Exaggeration and Authenticity

[jtk]

<p>The perception of "exaggeration" is up to the viewer, not the photographer.</p>

<p>But some photographers do intentionally try to exaggerate by relying on visual symbols, such as of wisdom (geezers with beards), certain eye expressions, or the standard artifices of psychic suffering (eg knit brow).... but those symbols can wear out quickly, becoming boring. You probably know people who look upward, maybe stroking their chins, when they want you to believe they're thinking :-)</p>

<p>Commitment to one central subject becomes a type of exaggeration ...even if shots are not heavily tweaked by the camera (are RAW, not JPEG), even if white balance is "correct" and little is worked over in Photoshop. Exaggeration isn't good or bad of itself, and isn't necessarily seen as exaggeration by the viewer. The photographer's intentions may be irrelevant.</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p>Exaggeration is like an extension of the taxonomy of form/concept. That does not necessarily have to be the visual thing exaggerated, but something else. It is something most photographers do often at some level. It can, but does not have to be subtle or authentic (although it has a point of departure). It can be from almost undetectable to a surr-or-hyper real over the top thing (visions of Jackalope postcard pics come to mind). `</p>

<p>[in Arthur's floating chairs, it is their decontextualization that liberates their form in my mind.] </p>

<p><strong>Fred - "...</strong>if there's something comparable in non-portrait, non-human or animal work to exaggerated gesture or pose, more expressive than compositional."</p>

<p>I'd say everything photographic within our reach can be used to exaggerate (or de-emphasize) almost anything we see or think. A lot of viewers familiar with exaggeration of the hyperbolic kind, tend to see it as more humorous than deception or puffery. <br>

Exaggeration at the viewer's end is a kind of artful deviation, or detour from the expected. In a way, it gives the viewer new/multiple meaning(s), and the chance to encounter/play in that conceptual space. How these things wander from expectation can be expressed in a gradient. At the lower end would be excessive meeting of expectation, things like alliteration and rhyme (and no, this is not a judgment of any of it). At the other end would be things like metaphors, puns, and hyperboles.<br>

Exaggeration can create multiple covalent meanings, but when it becomes hyperbolic, or literally impossible, it displaces the viewer's normal connections, forcing (many of) them to consider adjustments towards a new more plausible meaning or reconciling of incongruities. I think the need for this conciliation (read as increased involvement in processing the image) is often greater than the potential for disbelief -- up to a point, and that point is pretty far out.</p>

<p>I believe there may be genetic components to exaggeration. A distant example: Seagull chicks instinctively peck at a red spot on their mothers' beak to elicit feeding. They will also peck at a piece of wood with a red dot on it. The truly interesting part, and germane to the idea of exaggeration and hyperbole, is that they will by far peck the most at a stick with <em>three red stripes,</em>which looks nothing like the mother's beak, and nothing like they would encounter in nature. We are predisposed to exaggeration.</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Luis's notion that exaggeration is in some way equivalent to the programmed behavior of birds is fun. Take it a step further...think about our genetic predosposition to drug addiction (built-in sensors that prefer cocaine to our own chemistry). Fun indeed.</p>

<p>Perhaps the same argument could be made for our vulnurability to petting. If we get high ratings on some photo ratings system we tend to do more of whatever it was, especially if we get those ratings occasionally rather than always (rat-running research has long known that).</p>

<p>Or maybe we, as humans, are more stupid than rats: If we find something that gets us praise, maybe we just keep doing it, over and over. Does HDR work that way? Often, yes. The snobs who don't give it high ratings only make us think of ourselves as a heroic minority, like Tea Party enthusiasts.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Luis, I think that there is a fundamental difference between emphasis and exaggeration. The first, it seems to me, will appear to remain properties or emanations from that the thing that is emphasized. The second, requires the explicit (in the mind of those who are recognizing/receiving "exaggeration") presence of an exaggerator. It brings the maker into the mind of the viewer (see our previous discussions about whether/when the performer/instrument should/could/does disappear). It moves the picture from being a picture/viewer interplay to being, explicitly, a maker/viewer interplay with the picture's content becoming subordinate.</p>

<p>Further, within exaggeration, I see a profound difference between the exaggeration of the con man and the exaggeration of the artist. The con man (advertising executive, etc.) tries to minimize one's awareness of the exaggerator, to stay hidden (in an odd way, he makes the exaggeration seem to come from originate in the viewer). He intends not so much to exaggerate as to direct and distort; he hopes for a closed or narrowed conception; a directed path to a finite manipulated end.</p>

<p>The artist can play with the con man's methods but I think the artist will always, in the end, be at one further remove. He uses exaggeration, not to an end, but to try to widen, open, expand what is included; to "portray" the non-visual qualities of his experience by means of the visual. He explicitly shows the puppeteer (himself); he tries to show the (full) experience *of* the puppeteer -- not to close or narrow or force some conclusion or direction, but to open, include, expand his represention of an experience. His exaggeration will be very unresolved; the con man's will be very resolved.</p>

<p>I don't think we're so much predisposed to exaggeration as we are predisposed to try and try and try for fuller communication. We exaggerate the hot spots, the triggers, the fixed action patterns such as the birds' ... as means, tools, access points but that use doesn't limit or define what we use them for.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Julie - "</strong>I see a profound difference between the exaggeration of the con man and the exaggeration of the artist. The con man (advertising executive, etc.) tries to minimize one's awareness of the exaggerator, to stay hidden (in an odd way, he makes the exaggeration seem to come from originate in the viewer)."</p>

<p>I used to work for local ad agencies. I don't know where you get the above idea, but decades back, even small-time AD's and AE's used to sit in their offices openly discussing <em>augmenting </em>the awareness of the exaggerator, because in reality, it tends to increase sales/product affiliation when overt. When slight/covert, it's perceived as deception. I've known cons (of the criminal kind) and hundreds of artists, and in my experience, there's not a clear line of demarcation between them.</p>

<p>One recent example: A Chevy truck ad with the truck impossibly <em>atop a lighthouse</em>, rotating, playing the role of the lamp. The text says something about how the truck's lights can illuminate any darkness. No, they're not trying to hide anything. They're well-aware that you <em>know it's a tall tale, and that you get the hyperbole.</em></p>

<p><strong>Julie - "</strong>He intends not so much to exaggerate as to direct and distort; he hopes for a closed or narrowed conception; a directed path to a finite manipulated end."</p>

<p>So do many, but not all, artists, conceptually and materially. And for both, sales is definitely a part of it, though in the admen case it's a conduit to a sale, for the artist, brand, pitch & product rolled into one. You're also saying that advertising is monosemic, and art is polysemic, which I agree with for the most part, though many ad agencies have produced ads that were polysemic, and about much more than the sale.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>If I up the saturation or use HDR to create "eye candy" to "sell" the viewer to buy my picture or give me the plaudits and awards my egos craves, is that not a "con"? Authenticity starts from within. I believe we all want to be whole but our ego gets in the way. It's very difficult to set it aside and be honest and trust that it's OK not to embellish.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Exaggeration -- like blur, perspective, and gesture -- is a tool. In itself, it's both and neither a con nor a more lofty romance. That will be a matter simply of how the perpetrator and the recipient deal with it. I had a piano teacher who used to achieve an incredibly lush and smooth legato. He used to like to use cynicism to think and teach about music. So he talked about legato as faking out the piano and the listener, making this percussive instrument sing, impersonating a violin. I'm sure other musicians see the piano's legato as their hands brushing up against a Godlike truth.</p>

<p>The <em>use</em> of tools and how we think about those tools are two different things.</p>

<p>It's not that photography is either a con or a step beyond the con, it's just what we find ourselves, allow ourselves, and convince ourselves to think at any given time. More and more, I'm finding a fluidity among all these different views. So, in the same photographic move, I can experience the con and the genuineness, the resolve and the lack of resolve. For me, it's in playing with that tension that a lot of the energy of my work lies. I like swinging on that pendulum. I'm not looking to get off that ride by becoming the best liar I can be OR the most mushy truth-teller I can be.</p>

<p>There are degrees of exaggeration. Some exaggeration will not be picked up by the viewer. Some will. I have exaggerated light that I really don't think will be perceived as an exaggeration and that's not what I'm looking for. It will just have impact. It will be seen.</p>

<p>Using Arthur's pool photo as an example. He exaggerated certain things that I may not be aware of. So, I don't see them as exaggerated. But I see them, to at least some extent, as I do, because he exaggerated them.</p>

<p>Actors playing to huge halls may exaggerate to have the same effect as what they do in a more understated way in a more intimate theater. That's not because they want people to see the strings being pulled. It's not because they want their intent to be transparent. It's because they want their gestures to read in the bigger hall.</p>

<p>Then there is the exaggeration that I (or an actor, or dancer, or musician, or guy having an argument with his girlfriend) very well may want the viewer to see as exaggeration. In those cases, I do want to wear my intent on my sleeve. Instead of the viewer just experiencing a pose, I may want to try to get the viewer to actually think about the pose, even to think about the obviousness of some poses and how that obviousness can affect how they see and feel.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, I meant to thank you for providing some specific ways in which you utilize exaggeration in your own photos. That is helpful to hear.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, I enjoy your recent comments and am glad that my few (too few) examples of exaggeration are useful to the discussion. Perhaps, as Luis says, the pool image is more of a decontextualisation of both the chair and the shadows than an exaggeration in the sense we normally think of that phenomenon. There is room between decontextualisation and exaggeration and sometimes the line is not too distinct. Often a decontextualised object leads to some surrealistic or enigmatic effect that in itself is not necessarily an exaggeration. I didn't notice the delinking of the shadows from the chair initially, but simply the enigma of the floating chairs and shadows and their unusual interrelationship, quickly resolved by the evident background or milieu of pool water. When we decontextualise something we may or may not be portraying some sort of exaggeration, as for example the presence of an executive of some factory in business suit dusting off some equipment or with a floor mop in hand. First and foremost a decontextualisation or social comment I guess, and then an exaggeration of his normal function. The two can meet together, but often one predominates. I guess that the pool chairs are more a decontexturalisation, as I think you and Luis observe. Or perhaps some form of accidental surrealism.</p>

<p>I am a bit at a loss in terms of citing more profound exaggeration in scenics (urban or rural) than the dark skies, light effects, blur, exaggerated or unnatural tones, compositional disequilibrium or other techniques. I guess the content itself can be exaggerated but the question comes down to what is the purpose or intended effect of the exaggeration? Is it just to deny some authenticity or is it more than that, to communicate something in the subject matter that is not usually perceived, or some aspect that flies in the face of a normal perception of te subject by the viewer?</p>

<p>Still life and portraits are perhaps good ground for exaggeration. It may be in the subject (like the discussion last year of the photographer who seeks those with faces of prominent aspects (paleness, prominent foreheads, or long necks or whatever) but then it is the subject and not the photographer that delivers the apparent exaggeration. Still lifes are fun because we can insert incongruent elements or exaggerated elements as part of the scene, whereby, for instance, a still life of fresh food contains either overfresh appearance, or alternatively (conversely), elements of decay. A friend who works as an artist in Tallinn, Estonia, has made some very large closely framed images of single fruit that first amaze one by their hyperrealism and look appealing, until the viewer discovers a small area with either a worm engage in eating the skin or a mark of obvious decay. Exaggeration or decontextualisation or something else?</p>

<p>I am blown away in reading, viewing the work of a French medical doctor turned professional photographer, Philippe Bazin, and his portraits of institutionalised patients, mostly those near death (from babies to octagenarians and older). He exaggerates the normal spatial relationship by photographing very very close to his subjects, almost body to body (this comes from his former medical practice and proximity in care giving to his patients). The face almost and often spills out of the frame and he uses simple techniques (although he studied photography and fine arts when he made the switch) of a small 35mm Olympus camera, technical pan (B&W) and flash and eliminated the background completely (out of choice). These "exaggerated close up facial views expose all the aspects of the face of the person and expression and are blown up to quite large prints. In one way it is exaggeration, in another it is authenticity - a complete bonding with his subjects and nothing held back. Also it is a decontextualisation of the normal relationship between humans that is interwoven by a "polite" space (my term).</p>

<p>I will try to find a site of his work. The importance of what he did (he has turned his approach in other directions, as a normal evolution, and since Tech Pan became a historical film (he found no other with that quality), and teaches photography to support his work, which is rarely by contract and mainly by personal objectives) found seed in his work as a doctor in institutions of the ill and dying and his observation that in some cases nothing visual remained of the person after death. A very inspiring individual.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>[somehow I knew this guy had a (very) "little button"]</p>

<p>[that he likes to "press and magic happens"]</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>(And that guy might have been George Eastman, or any of our companion obsessional shutterbugs since George and his mom hatched the word kodak - shutterclack) </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>What if authenticity is an exaggeration itself ?<br>

<a href="http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/02/peter-beste-true-norwegian-black-metal.html">http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/02/peter-beste-true-norwegian-black-metal.html</a></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, thank you. It often is.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Re: Phylo's point. Just last night, I was thinking about some drag queens I know.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Phylo, to the black metal exaggerated authenticity, one might add much of the world's photojournalism, notably that communicated by TV. At least non-documentary photography normally uses exaggeration as an artistic / symbolic expression.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Arthur yes, but, there's a difference between an exaggerated authenticity and an authenticity which is an exaggeration by itself, in which case the photographer records something authentic while still getting a photograph of some sorts of exaggeration, intentionally or not.<br>

Remember this one<br>

http://www.slate.com/id/2149675/<br>

The exaggeration in it may be precisily that it is an 'under-exaggeration' ( the seeming calmness ), but still one that's photographically authentic.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes, Phylo, that's why I mentioned drag queens. It's on my mind because a drag queen friend has asked me to photograph her. She is very authentic, and exaggerated.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Just thinking out loud here. It strikes me that when exaggerated things are photographed, this may be when there can develop a tendency to "exploit" that. So, with my friend the drag queen (really more of an acquaintance), we've talked a bit about what we're going for and both don't want to duplicate the myriad images of drag queens we see. For me, this means finding personhood even though the facade may seem somewhat exaggerated. It also means not seeing my subject as an anomaly or caricature, which is the case with so much work I see in the community. I may be curious, and I'm glad I am, but my friend is not a curiosity. Sure, there are ways to even exaggerate the exaggerations, which are often done, and I might be able to work with some of that, but part of the challenge for both of us is to remain authentic and not fall into the expected traps. Maybe it's just a matter of avoiding cilchés, I don't know. Honestly, this is not much different from some of the challenges I feel going into a lot of shoots I do, except for this twist of exaggeration. And this wasn't on my mind when I started the thread. The thread has brought some of these thoughts to the surface. I have a much closer, very overweight friend who I've been wanting to photograph as well. I think some of the same issues will arise. I understand that "extreme" is different from "exaggerated" but they are related.</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Phylo, what do you mean by "authentic?" </strong><br>

I think the word's most common usage has to do with "unforced-looking" or "natural-seeming"</p>

<p><strong>Is that your understanding?</strong> </p>

<p>If so, the "looking" "seeming" could well be the result of skilled artifice...a certain kind of skill in posing a subject . Do you recognize that possibility, or must "authentic" mean "candid?"</p>

<p>Does any Karsh portrait seem "authentic?" What about paintings by Norman Rockwell or by Picasso." If they're not "authentic" does "authenticity" have value beyond art-chatter? </p>

<p>fyi I think "authenticity" does have great value, and I think it's hard to achieve in photography...instead, the norm seems "believability." <strong>That suggests the norm allows political propaganda to be "authentic." </strong></p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>John, you raises a very good issue in regard to beievability and authenticity, and the occurence of the former in propaganda. I may have screwed up the title, but there was an excellent series on Canadian TV recently, initially on French language public television (SRC) and then on its English language counterpart (CBC). called "Love, Hate and Propaganda". Much of the WW2 period propaganda became believable in the eyes of the various receivers, whether in Germany, Italy, Russia, North America or England. In many cases the believability had little to do with authenticity (Geman pronouncements about how Jews in Poland were victimising the local people including German ex pats, or the continued announcements of "successful" advances of troops on Russia, or English pronouncements of the "success" of the disastrous early landings in northern France, and so on). Exaggerations were an intimate part of propaganda.</p>

<p>Believability claims in photography may often send up warning signals, especially if the photograph is documentary and purports to represent the authenticity of a situation. Less menacing and often pleasingly successful are exaggerations in art photography.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Phylo, what do you mean by "authentic?" <br />I think the word's most common usage has to do with "unforced-looking" or "natural-seeming"<br /> Is that your understanding?<br /> If so, the "looking" "seeming" could well be the result of skilled artifice...a certain kind of skill in posing a subject . Do you recognize that possibility, or must "authentic" mean "candid?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't have to mean candid to me. It can just as well be posed, or forced, whether or not there's authenticity depends on the context. Like in Fred's drag queen example, or the black metal portraits in my link, all authentic, even in their deliberate exaggeration and posing ( by the photographers choice of presenting the subject and by the subject's way/choice of presenting ).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>fyi I think "authenticity" does have great value, and I think it's hard to achieve in photography...instead, the norm seems "believability." <strong>That suggests the norm allows political propaganda to be "authentic."</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which is basically saying that believability allows political propaganda to be believable, which yes, seems... believable.</p>

<p>Either way, I think authenticity<>exaggeration, or lack thereof, is context dependent and not only being fiction or non fiction dependent.<br /> -------<br /> <em>There are deeper strata of truth in cinema, and there is such a thing as poetic, ecstatic truth. It is mysterious and elusive, and can be reached only through fabrication and imagination and stylization. -Werner Herzog</em></p>

[Julie H]

<p>Why there is no such thing as an "authentic" exaggeration:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Every justified exaggeration is no longer an exaggeration"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And yet, exaggeration is essential to philosophy because:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>" ... thinking is essentially bound up with attempts to go beyond the limits of the thinkable."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The first quote is from Alexander Garcia Duttmann; the second is talking about him. Source (that nobody will look at) can be <a href="http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=12404">found here</a>; a kind of lame review of Duttman's book about exaggeration in philosophy.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>I understand Phylo's point from a boots-on-ground perspective, specially in a De Bordian society (like ours).</p>

<p>I understand Julie's basic point, because authenticity can be emphasized, but once exaggerated, becomes inauthentic (or less so).</p>

<p>But...if "Every justified exaggeration is no longer an exaggeration"</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>Exaggeration can't be essential to philosophy because if it can't be justified, how will it get past PHI 101? :-)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"Every justified exaggeration is no longer an exaggeration"</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>"authenticity can be emphasized, but once exaggerated, becomes inauthentic"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How did "justified" get into the act? I'm not sure anyone -- well, me -- is trying to justify exaggeration any more than I would be interested in justifying blur or the use of an unusual perspective. They do their jobs.</p>

<p>IMO, both Julie's quote and Luis's statement rely on the speaker of these words allowing themselves to get caught up in a circle. It's like telling someone who says "you shouldn't judge people" that they're judging. All of this stuff operates on meta-levels and I avoid the circle of exaggeration becoming not-exaggeration by keeping the levels straight. Just like I can talk about not talking without getting confused.</p>

<p>Exaggerated authenticity is not inauthentic, it's exaggerated authenticity. The two are not opposites. And one doesn't cancel the other out.</p>

<p><em>Exaggerate</em>--to magnify beyond the limits of truth (one definition from dictionary.com)</p>

<p>Since photos aren't limited by truth, authenticity in an exaggerated photograph is possible. And it doesn't disappear the minute it's justified or recognized, if at all.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>By the way, I enjoy the more theoretical aspects of these discussions and am happy to continue in that way and hear what others have to say. I am also interested, as I asked in the OP, in hearing whether and how you use exaggeration in your photos . . . if anyone wants to go there. [Again, thanks to Arthur for putting out there what he has done as a matter of practice.]</p>