Exaggeration and Authenticity

aplumpton · March 3, 2011

Fred, as often seen here, the conversation goes in tangents before acknowledging or responding to the principal thrust of a particular post. In real time group discussions, that usually gets sorted out quickly and to the satisfaction of speaker/listener, but more cumbersomely so in a forum discussion not in real time. Nonetheless, I am quite happy to discuss in a sidebar or email what you haven't understood in my preamble to another point, although that will have to wait, as I am off to town for a meeting.

Perhaps you might reflect on your own visual approaches in portraiture and their use of chiaroscuro, mirrors, and perhaps other "film noir" effects (it was the French who observed first the Hollywood movement), which to me are quite evident. I also use those sort of effects, and consider them quite useful to communication. Therefore, that is the desire in my recent posts to concentrate on film noir and exaggeration and to maintain that discussion rather than to easily slip into side discussions. One assumes that each reader will read the whole of a postulate or comment, rather than dissect its suppositions or parts before coming to the point. After all, I think it was also you who first mentioned the intriguing film noir topic in relation to the importance of exaggeration in visual images.

Julie, because a certain movement uses a specific exaggeration (film noir, Dadaism, surrealism, cubism, etc.) does not mean that once seen the exaggeration is cancelled out. I made an analogy to exaggeration being simply another actor in the image. We still recognise and appreciate it and perhaps the other actor has something different to say that would not be there without him/it.

jtk · March 3, 2011

Some here have decided that films noir are "exaggerated."

More exaggerated than, say, Michelangelo's "David," John Ford's "Searchers" or Yousuf Karsch's "Winston Churchill" ?

I may be asking a question for which Fred G previously provided the answer (several posts above). Answer first, then question.

aplumpton · March 3, 2011

As evidenced in this thread, I'm afraid, Some very good posts and new ideas in the philosophy of photography forum get ignored and diverted and the discussion bogged down by the seeming necessity of contributors to continually question secondary aspects of posts rather than the principal ideas contained in them.

In so doing, and I am not entirely innocent in this respect, we put the stamp of our own agenda on the discussion and conveniently skim over the other's ideas. My feeling is that we should come into these discussions with curiosity and the ability to discuss the ideas of others with a more open mind. It should be less a swordfight I think and more a collective brainstorming about things that underly why we photograph and what art means to us.

I am probably not alone in observing lesser participation in this forum and the very few new participants. That may be due to the nature of the forum, but possibly also to the evolution of quality of the OPs and our discussion of them.

While I will continue at times to follow the discussions and perhaps occasionally participate, I believe that the collegiality and openness of the discussions should evolve and thus be able to compete with other avenues we all have for intellectual and artistic stimulation.

Norma Desmond · March 3, 2011

Arthur, a brief reply because I'd rather discuss photography and philosophy than process.

I read everything everyone posts, usually at least twice. I respond to what stimulates or interests me. When I don't respond or pick up on what someone says, it's usually because I have nothing to add or just other things interest me more.

I do often address secondary aspects of posts when they stimulate me or provoke my interest. I find that these so-called secondary issues sometimes have more meat and even more honesty than the primary things we address. It's like accidents or sub-themes in photos, or things in photos that we are not primarily intent on but that nevertheless strike the viewer as consequential. Often, when a viewer brings something like that to my attention, it will have quite an impact on me.

jtk · March 3, 2011

Films noir remain compelling because they are less exaggerated than the stylized mush from which they periodically emerge and return. Bogart & Belmondo...we all know people like them. They may be extreme types, but they are far from exaggerated...just ask around. <a href="http://worldfilm.about.com/od/catherinedeneuve/Catherine_Deneuve.htm"> </a>

Similarly the works of Marlowe and Shakespeare were less exaggerated than the morality play claptrap they terminated. They were closer to what the groundlings recognized...their new lack of exaggeration made them compelling. Do you really think there's no Lady Macbeth in your neighborhood?

As photography closer addresses the way we actually or want to see (e.g. HPR or heavy-on-the-"bokeh") there will always be those who get things backwards, calling the perhaps-uncomfortable thing "exaggerated."

luis_g · March 3, 2011

To a degree, it seems like in this discussion, stylization = exaggeration. Most, but not all exaggeration stylizes, yet much less stylization exaggerates IMO.

Norma Desmond · March 4, 2011

Luis, I don't know what specifically you're thinking about in this discussion, but generally speaking I see a relationship between stylization and some exaggeration but nothing that comes so close to an equivalence. The examples I started out with (and I know we've come a ways since then) were the ones most on my mind, the stage whisper kind of example, or the exaggeration of legato on a piano that's not well adjusted. I can certainly see where a discussion of film noir would head us in the direction of stylization. But the more specific examples of exaggeration (exaggeration for over-emphasis of a particular element in a photo, for instance, as opposed to the whole photo being an exaggeration) don't necessarily seem much like stylization to me.

Doesn't stylization require some kind of repetitiveness over several works? Or, if not, does it require at least a reference to another style already developed over a body or part of a body of work? Certainly, I could see repeated uses of similar types of exaggeration developing into a style. But I'm not sure about stylization referring to more individual or one-off uses of exaggeration. Is style more related to convention than to exaggeration?

luis_g · March 4, 2011

Fred - "Doesn't stylization require some kind of repetitiveness over several works? Or, if not, does it require at least a reference to another style already developed over a body or part of a body of work?"

Exactly. I was referring to the comments re: Film Noir.

jtk · March 4, 2011

Fred, you've found your own answer.

"Exaggeration" has absolutely no meaning in isolation.

I think it was me that first introduced "stylized" (above). "Stylized" indicates work has undeniably been done by a human (nothing in nature is "stylized"), "exaggerated" is usually the value judgement of the individual that uses the term.

Norma Desmond · March 4, 2011

Luis, thanks. Arthur, above, mentioned German Expressionism as the antecedent to noir. I've read that as well and certainly see the connection. At the same time, I've always considered Expressionism a little more about substance and noir a little more about style. And honestly, I don't quite know what I mean by that. Though noir certainly has cynical and sexual emotional underpinnings, I often find it to reside a little more on the surface (as much as I love it). I think I tend to see "style" as something closer to the surface as well. Expressionism always seemed to me more inward, somewhat deeper, a little more gutsy. I'm leaning towards (but far from certain) saying that noir stylized Expressionism in some way.

jtk · March 4, 2011

Look into anything you consider noir-related and you'll find left politics. Noir, both the original American and the French derivatives sprang from Hollywood's left. And it sprang from literature, not film. B. Traven, for example.

It sells noir short to reduce it to visuals, and it's downright odd to pretend that the intensely verbal nature of noir is/was "impressionistic." I think it is and was dead accurate in its intensity, its sparse use of language, and it's affection for tough slang...which accounts for the love some of us have for it.

luis_g · March 4, 2011

This question of exaggeration and style, regarding Film Noir, which has its own subset of Noir genres, is valuable to consider because it raises questions regarding photographic genres as well. For me, a genre is similar to a syndrome, in the sense that it is which is something we recognize from a potential cloud of symptoms.

[For the literalists, no, I am not saying it is a disease]

Noir has its cinematic and literary philogenies. The former clearly comes originally from German Expressionism, the latter from American Detective Fiction. When film budgets returned to higher levels in the 30's is when the German Expressionism, in part, morphed towards Noir. The visual tropes that Fred mentions are widely acknowledged by film historians and critics. After all, film is a visual medium. There's nothing unusual about having visual aspects, and they are well-known.

For example: "Film noir films were marked visually by expressionistic lighting, deep-focus or depth of field camera work, disorienting visual schemes, jarring editing or juxtaposition of elements, ominous shadows, skewed camera angles (usually vertical or diagonal rather than horizontal), circling cigarette smoke, existential sensibilities, and unbalanced or moody compositions. Settings were often interiors with low-key (or single-source) lighting, venetian-blinded windows and rooms, and dark, claustrophobic, gloomy appearances. Exteriors were often urban night scenes with deep shadows, wet asphalt, dark alleyways, rain-slicked or mean streets, flashing neon lights, and low key lighting. Story locations were often in murky and dark streets, dimly-lit and low-rent apartments and hotel rooms of big cities, or abandoned warehouses. [Often-times, war-time scarcities were the reason for the reduced budgets and shadowy, stark sets of B-pictures and film noirs.]"

http://www.filmsite.org/filmnoir.html

Having said all that, are the exaggerations from the er..."normal" simply part of the style? Some Noir films, however, do have outstanding exaggerations even within noir, like Touch of Evil. I guess what I am saying is that perhaps some exaggerations are merely signifiers of style, and in that context, they are renormalized?

Julie H · March 5, 2011

I have a new idea/thought on exaggeration that I have not finished digesting, so it's even more incoherent than usual, but here it is (in a rush):

It seems to me that exaggeration might be a sign-post -- that whatever it is that is exaggerated is being used as, is intended as a "carrier" for something else. It is the artist or writer or speaker investing some thing with meaning that is not inherent in that thing. For example, if, in conversation, I exaggerate the size or number of something I did, it's because I want/need a "carrier" for the nonverbal feelings (excitement, fear, joy, etc.) that are associated with those things. Or, if someone exaggerates the colors in their photos, it might be because they feel those colors may act as "carrier" for the emotion (excitement, joy, or whatever) that they felt "in" that experience. Consistent exaggeration (or style, as I've argued earlier -- leaving that behind for the moment) as in Film Noir might be (is?) there as a "carrier" for the enveloping mood that is desired by the film's makers.

Obviously, things in pictures are constantly carriers of meanings other than what they literally are. What I'm suggesting is that exaggeration is the artist or wirter or speaker wanting to especially, particularly, make as sure as he/she can that THIS thing right here is meant to "carry" something. It's more insistent, more urgent, more necessary; special delivery.

Norma Desmond · March 5, 2011

I've found Luis's and Julie's last posts very helpful. They seem both to clarify some things I was unclear about and push things a little further along.

I actually understand Julie's earlier thoughts much better in light not only of the quote supplied by Luis, which is great, but also his closing paragraph. Some of the exaggerations as "signifiers of style," making them in some sense renormalized. That turned a light bulb on for me and I think addressed what Julie had been saying earlier to at least an extent. Touch of Evil helps differentiate and, since I think there are many uses and manifestations of exaggeration, this is certainly a good distinction.

On the flip side, however, I'm hesitant to say too strongly that exaggerations are mere signifiers of style. Somehow, that could take away some authenticity. I think folks working in noir probably genuinely feel those exaggerations (perhaps as the carriers of meaning Julie mentions) and aren't simply trying to create something stylistic. Once you work in a particular style, there is a certain point at which your communication and feeling within that style transcends the style per se, even the formulas, and acts as more than just a signifier. Dare I go back to Mozart again, who often worked within a very defined and specified stylistic "constraint," for instance the Sonata form. Yes, there would have been signifiers of that form . . . exposition, development, recapitulation, repetitions, cadenzas, what have you. But I think those things have dual roles, being both personally expressive and signifiers of form. In a sense, the style was a given, almost likened to a blank canvas that is also constrained by its four edges (except for those who went beyond the edges).

One of the exaggerations I talked about working with is pose and gesture. There might be occasions where I would use that as a carrier of something specific, something nonverbal but felt. But not all gestures or all exaggerated gestures are signposts or symbols, IMO. They may be seen that way by a viewer. But in my own exaggeration of gesture, sometimes, it's just a matter of strength of visual, not carrier of meaning or feeling. As we've said, there are abstract qualities even to the most narrative of photos. And I think those abstract qualities can be exaggerated not necessarily as signposts but just for visual attention. I can exaggerate some color or tone or light somewhere in a photo, at least from my own perspective as photographer, merely because I think it will help the eye travel in a certain direction. I can sometimes do it to actually introduce the dreaded "distraction" into a photo. In that case, it's not so much a sign-post as an active element. It doesn't substitute for something else or even suggest something else, it merely has a dynamic effect.

Julie H · March 6, 2011

I don't know, I don't know (pondering Fred's last parargraph). I feel like there's a separation in kind between emphasis and exaggeration, and "visual attention" seems to me to fall into the emphasis camp. For me, exaggeration seems to require some ingredient of more -- it's *doing/adding* something, not just bumping the volume or direction of the look. Examples to chew one:

In this picture, the curviness is emphasized, not exaggerated IMO:

In this picture (below) I think the motion blur might serve as exaggeration:

In this picture (below), the foreshortening might serve as exaggeration:

But in this one (below) the bird is not exaggerated because it "came that way". I suppose the frontal pose could make it an exaggeration. I'm not sure:

The next one (below) is emphasis via repetition, but it's not exaggeration. If I had toned or colored it in a Film Noir-ish way, it *could* have been made into an exaggeration:

And, one last one. This (below) is not, by itself an exaggeration. However, if it might be if given a title with a testicular reference such as "A Pair in Winter" or some such.

[This is by no means meant to be a "list" of any kind; all of the above are throw-away snaps that happen to be already on my blog. If anybody wants to play with them (turn them into exaggerations), feel free to do so.]

fate_faith_change_chains · March 6, 2011

However, if it might be if given a title with a testicular reference such as "A Pair in Winter" or some such.

</blockquote>

Aaaah, brrrrr, that hurts. Why implant that one in my head now, while I was just seeing pears. No more testicular reference's through pears please...unless they look fresh and healthy and they look eatable ( the pears ).

Norma Desmond · March 6, 2011

Phylo, you had me up until . . . (the pears). LOL.

aplumpton · March 6, 2011

Fine animal and still life photos, Julie. The weathered pears shot is particularly well done.

None appear to me to apply exaggeration, unless the viewer attributes to them some optically unusual perspective (simple physical "exaggeration", but not really exaggeration in the cerebral sense, which I feel to be the only game of importance. You may well be creating that in some of your other more complex images of subject matter).

Elsewhere, the discussions of "stylism" versus exaggeration, and citing the more common attributes of "film noir", seem self evident, distant views of the subject and to some degree superficial, missing in one great swoop the real potential of nuanced exaggeration in photographic or other art work. When effective exaggeration occurs (is created), it is much more subtle and powerful than that which attaches to any of the simple labels that are being used. I don't want to add any more that that (but which hopefully might incite some reflection), and happily return to my warm and cosy s.c.cell.

Julie H · March 6, 2011

The "cerebral sense" ... Hmmmm... where does that happen? As opposed to ...?

How about this: the "face" is all/only cerebral:

Norma Desmond · March 6, 2011

Julie, I think we're close but there's a distinction I'd like to draw between emphasis and exaggeration. If I have a particular pose or gesture I'm working with in a photo and I'm in the post processing phase, I might very well emphasize it with lighting, for example. In that way, yes, I am (merely) calling attention to it. But, when I am working with a subject, I would ask them to exaggerate their gesture (if I wanted that). I wouldn't ask them to emphasize it. It may show up as emphasis, but it got there because of an exaggeration.

Same with the exaggerated gestures on a large compared to a small stage. The desire is that the gesture be read the same by the audience in both the smaller and grander situations. The exaggeration of the gesture on the larger stage sees to it that nothing is either added or taken away from the "meaning" of the gesture that took place on the smaller stage. The exaggeration on the larger stage is necessary to accomplish the same "reading" of the gesture the audience made in the smaller theater.

As Arthur pointed out way above, I may be coming at exaggeration from the perspective of the photographer more than the viewer, and that's the question I originally posed: how do you use exaggeration. I think the question you may be answering (and just as significant a question) is how do you see exaggeration.

Norma Desmond · March 6, 2011

I want to make clear that, as I said earlier in the thread, one of my uses of exaggeration (relative to pose and gesture) is to call attention to the obviousness and exaggeratedness itself. In that case, it often will be a carrier as you suggest, Julie. I am just trying to point out that it's not always about additional carriers of meaning.

luis_g · March 6, 2011

It's like stage make-up. For a bigger stage, close-up it looks very exaggerated, if not clownish, but at the viewing distance, it looks normal. Loved the dead mice pics, Julie.

jtk · March 6, 2011

To the performer, proper stage makeup doesn't look "exaggerated" no matter how "clownish" someone else might think.

Any sense of exaggeration, unless the performer decides s/he has gone too far, belongs to individual audience members.

"Exaggeration" doesn't exist as a phenomenon or as a descriptor. Calling something "exaggerated" is like calling it "high." It is a relative factor...x is higher than or exaggerated vs y.

By contrast, "style" can exist as a phenomenon because it can be described. Exaggeration can't be described because it doesn't exist.

Julie H · March 6, 2011

John Kelly said: "It is a relative factor...x is higher than or exaggerated vs y."

Well yeah. That's kind of the point, said the peacock. And <a href="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/traction/">the guy getting his penis extended</a>.

luis_g · March 6, 2011

Julie, you slay me...:-)

Sign In

Exaggeration and Authenticity

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in