Almost Cinematic...

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Anders, you said something that has been left out until now... it's the emotional impact of a photograph that registers... It's like what Hemingway said about the "iceberg" in that if you only see what's on the surface your boat's going down.</p>

<p> </p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>thanks Fi. I already had it on my hard-drive for some time.</p>

<p>I started out by saying that many of his photos have that quality which I think they do (however you may want to define narrative).</p>

<p>What about this then:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Standing alone, photographs promise an understanding they cannot deliver. In the company of words they take on meaning but they slough off one meaning and take on another with alarming ease.</em><br>

<strong>Susan Sontag</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>as opposed to:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>if I could tell the story in words I would not need to lug around a camera</em><br>

<strong>Lewis Hine</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>personally I feel more at ease with this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I do not usually give out advice or recipes but you must let the person looking at the photograph go some of the way to finishing it. You should offer them a seed that will grow and open up their minds</em><br>

<strong>Robert Doisneau</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>and the reason for that is really quite simple. Photography is a two way street. Photographer vs viewer.</p>

<p>However, quotes are for the most part just that. We each have to find a individual approach for ourselves because if nothing else:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>A photographers main instrument is his eyes. Strange as this may seem, many photographers choose to use the eyes of another photographer, past or present, instead of using their own. These photographers are blind.</em><br>

<strong>Manuel Alvarez Bravo</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that about uses up the monthly amount of quotes don't you think ;-)))</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>No additional quotes from me although it is tempting.<br>

I would go for Doisneau's talking about seeds but seeds for not only opening of minds but also eyes. Learning, as photographer, from what other photographers have seen, is essential to us all.<br>

I believe that the central question, which is very difficult to answer and even to discuss, is to which degree a photographer "imposes" a view on the viewer or "only" is the catalyzer of the a free flooding mind of the viewer.<br>

In other words, what is the element of "manipulation" and "partisan" views in a photographer's work? Subversive and critical photography exist and so does docile and complaisant photography.<br>

Photos are never innocent. The eyes of the photographer neither.</p>

[spanky]

<p>I'm of the school of thought that a photograph can be non-Representative. It doesn't have say anything or tell a story for me to enjoy it. Of course this contradicts the theory that photography is a language which I also agree with but that's for another day. I suppose because I like abstract art and many of my friends and acquaintances don't I can enjoy a photograph strictly on it's aesthetic merits, even if it doesn't conform to any traditional concept of "fine art". When one listens to a Mozart symphony, does one wonder what Mozart is trying to say with it? What the conductor or musicians performing the piece are trying to say? No we just enjoy the feelings it arouses in us. Same thing with how I view photographs. Like Fi picture of the man walking in the snow. I like the picture but Fi's explanation of the picture does nothing to change how I experience it. I rather prefer a photograph to have a bit of mystery to it. Not everything needs to be spelled out. Here is a picture of mine which means absolutely nothing. It says nothing about me or about anything in the picture. It's just a picture I took in a parking lot while walking into a restaurant. Feel free to like or dislike it :). Now, I'm off to the darkroom for another marathon printing day!</p><div></div>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>Marc</strong> hope you have got out of the dark by now. I'm with you when you mention your attraction to abstract art. I hope you have an eye on the early abstract painters also and not only those after the 50s and 60s. Abstract photography, must surely also be included.</p>

<p>However when you refer to music I don't follow you. if you listening to Mozart's Requiem I find it important to know what a requiem is and that it is last unfinished composition of Mozart. Just enjoying the feeling is fine of course, but a limited approach to appreciating a work that provide the sound and the words of death and end of life. If you listen to the third symphony of Beethoven, Heroic, it is again very limited just to enjoy the feeling without knowing what the music signifies in terms of admiration for "great men" (Napoleon) etc etc. Music is also words in sound just as much ad photos are also words in images. Feelings are part of it but only parts and never the whole. </p>

<p>Your reference to mystery is a good one, in my eyes. Photos that "spell out" everything (I cannot imagine one). It would be flat and without much interest. Even a photo trying to make me buy toothpaste seems to me to have some mystery involved.</p>

<p> </p>

[clive1]

<p>"<em>it's the emotional impact of a photograph that registers...</em>"<br>

I entirely agree Fi. Which is why "atmosphere," for want of a better word, is such an important element in photography.</p>

<p>Ton, the Manuel Alvarez Bravo quote is undoubtedly the most relevant in this thread. Thanks for that. <strong> </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<a href="http://fotogrotto.wordpress.com/"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2434/3962090660_f75e4c0cca_o.jpg" alt="" /></a></p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>you're welcome Clive</p>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Clive, you're right about atmosphere... It's photography's incidental music.</p>

<p>And, adding Marc and Anders' music metaphor: you don't need to understand music theory in order to understand or appreciate Mozart's Requiem (although it might enhance your understanding of 12-tone)</p>

<p>Ton, you're completely wrong about quotes and quotas. I like having people do my thinking for me and insightful quotes are a great shortcut to wisdom.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Fi, I'm sure you noticed that did not write that you need to know music theory, the historical context of the composition, the composer or even the "story" of the work. You can appreciate music without all that, but having the knowledge adds to appreciation of music in general. For e photography has the same quality.</p>

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Anders I think I misunderstood you correctly.<br>

This reminds me of a poem my friend wrote... he wrote it about a poet we know, but it can easily apply to photographers:</p>

<p> The English Professor, retired and tenured,<br>

Has talent, but where does he hide it?<br>

He knows everything about poetry<br>

Except, of course, how to write it.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Fi, I like your sense of humor</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>But FI, you can surely also "feel" music and photography, too, without being able to produce neither. No poem available.</p>

[ofey_kalakar]

<p>Why worry?</p><div></div>

[anatoly_postilnik]

<p>Photography to me is no different then any other artistic form. Some artists are hooked on delivering a story (take Norman Rockwell) some inject philosophical meaning into simple geometric forms (Malevich, Black Square), some reproduce musical qualities in written text (Thomas Mann, Doktor Faustus). I personally agree with Marc, I am not overly concerned about what the author tries to convey, I may enjoy the picture anyway and give it my own interpretation. Moreover, I've had my excitement about certain pieces of art blown away when I learned what the artists actually meant to say. Some great artists are skillful manipulators of human emotions as they create for leaving. This doesn't necessarily decrease the value of their work, I just prefer not to know about it.</p>

<p>Street photography has an interesting quality that makes it different from most other art forms - you don't always know what you might end up capturing. After cropping and post-processing the result may be totally different then the original intent. To compare with music - if a composer is set to write a requiem it is a slim chance he will end up with a polka. </p>