Almost Cinematic...

[fi_rondo1]

<p>I said "almost"...</p>

<p>Open question: Winogrand claimed that there is no narrative in still photography. He pointed at his picture of a guy putting a ten gallon hat on a little kid. <em>Is he taking it off her head? Putting it on her head? Where are they? What are the circumstances? </em>He also reduced photography to "light on surface..." I wouldn't go that far, but I'm inclined to agree with him when it comes to narrative. Oftentimes you'll hear photographers (and more often critics) speak of narrative. What do you (they) really mean by narrative?</p>

<div></div>

[Brad_]

Totally agree with GW. <P>

 

For me it's some photos having the potential or ability to <i>release narrative</i> in the the viewer's

mind.<P>

 

<center><img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images52/StreetDrama2.jpg"> </center>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Is he taking it off her head? Putting it on her head? Where are they? What are the circumstances?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me that <em>is</em> the narrative. The best narratives begin open-ended, not as closed down facts.</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>I've always felt that 'narrative' is a latent quality and is wholly dependent on the viewer, and the baggage they bring to bear in the moment of viewing.</p>

<p>"Almost cinematic" ? - yes.</p>

<p>Cinema on film @ 24fps leaves a lot of gaps we need to 'fill in' to get the picture that tells the story. In a still image we need to do the same, also filling the gaps, but in that one frame, to 'get' (or rather 'make up') whatever story we're content with.</p>

<p><img src="http://multimedia.streamlinenettrial.co.uk/Assorted_Images/ptugl.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="561" /></p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Is he taking it off her head? Putting it on her head? Where are they? What are the circumstances?</em><br /> To me that <em>is</em> the narrative. The best narratives begin open-ended, not as closed down facts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That being said, photographs are strictly visual and a visual narrative as the one Winogrand seems to be talking about implies linearity, sequence.<br /> In that way still photographs indeed don't show narrative like a film, even one without sound and dialogue, might show, does show.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>Open question: Winogrand claimed that there is no narrative in still photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and yet, so many of his have</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I've always felt that 'narrative' is a latent quality and is wholly dependent on the viewer, and the

baggage they bring to bear in the moment of viewing.

 

Very well said.

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>...it's all in the mind</p>

</blockquote>

<p>George Harrison</p>

[lachaine]

<p>To me, narrative in still photography means that there are enough elements in the frame to allow the viewer to see or guess how the main subject got to be where it is, or why it's there or acting the way it was caught acting. I think that using a wide angle lens is more likely to povide such a "narrative".</p>

<p>On the other hand, correct me if I'm wrong, but the term "cinematic" has nothing to do with this.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>I think a certain quality (if that's the right word) of cinematography, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise_en_sc%C3%A8ne">mise-en-scène</a>, has certain parallels to photographic composition. It refers to the scene-- everything presented in the frame that tells the story.</p>

<p>This stuff is so slippery to describe, maybe cinematic is as good a word as any.</p>

[saintelmo21]

<p>Well said, John. And, great photo Fi Rondo....I can't answer your question because I have absolutely no idea what 'they' mean...but, like um, what-his-name said, "f8 and be there". I was 'there' when suddenly this huge truck ran off the road right in front of me, narrowly missing the shaggy gentleman pictured, before crashing through the steel railings and plunging into the nearby river. While on-lookers gawped, I was a man of action, on the street scene, getting the shot...and that, ladies and gents, is what SP is all about.</p><div></div>

[ray .]

I think that may be a case of your knowing the situation, then thinking that meaning is transparent to the

viewer, E. Short. It's a very common thing to watch out for. That truck looks parked as much as

anything to me.... Or maybe you're being facetious?

[ray .]

I don't know if Winogrand said in that statement, that a photograph may <i>suggest</i> a narrative, but

that might be the way I would put it.

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Yes, if you are talking about street photography...Brad's shot is a good example imo.</p>

<p>No, if you are talking about PJ photography...like E's shot is a good example that needed text to tell what's happening or happened...</p>

<p>So, it depends on what you are referring to, Fi. Stand alone shots street shot or a PJ (or doc.) story. That's also the reason doc. essays usually contain at least a few shots to as many as 20 shots...to give an understanding of narrative, or POV. Damon's explanation of mise-en-scene is right on...usually done with a wide angle lens as commented by Pierre.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>So Ray agrees with me of E's photo. The truck looked parked to me also...Needs a caption...</p>

[ray .]

Fi, why don't you find the entire original quote? I don't recall him saying specifically "There is no narrative

in still photography". Maybe something close- but I believe he put it a different way.

[Brad_]

"I think that there isn’t a photograph in the world that has any narrative ability. Any of ‘em. They do not tell

stories - they show you what something looks like. To a camera."<P>

 

<a href= "

a link</a>

[ray .]

OK, he's right, but then again, in the strict sense, a movie doesn't tell a story either. It only shows a

series of events (unless there's narration voice over explaining it for you). It's up to the viewer to interpret what the

story was exactly, or what it meant. A still photograph doesn't go as far; it's just a start, but it could conjure a

narrative in the viewer's mind.

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Furthermore, a film/movie has many tools...voice over, music, sound, noise, visuals, text over or even multi narratives (<strong>Rashomon</strong>), nonlinear narrartives (<strong>Memento</strong>) or even reverse narratives <em>(</em><strong>Irreversible</strong><em>).</em></p>

<p>Still photography is tougher, that's why an essay are preferred by PJ/editor...Stand alone pics have a lot to do with one's own interpretation, shooters and viewers likewise... <em><br /></em></p>

<p><em><br /></em></p>

[ray .]

Movies don't have to do with one's own interpretation? I think we're talking in relative terms here..

[leslie_cheung]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Movies don't have to do with one's own interpretation?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ahhhhh, Ray, you should check out Nolan's <strong>Inception</strong>... </p>

 

 

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>I think we're talking in relative terms here</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you've got it! Taking a quote literally doesn't mean that it was meant that way to begin with. Frankly I don't know if he meant it literally but I for one wouldn´t project too much into it.</p>

<p>Ray, you´ve used the word facetious above. Suppose Winogrand was just being that, we´ve no way of telling. Personally I would rate this quote along the same lines as those of photographers who keep telling us that technique isn´t important at all. It´s an easy thing to say when you´re so obvious exceptionally good at it yourself.</p>

<p>Let me give you all another quote to chew on,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know<br>

<em><strong>Diane Arbus</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

[AJHingel]

<p>If the whole narrative their is to find in a photo is as mentioned "<em>Is he taking it off her head? Putting it on her head? Where are they? What are the circumstances?" </em><strong>Who cares ?</strong> If that is all it would be better to tell it in words, still keeping the question open.<br /> No, photography brings more to the viewer than just telling stories to invent or detect. <a href="http://www.lyseo.edu.ouka.fi/kuvataide/albums/album02/winogrand.jpg">This of Winogrand </a> is a scene of movements, tensions, social relations, closeness and distances and does not need any reading about "him" or "her" and what they did before or afterwards. You can use a photo for such narratives, but photography brings more and much deeper messages to the viewer. All is in the moment. <br /> Below a modest contribution in the same line of thinking.</p><div></div>

[johncrosley]

<p>The more I know about Winogrand, the more I respect his intellect and his skills, even if I have not learned to love his photography.</p>

<p>There often is so much truth in what he said and did, he obviously devoted considerable, higher thought to the idea and process of photography.</p>

<p>He is often quoted (here in paraphrase): I take photographs to see what things will look like when they are photographed. Sounds inane somewhat on first hearing, but the more you explore that statement, the more truth unfolds from it.</p>

<p>He often didn't review his captures for weeks, months, years and eventually his lifetime. </p>

<p>Some have cattily said he deteriorated with his skills in his final years in Los Angeles, but there also is truth to viewing old captures with a fresh eye. </p>

<p>I've been doing that for several months and some of my most wonderful posts have been from things I passed over three, four, or five years ago, but now can see sometimes as 'wonderful'. Viewers also seem to like many of them, as well as critics.</p>

<p>Long ago, I was horrified that others looked at my photographs -- real honest to gosh worldwide experts in the field -- and they said to each other about my street work 'look, each one tells a story' as if it were just 'obvious'. I began to feel like I'd looked in the mirror and found Aesop much to my surprise. </p>

<p>How'd they know what I didn't?</p>

<p>That was news to me. I thought I just captured instances; glimpses and moments often arranged in compositions, yet somehow I was heralded as a 'story teller'. They saw more than I saw, and in retrospect they were right and I was right too.</p>

<p>I was not necessarily an intentional 'story teller' but others saw stories in what I photographed. Later, I learned intentionality a little more . . . . . and it's now sometimes more studied than inchoate, but only sometimes. </p>

<p>Winogrand, was nothing if not a very smart and gifted verbal communicator as well as a gifted photographer, and like those who became attorneys, I would bet for his statement quoted above disfavoring photos as narratives, he easily could have argued the other side of the statement with equal skill.</p>

<p>Wanna bet?</p>

<p>john<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Ton, In regard to Winogrand... if you follow your Brad's link you'll hear him in his own words. I've watched his interviews a bunch of times and he's pretty clear on what he means (from around 1:25 through 2:50). I like his interviews because he's very frank about photography and doesn't have any patience with what he considers pretentious cant.</p>

<p>I just noticed that the link Brad posted was deleted (What's the photo.net policy on using links?) If you want, go to YouTube and search for Garry Winogrand - Part 1</p>

<p>Another quote:<br>

"As far as I can tell, a photograph can describe a situation but only in the context of the picture itself. Everything else depends on your own associations, prejudices, and your astrological rising sign. "</p>

<p>I used the word cinematic</p>

<p> </p>