP should not be such a place and that the Critique forum was being reformed and might satisfy our needs. Having seen the reform by now I still believe our discussion and proposals as relevant and not met. This thread has above some timid and tentative starts for such discussions but, as you rightly state, in vain, as concerns serious and open-hearted exchange.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If only I could read ONE or TWO insightful comments on the use of understatement in the arts, that would at least recognize the importance of understatement, of the unseen, of the mysterious, or of the subtely implied in photography, and I might think the OP worthwhile.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Notwithstanding your numbering, let me risk and eye and come with the first of a series of ZERO's (no hoax intended!). I see at least four distinct layers of interrogations going on:<br /> <strong>Non-Statements</strong> in photography. There are surely innumerable number of photos out there with no intended or perceived "statements" present. They are just what they are, images of something taking out of reality or imagination of a photographer for the pleasure of doing it or seeing it. This thread has been around that subject at one point. However, what might be non-stements for one, might be over/under-statements for another. Difficult to grasp in abstract terms in my eyes and can only be discussed with reference to a specific photo. A <em>"school of non-statement photography"</em> would already be a statement by itself.</p>

<p><strong>Over/under-statement and reality</strong> I think we need to come to grips with the: "over/under- in relationship to what?". If we keep away from abstract photography (which I would see as always over-statements just like the above mention schools of modern painting) and take "reality" as our eyes see it around us, then<strong> Fred</strong> is of course right that the mere fact of framing reality in a photo is an over-statement, concentrating our vision of a selected partial view of reality, different from the seen reality. Photography is in its essence an art of over-statement of reality (as seen), in view of affecting the viewers senses, emotion and/or intellect.</p>

<p><strong>Over/under - statement and means of photography </strong>Maybe this is where we mostly have been circulating in the discussion above (I might be wrong). Is over-saturation an "over-statement" or just to be considered in most cases as "mislead esthetics" (awfully poisonous term, sorry!) ? Or, as <strong>Phylo</strong> shows with his very good examples, a strong means of expression, if mastered in such a way that the viewer is brought further into reflection, emotions of some kind going beyond what our eyes sees in the images. Surely, over-saturation is one of the means of our tool-boxes that can be used by the artist. Similarly, we can decrease saturation, decrease contrasts, make blurred by post-processing or not. We can also over-under-state by the compositions, by using perspectives, by choosing size, close-up etc. Numerous means are at our disposal that over-under-state certain aspects of the seen reality. With can use deafening or whispering sounds in our photography, one could say just like Hitchcock does so brilliantly in his films by extreme over-statements of violence, and extreme under-statements in-between them (I see the understatements as the most frightening (ref to the comments of <strong>Fred</strong> above).<br /> <br /> <strong>Over/under-statements in photos ... and the artistic statements </strong>This is where, in my mind, things become really complicated - or I'm just confused by nature. If the intended affect on senses, emotion and/or intellect of a photography, or just the affects in that sense of the viewer by looking at a photo, is "strong" (what ever that means) then one can indeed compare to the "means of photography" employed and one would surely find examples where over/under-statements are employed. However, I find it extremely difficult to answer the basic question of the thread: how under-statement is used successfully<br>

<br /> However, this is also where I think we talk beside each other by shifting continuously between the four (or even more) layers of the problematic that I, maybe in vain, try to define above.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Understatement is crickets.</p>

<p>Overstatement is A BIG RED FLASHING ARROW THAT SAYS LOOK! LOOK! LOOK! LOOK AT THIS RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW LOOK LOOK LOOK LOOK AND YOU'RE PINNED TO YOUR SEAT AND YOU CAN'T HEAR OR SEE OR THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE IT'S SCREAMING LOOK LOOK LOOK!!!!!</p>

<p>Understatement is when you take away the arrow. A movie without a star; an opera without a diva; a Big Mac without a beef patty. Understatement lets the background surface. You hear crickets. You notice the scenery. Space becomes full -- and available. You're able to orient yourself; to think, to infer to move forward, to occupy the scene yourself. Understatement moves you (the viewer) into play.</p>

<p>[And, in horror movies, as soon as you do move into play, get tempted out of your safe dark silence into that cricket-filled space, that's when the monster jumps out of the closet and rips your head off ... ]</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"I find it extremely difficult to answer the basic question of the thread: how under-statement is used successfully"</em></p>

<p>That's because it's not much different from the question of what makes a successful photo. It can be approached by finding that line, that balance or counterpoint, harmony or discord where vapidness becomes simplicity, where simple becomes more than stupid, and where caring begins to emerge out of mere attention.</p>

<p>Most so-called understated photos are simply random snaps with no caring behind them. It is as if taking a picture of something meaningless is somehow expected to turn magically into understatement. That doesn't usually happen. Most so-called mundane, everyday pictures are just that, mundane everyday pictures that are utterly forgettable. What starts making a mundane, everyday picture into more of an understatement is a level of care. It is when the mundaneness itself is obviated by the kind of attention lavished on it, by a willingness to care with a certain kind of almost imperceptible tweaking about a subject or scene. What most people do is, instead, what Lannie talked about doing, except they do it about the subject or scene itself. They run away from it.</p>

<p>Now, to be clear, Lannie talked about running away from something in order to photograph his old houses. That can, of course, lead to great results. But most people who think they are employing understatement are actually running away from the very subjects they're photographing which usually winds up simply being uninteresting or unmoving. On the other hand, when the simple or the mundane or the lonely or the dwarfed subject in a vastness of space seems cared about, some significant level of understatement is more likely to occur. Effective understatement seems a matter of emergence and care and ineffective understatement is more a matter of disregard.</p>

<p>Feigning interest is a problem. Most photographs I see feign interest in their subjects for the sake of a photograph.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Well, maybe the question is flawed (no doubt about that), and maybe I have more of a responsibility as initiator to say where the thread should go, but I surely <em>do</em> doubt that. If I were to say, "But I meant this!" nothing would happen. The posters would go merrily on their ways, as if I did not exist. (Do I? Do I or my opinion really matter once the question itself is "out there"?)</p>

<p>In any case, this isn't a graduate seminar, and I am not the professor. I just ask a question and then watch in awe as it morphs and becomes refined by better minds than mine. Besides, who has the time to attend to these threads at that level of commitment? Get a good question out and watch the fireworks. I'm teaching five separate undergrad preps this semester. I'm happy to be alive at this point. The question doesn't have to be--can't be--perfect, the final word.</p>

<p>By the way, here is a nice shot:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/6201324&size=lg</p>

<p>I can't see any particular statement being made here, but I like the photo. </p>

<p>So there.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Photographic understatement often goes with the frontality of the subject, like Walker Evans, after Atget. It's letting the camera record and speak for itself, so perhaps it's not an understatement in that regard, but simply stating what the medium does best.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It might inspire him to wonderment ; it might fill him with anger and disgust ; it might provoke his sense of humor or his sense of irony, or both. If it left him bored or indifferent, he ignored it. Once his volatile intuition had selected the significant thing, however, he recorded it with the studied indifference of an archaeologist, stripping the image of any pictorial rhetoric that would instruct the viewer how to feel." <em>Walker Evans & company</em></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Feigning interest is a problem. Most photographs I see feign interest in their subjects for the sake of a photograph. - Fred</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think a photograph can only command interest in their subject, be it with success or not. Unless you mean photographers feigning interest in their subject for the sake of a photograph, which can certainly be the case ( in a lot of commercial photography, ha ! ), but then again, photographing for the sake of a photograph is often the most essential thing of what defines a photographer, otherwise, why take pictures or carry a camera at all, if the photograph is only secondary ?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, of course I didn't mean that the photograph is somehow secondary. I photograph for the sake of the photograph as well as other things. I have difficulty separating what's primary and what's not and I don't particularly care to dwell on that. But I do take photographs of subjects (and subject matter) that I care about, even when I have only just met the subject. I am genuinely interested in my subjects even if sometimes only to the extent of what my subjects look like (which is significant to a good photograph).</p>

<p>Feigning interest in subjects is not limited to commercial photographs. It's prevalent on this site. Ubiquitous in fact.</p>

<p>Furthermore, interest in or love for a subject is not nearly enough to make a good or even decent photograph. Witness all the awful photographs of children. They are loved and of great interest to the mothers and fathers and hired hands who take them.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Would it be beside to point or too much to ask for that someone explains why my efforts to identify some of the "layers" of the discussion on over/under-statement are disregarded. If we could communicate; may be we could hope to advance. What seem to happen is that yet other layers are introduced without any suggestion of where it leads us and how it adds to what we already seem to have discussed: ex. Fred's argument that most under-statement is just "lack of care" or "feigning interest" (how does any one become judge of such accusations? How do you detect it. Does it matter for the viewer?)</p>

[luis_g]

<p>I know Fred carefully inserted a "perhaps" into his original statement, so he had doubts. I'm not in agreement with the idea that the act of framing is an overstatement per se. Isn't is possible one could understate via the framing? Reality itself is often way over the top.</p>

<p>_________</p>

<p>Phylo's "over" is mostly so because of the PP'ing. I've been in the very spot where he took that from, and hell, the whole area is spatially and architecturally over the top.</p>

<p>________</p>

<p>Arthur, a friendly word of unsolicited advice: You should accept the fact that this forum is the way it is. It was so before you (and many others here) arrived. It doesn't look as if PN is going to be making a special forum for those who think along those lines. Your (and others') recurring frustration is a sad thing to behold.</p>

<p>The web is a perfect place for a forum like the one you want to be in. It's just another filter to impose on the members, and there are forums nearly identical to your stated wishes elsewhere. I would have no objections whatsoever to the formation of another forum like the one you want, as long as this one remains untouched. What is obvious is that everyone is starved for bespoke attention being paid to their photographs, here and elsewhere on PN.</p>

<p>_______________</p>

<p>While it is true that often understatement goes with the frontality of the subject, many Walker Evans pictures are hardly understatements, and it should also be said that Atget did a significant number of pictures that are not frontals.</p>

<p>_______________</p>

<p>Julie, don't you think that sometimes the background itself can be overstated, almost to the point of obliterating the foreground?</p>

<p>_______________</p>

<p> I was thinking that understated photographs are quiet, but that may not be the case. The scene itself might be quiet & subdued, so the photographer's depiction would not be understated. Or one could overstate the quietude of the scene, no?<br>

As more than one trendy French philosopher as (over) stated, there is an addiction to the spectacular. I can't help but think this is related to at least one end of this theme.</p>

<p>_______________</p>

<p>When does either path work? I agree with Fred that the answer is the same as to why any photograph succeeds, and that's still being hashed out in another long thread, I believe.</p>