Identity of photographer defines identity of photo.

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Non-categorization = non-duality. Categorization may be unavoidable, but to realise its superficiality has the potential to be creativily more at source. Not creating out of nothingness but out of <em>no</em>-<em>thing</em>-<em>ness,</em> where one perspective doesn't overpower the other. Hey, count me in on that ride, where do I get my ticket ?!</p>

<p><em>Identity of viewer defines identity of photo</em>.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There is some part of Weston's photograph of a pepper that has nothing to do with any viewer. It's got to do with Weston. Some of it has to do with Weston's camera and some with the paper it was printed on.</p>

<p>The identity of a photo is a sum . . . and then some. It was in Weston's hands before it ever got to a viewer. That part doesn't disappear when a viewer views it. The viewer does not call all the shots.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>All parts of Weston's photograph have nothing to do with any viewer...except from the moment the photograph is being viewed by one.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I suggest Rick Langer, another Photo.Net member, whom some may know. This photo seems to represent his approach (in regard to his other posted portraits, not I think in regard to his other work, which sems quite different).</p>

<p>See http://www.photo.net/photo/8566036</p>

[jtk]

<p>Bureaucrats categorize, that's not the work of civilizations. Civilizations produce what some folks call art. </p>

<p>Categories of "art movements" are the concern of people who do not produce the works (eg academics). </p>

<p><strong> </strong>The viewer has a measurable (muscles, skeleton, blood pressure, brain waves etc) response to an effective image<strong>.</strong> Pepper, nude, portrait...whatever. Only a dead person fails to respond in those ways. In other words, the viewer and the image interact.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Categorization is the business of art collectors, critics, historians, and salespeople."</p>

<p><strong>Luis - "</strong>Very revealing statement. It reads as if John wrote it, <em>except you left out <strong>academics</strong></em>."</p>

<p><strong>(Nearly 12 hrs later...)John - "</strong>Categories of "art movements" are the concern of people who do not produce the works (eg <strong><em>academics</em></strong>)."</p>

<p> Oh-so-subtle. John...could you be any more transparent?</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p>You guys are going really fast and I have little time these days. But I'm following...<br>

<strong>John</strong><br>

I didn't decide to have things done this way but society <strong>does</strong> categorize. Civilizations allow bureaucrats to do their job. This isn't the topic of conversation anyways.<br>

<strong>Fred</strong><br>

I didn't want the thread to focus on your work but on the idea. Your work was a perfect example and now I think the thread is starting to take a more general approach. About if I have a photo that could be take as an example, I don't know...<br>

<strong>Landrum</strong><br>

Yes, that could be another example, although I think it is slightly different. More details to come tonight, gotta go.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I can't see how this small game of ping-pong can lead to anything - but you are of course always welcome to have fun between you. <br>

Greetings from an "academic" that happens to shoot photos and a contemplator of art and who categorizes in order to put in context and maybe develop some understanding (Arthur is bullseye in his explanation above that all might understand). Whether a specific photo of a specific photographer,let's not mention his name, is "street" or "studio", is mundane, however, that cannot be of interest to anyone apart from passion for technicalities and the functioning of web sites.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>*Crush* (Sound of ping-pong ball under foot. Thanks for reminding me, Anders!)</p>

<p>Arthur and I agree on this, and I am also in agreement with Phylo, when he remarked:</p>

 

 

<p>"Non-categorization = non-duality. Categorization may be unavoidable, but to realise its superficiality has the potential to be creativily more at source. Not creating out of nothingness but out of <em>no</em>-<em>thing</em>-<em>ness,</em> where one perspective doesn't overpower the other. Hey, count me in on that ride, where do I get my ticket ?!<br>

<em>Identity of viewer defines identity of photo</em>."</p>

 

[jtk]

<p>Antonio, you don't seem to be engaged with your own topic.</p>

<p>Yes, civilizations allow bureaucrats to do their categorizations. That seems obvious.</p>

<p>Many civilizations require large numbers of people to live their lives in prisons. But that doesn't say civilizations categorize any more than civilizations are prisons: only a subset of the citizens are hard-wired in those ways.</p>

<p>The paid work of bureaucrats seems to me to be categorization. Plenty of day-job bureaucrats enjoy non-categorization in their off-hours :-)</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>John, nobody will deny that bureaucrats categorize, as you have mentioned several times now, but they are really only a small part of the sample. Approaches in photography (categorized by styles, mannerisms, movements, techniques, subject matter preferences, predominant repeated themes, and so one) come under that very wide range of human categorization.</p>

<p>I think we were discussing categorization in the sense that a photographer can (not must) be known by his affiliation with one or more of these categories. We sometimes identify a categorized aopproach as much as identifying an individual 's distinctiveness. As creators of images we do not always like to recognize this reality or fact, but it can well serve as a good step to better defining a hopefully original approach or result (which isn't like____).</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>What Antonio and I, and you Arthur, were discussing didn't have much to do with categorization except as a side issue. Antonio emphasized the unimportance of categorization in a post subsequent to his OP as well. We were discussing how the body of work of a photographer affects/influences/changes particular photos of that photographer that we might view. The significant issues here, for me and I suspect Antonio, are context and how the photographer's voice influences what the viewer sees. Categorization/Non-Categorization is another "versus" issue. "Versus" issues seem to command a lot of attention, even when they come up as secondary matters or even asides in what someone has said.</p>

<p>Antonio did frame this by using "street" and talking at least to some extent about categorization but, from reading his post and the title of the thread I took the intent of his post to be about how we might view different elements and subjects dealt with by a photographer when we see the bigger picture, the development of that photographer's body of work as a whole. I hope Antonio doesn't mind my saying that his OP was not absolutely clear (I read some doubt), which I took as genuine and a good thing because it told me he was curious and asking questions. My Market Street photo is only one example. Other examples would show different things. Some would probably bolster an argument that body of work has great influence on the identity of a given photo (identity not in terms of category but in terms of substance). Some might likely show that an individual photo may be stronger than a body of work and possibly maintain its identity whether a viewer knew other works by the same photographer or not. Most would probably fall in the gray area in the middle, and a photographic discussion on elements and usage and repetition within one's work starts to shed light on that gray area.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Arthur, well put. </p>

<p>(note that if some people see things your way, it does not mean "we" see them that way...this Forum has no rating system, with which to categorize posts)</p>

<p>It happens that I find that <strong>"categorized approach"</strong> you mentioned to be antagonistic to the sort of things other people refer to as "new," "surprising". <strong>Categories aren't good at "a-ha."</strong></p>

<p>For example: many wonderful visual insights are lost in the "Street Forum" category, misrepresented by association and lacking a better home. I posted something related to "commitment", here in POP, and the Moderators, who saw that although Brad was mentioned, I wasn't talking about "street"... . They dumped it into "Casual," where it will vanish. That was a dumbing down process, not because the Mods like dumbth but because <strong>categorization consists of destruction of possibility</strong>. It's mashed potatoes Vs nervous tension or doubt. I'm not unhappy about that episode...it illustrates my point :-)</p>

<p>You mentioned <strong>"distinctive."</strong> The word often refers to "remarkably appealing"Americas' and much less often refers to work that's challenging , especially if uncategorized.<strong> </strong><strong>A person who aspires to high P.N ratings does NOT want to be "distinctive," he wants popular acclaim </strong>(if he did not prioritze popular acclaim he would not expose himself to mob ratings).</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, "identity" <strong>is</strong> categorization. "I am" = identity = category.</p>

<p>The ego does not have to be central, and I'm well aware that you know when to use it well and when to ignore it.</p>

<p> "Street" is categorization. </p>

<p>I don't think either category/concept would have been introduced if they were not at the heart of Antonio's OT.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I was just reading an interview with Booker prize winner Hilary Mantel in Intelligent Life - she's talking about the ups and especially the downsides of awards, and she touches upon categorisation:-</p>

<p>"Amazon itself - with its rating system, its sale charts, its reader reviews - feels like a part of that prize industry, part of the process of constantly ranking and categorising authors, and ranking and categorising them in the most public way. To survive the scrutiny you must understand that... prizes are not, or not necessarily a judgement on the literary merit of your work."</p>

<p>and so on. I thought it was insightful. Yes, categorisation by observers is probably inevitable. But it's a simplification, I think essentially anti-creative, a way of people coping with things that they may not quite have time or the urge to fully understand. Of course it will happen anyway, but I think it is a real compliment when someone says that an image transcends a category.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, it's a case where the (possibly sloppy) use of a particular word becomes a distraction from the point and spirit of the post. I didn't take Antonio to be saying something about identity in a strict sense, though he used the word. Reading over his post, I think he was after something closer to what I've described: "[H]ow the body of work of a photographer affects/influences/changes particular photos of that photographer that we might view. The significant issues here, for me and I suspect Antonio, are context and how the photographer's voice influences what the viewer sees." Obviously, others think Antonio had something else in mind or wanted to go elsewhere with it.</p>

<p>And, it's probably already obvious, I agree with you about the downside of categorization.</p>

[jtk]

<p>The words to which I'm responding are "defines," "identity," and "categorize." </p>

<p>I don't think Antonio is at all "sloppy," I think he uses the exactly correct words to express his ideas. He selects them to express his "voice" ... his "voice" consists of them and, on P.N, his photographs. See "Against Interpretation"</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>[Original post self deleted here.] Never mind. I don't want to sidetrack the thread. I'll wait to see if Antonio has more to say on the part of the topic that interests me. I shouldn't be getting in the way of this other discussion about categories and identity.</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p><strong>Fred</strong><br>

Your 7:31 is exactly right, the point I wanted to discuss about is how <em>the photographer's voice influences what the viewer sees</em>, as you said better. I got a little bored when the topic started to get so "strict" with certain concepts or words. I have to write in a language that is not mine and it would take me a whole day to express the exact idea with the exact right words... as we keep going in the conversation, usually you guys help me define better the idea I had in mind. As far as categorization, it is an interesting subject also and John seems to be very passionate about it and I will try to confront him.<br>

<strong>John</strong><br>

My portfolio is organized in categories. Would you say that my photos are also following some sort of categorization or not? Don't mind the arrangement I gave to the portfolio, I'm talking about if you see a specific "style" that appear on all of them or not. I'm asking here.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Antonio's request reminds me of another example in regard to his OP. Did anyone have any thoughts on the identification relation in regard to my November 3rd posting (re PN member Rick Langer, who I know not, but whose portrait portfolio I have looked at and thought to be relevant to our discussion). </p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p><strong>Fred</strong><br>

I have looked at my photos thoroughly but I found none that could be taken as an example for this discussion topic. I don't think I am quite ready for that, maybe in the future... You got exactly my point and I'm happy that you seem to be sympathetic with it. When you say</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Obviously, others think Antonio had something else in mind or wanted to go elsewhere with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm curious about that "elsewhere", what's in your mind? Or what did you think was in other people's mind in regard to my OP?<br>

You know, I haven't seen many photographers with such a powerful imprint such as yours.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Antonio, <a href="../photo/11647950">THIS PHOTO</a> of yours stands out to me and I see it relating to the thread. Providing the context with your title, Siena's Palio (the only time I was there I missed it by one week!), has an effect on how I see the photo. Obviously, without knowing anything about you or the circumstances of the photograph, I see movement. It feels celebratory and the eyes of the guy in the background are a major intrigue for me. Learning that it's from Palio, the movement starts to echo the movement of horses and I can tie in your own excitement at having been there and the influence you were likely under. I don't say you did any of this consciously, but a connectedness takes shape between you, your work, the situation you were in, and me as the viewer.</p>

<p>It's not quite the same phenomenon you were referencing in my photo, but I think it's related. I looked one way before noticing the title and that shifted and you became more a part of the photo when I learned the title. It became a little more <em>your</em> photo, for me.</p>

<p>For me this is (at least partially) about how a photo performs. That depends on context, body of work, photographer, viewer's mood and experience, information about it, how it hangs on a wall or presents itself on a monitor, etc.</p>

<p>As for what others have in mind here, I'll let that go at this point and prefer to listen to them speak for themselves.</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p><strong>Fred</strong><br>

It's not quite the same thing that's happening with your photo. Actually - and I am totally honest here and not pretentious at all - my intention was to describe exactly what you felt and described by saying</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the movement starts to echo the movement of horses and I can tie in your own excitement at having been there and the influence you were likely under</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only thing I didn't plan for are the eyes in the background. So, the viewer (you) sees exactly what I was trying to describe. I wonder if a different viewer that doesn't know the Palio would see something completely different. Those eyes caused me some trouble though: initially, I omitted the title in this photograph, because I didn't care to reveal the situation and leave it to the viewer to think whatever. The eyes created a very interesting and intriguing <em>punctum</em> that invited me to omit any type of title. So, with the title, the photo is for me a success because it describes what I want the viewer to feel (at least those viewers that know about the Palio). On the other hand, the shot is more intriguing if I give power to those eyes by omitting the title.<br>

Interesting dilemma.</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong> </strong></p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p> </p>