Exaggeration and Authenticity

[Julie H]

<p>[Thank you Luis. Mozart and penis extenders in one thread. Does it get any better?]</p>

<p>Getting back to more subtle variations on what I think (long-suffering) Fred is after, I offer the right arm of Christ in the <em><a href="http://www.friendsofart.net/en/art/enguerrand-charonton/pieta-de-villeneuve-les-avignon">Pietà de Villeneuve-lès_Avignon</a></em> (1460). (<em>Please</em> look at it! You gotta see it to get the point and participate in the discussion ... )</p>

<p>The gesture of that arm, strongly exaggerated both by its posture and its placement, is so elequent, so full of ... what it is full of ... that its effect arrives immediately, it is <em>full;</em> immediately felt, before words surface in the mind.</p>

<p>[Link to image for email notification users: <a href="http://www.friendsofart.net/en/art/enguerrand-charonton/pieta-de-villeneuve-les-avignon">http://www.friendsofart.net/en/art/enguerrand-charonton/pieta-de-villeneuve-les-avignon</a> ]</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fabulous composition, on many planes. For someone who may not be religious, the literal content would be an exaggeration, but that's well beside the point, artistically speaking. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I can't compete with Jesus, but <a href="../photo/11376572&size=lg">HERE'S ONE</a> that uses exaggeration, though it ultimately doesn't quite work for me. (I like it a lot but that's also because I see potential in it worth putting toward future photos.) Ian in the background works fine, but John (tying his shoes) should have a more deliberate pose, which I could have had if I'd asked him to exaggerate more. Even better than deliberate would have been for him to come across as exaggerated. That, I think would be a nice play off the exaggerated colors and staging of the scene itself. As is, John seems a little lost on this photographic stage. A dose of unabashed theatricality here from John would have played well, I think.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Fred, I looked at the picture and was going to say what I find you've said in your post. Did you dodge John's face? Why is it so soft? He's seems to me to be too soft everywhere; tonally and in form (rounded, almost "cuddly"), even his colors are too mild, where the picture begs for, as you say, a deliberate, almost harsh pose, color, tone in that figure (or, coiled, tense). Can you force the contrast in his face; let it fall to dead black in the shadows?</p>

<p>I really like how the whole picture tilts dramatially to the left; it's like it's being poured or even rammed into the liquidity of that other-striped window. Ian (the fellow on the left?) is just right, leaning into the lines and with the right kind of contrast.</p>

<p>I like the idea of the strong coloring. Odd detail that I like is the satellite dish as the third character in this play -- and the most active one of the three. Pulling the lines taut.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, thanks for looking so carefully and offering a creative opinion on the treatment of John (tying his shoes). To be honest, I hadn't considered going stronger with the color and light on him but I think it's an interesting idea.</p>

<p>Yes, he is soft and he struck me that way the day we were shooting. That's why I handled him as I did. Whereas Ian has a more angular and edgy (to me) feel, John had a more rounded and "cuddly" (to use your word) feel about him.</p>

<p>The idea of darker shadows on John and a more intense treatment seems like it would work graphically/visually speaking. I don't know that that kind of treatment would integrate with what I'm experiencing in the photo, though. His whole bearing, facial expression, putting on his shoes, etc., seems so casual and so I think a more intense treatment of him, though it might look somewhat more interesting, wouldn't work with the feel of the story, to me. Had he been in a more intense mood and position and motion, I could see what you're suggesting working. But, as is, I think it might feel more like an afterthought and perhaps even a compensation for a not-so-great pose.</p>

<p>Believe me, if I thought I could make it work that way, I would try it. (Actually, I may try it when I work on printing this to see what happens.) Though he seemed soft to me at the time, if I could create a more intense photographic fiction that worked, I would. That's what I was musing on with wishing I had been able to get more exaggeration and deliberateness out of him. I don't think, in this case, I could post-process that intensity of color and light and make it work with him as he currently is.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Fred, I think you might be able to get everything you want just by messing with John's T-shirt. It has some fantastic lines of tension going on in it that directly contradict John's face in an interesting way. Just messing with the contrast of that shirt and its color might get you exactly what you want -- and be even more interesting for containing opposing attitudes. See quickie examples of color shifting that I did <a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/freds_ianjohnfourways.jpg">HERE</a>. (I can't show much with contrast shifting at those tiny sizes.)</p>

<p>[if you don't like me playing with your file, just let me know and I'll delete it.]</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, I actually don't like to see the results of others playing with my photos, so I'm not going to click on the link. I appreciate whatever work you did, but it's not something I do with others' photos or want done with mine. My feeling is that the limit of critique (this is very personal and I know others have different methods) is suggestion. The solution has to be the voice of the photographer. If I'm so moved, I'll try my own hand at it. Like I said, I have a feeling it can be changed graphically but that it wouldn't integrate well with the emotional posturing and expression of John, but I won't set that in stone until I try a few things.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Aww, hell, I decided to look anyway. ;-) It is as I suspected. Your option does bring a little more focus to John. But it doesn't change how I feel both about his expression and his gesturing, which will of course be somewhat affected by color choices but I don't thing can be changed enough by it. I think the way the actual movement, posture, and story works along with the color and light is the significant aspect here and just working with the graphic elements alone is ironically limiting the vision to me. It's the story being told that is problematic for me and I don't see these kinds of changes helping that. As I said, though, I appreciate the thought and the care you've given to this.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Well, dern. Between your first and your second post, I was busy deleting the file -- and am here to say that I understand perfectly (to your first post) and that I apologise.</p>

<p>So, the file is gone, but I'm glad you took a peek anyway. Seeing and not liking the variations may have reinforced your own judgment, which is a good thing? Anyway, again, I apologize.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, no need to do either, apologise or apologize. [i can't help myself.] You had no way of knowing my little idiosyncrasy. </p>

<p>Anyway, getting back to Jesus, the exaggerated gestures (I see his body pose as an exaggeration as well, that strong curve via the heavily arched back) relate very much to the subject matter, which is unflinchingly depicted and with which the exaggerations of pose and gesture are integrated. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>In a book I am reading at the moment the author is talking about <strong>orientation</strong> and <strong>unorientation</strong> (*unorientation is not the same as disorientation; see below). It made me think about how unorientation is central to how I do photography; how being able to deliberately unorient myself anywhere/anytime, at will, is key to being able to see stuff with a fresh eye (why this is so is <em>very</em> interesting ... but I digress ...).</p>

<p>Given that, and thinking about it reference exaggeration, it seems to me that to exaggerate is to try to force (encourage?) the viewer to be unoriented either to the whole picture or to something in it. One would do this in order to (try to) re-orient the viewer ideologically, or conceptually, or sensually. One might do this (promote unorientation) with a purpose as I've suggested with my "carrier" posts. In that case, successful re-orientation would/does lead to the re-normalization (see Luis above) or perishability of the exaggeration as I've also posted about above.</p>

<p>On the other hand, one could very well use unorientation for its own sake. To try to leave/hold the viewer in an unorientated state, in mid-air ... indefinitely. Floating (or spinning, or rocket-propelled). By removing all possiblity of re-orientation, in theory at least, one could do this. I expect the viewer eventually gets hungry and goes home, has his supper and goes to sleep, but it was tons of fun while it lasted ... (and he/she will be back ...).</p>

<p>*disorientation is about space; unorientation is about place</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, in order to understand, I'd need more of an explanation of the difference between space and place. I'm not understanding the distinction between <em>un</em> and <em>dis</em> orientation. </p>

<p>Not quite understanding you, I would respond by saying that exaggeration meant to have a strong effect or exaggeration meant to be noticed as such would (also) do the opposite. It would hyper-orient the viewer. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Julie, the photographs you've shared slay me. Your writing is another matter :-) </p>

<p>The peacock's "kind of point" appeals instinctively (unlearned, non-conceptual way) to females and other males of his and related species (such as wild turkeys..I've observed them together). Using the peacock as a metaphor works interestingly and intelligently for images but becomes a gross error when the actual beast gets treated as an exaggeration. Photographs, ideas, and peacocks are the actual beasts, "exaggeration" is a mere word, a mere dictionary entry, not even an idea.</p>

 

[jtk]

<p>Fred's original reference to "stage whisper" is not a mere word or phrase. We know what it means in practice. "Exaggeration" is not the opposite because a free-standing word cannot be the opposite of a concept. I think Fred's contrast would better be between "stage whisper" and "declaim." Comparing stage whisper to exaggeration is like comparing "uncomfortably cold" to "thermostat."</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>An exaggeration will always be imperfect in its ' exaggeration of ', making the thing exaggerated authentic.</p>

<p><em>Wabi-sabi ?!</em></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, thanks for bringing this back to the original OP a bit. That's a nice way of putting one of the things I was struggling with and curious about at the beginning of this thread.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Agree, Phylo, but an exaggeration shouldn't be measured by its authenticity, or it wouldn't be a good exaggeration I believe.</p>

<p>In that and other already discussed senses, a conscious exaggeration can accomplish its task with perfection.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Arthur, I did say <em>making the thing exaggerated </em>authentic, rather than making the exaggeration authentic.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>I make the ( superficial ) distinction because a photograher starts from a "blank canvas", but - and unlike the painter's one - not without content or subject already placed in the frame, to which an exaggeration may ( must ) be applied.<br /> Exaggeration can go in both directions here when applied, either as a subtraction ( - ) or as an addition ( + ). I don't think it has a positive or negative value in and of itself.<br /> Of course, all of this has more or less already been brought to light in all the previous posts here.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Phylo, yes , I undersood your expression in your second to last post, but the corollary of it is not that the exaggeration is made authentic. I make no claim in that sense.</p>

<p>On the contrary, for me an exaggeration is not very much related to the concept of authentic, and that's why I love them and consider some even perfect in what they do in making the subject of an image much more interesting than merely what authenticity might confer to it. Exaggeration has value, and much value if used in an artistic and communicative sense. I wonder why so few seem to recognise that. ....Interesting.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Arthur said: "Exaggeration has value, and much value if used in an artistic and communicative sense. I wonder why so few seem to recognise that."</p>

<p>It's not that it's not recognized. It's that most people know that exaggeration needs to be handled with care. If not, it's just so much hooting and chest-pounding. Ever seen <em>Rambo</em>, or any Chuck Norris movies? <strong>Or entire sentences in bold type in this forum? Or even whole paragraphs?</strong> Or your average two-year-old in his/her high-chair, screaming his/her head off?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Exaggeration has value, and much value if used in an artistic and communicative sense. I wonder why so few seem to recognise that."</em></p>

<p>Arthur, on what basis do you make that statement? Do you think many (or even a few) here don't value exaggeration?</p>

<p>Also I'd be curious to hear your reasoning for qualifying authenticity as "mere" and saying that it's less interesting than exaggeration. </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>I for one wasn't saying it hasn't value. I'm simply recognizing that in photography there is 1.the exaggeration and 2. the subject on which the exaggeration is being applied on.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>*</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>It's not that it's not recognized. It's that most people know that exaggeration needs to be handled with care. If not, it's just so much hooting and chest-pounding. Ever seen <em>Rambo</em>, or any Chuck Norris movies?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ever seen a Tarkovsky movie, with 'real time' slow paced shots and scenes ? That's as much applied exaggeration as Rambo, but only towards the other end of the scale.</p>