Are photos really more powerful than words?

[alan_zinn]

<p>I'm getting tangled in this thread! I see that we are not discussing intentionally <em>memorized </em>pictures or text or words. We are comparing individual modes of ambient memory recollection - (about war is the example). We are wondering about their essential evocative qualities. The clinical studies I referred to earlier found that only a handful of neurons have to fire to gain a comprehensive understanding from a very small sample of stimuli. (There is also a statistical probability calculation involved. ) Whichever of the senses we are individually most fluent with may likely be the one that evokes the stronger response. I agree that individual as well as cultural types show a significant variability in their relative responses to pictures or text.</p>

<p>Just to throw out this goofy thought: What if a sort of text/image pidgin language evolves to have a significant potential for art, grace, and clarity? It seems as if the mind with its ultra economical recall scheme wants that to happen.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Allen - Whether words "go deeper" than photographs is a matter for another thread"<br>

　<br>

Why? I thought that was the theme of the thread.<br>

　<br>

"Are photographs more poweful than word"<br>

　<br>

And my answer was, yes , words/prose/poetry are more powerful because they give us a more meaningful deeper understanding a bigger picture. Why because we can interact with the writer, feel what they are feeling, become part of the poetry/prose in an emotive imaginative way.We become entwined with their feelings and emotions we walk with them for a while on the journey they have travelled.<br>

　<br>

<a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jowen.htm">http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jowen.htm</a><br>

<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00gvptr">http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00gvptr</a></p>

<p>Two examples.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Allen: You obviously are correct with respect to the title of this thread. However, my statement was made based on the context in which the posts of this thread have been made - whether photographs more powerfully depict the horros of war than words. For whatever it's worth, everything you stated above applies equally to photographs. If you disagree, please take a careful look at Fred Goldsmith's posts in various threads on this Forum.</p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"For whatever it's worth, everything you stated above applies equally to photographs"</p>

<p>I don't think so, Michael. The two examples I've given are of people who have actually lived the experince of war and tyranny. They are sharing their fear, feelings and emotions with the reader in a deeply personal way. I do do not think an image nomatter how powerful can achieve that sort of intamicy and understanding of the horrors of war. A Photograph can demonstrate the cruelty and horrors of war but a strong piece of writing can actually take you into the minds of those who were actually there and reveal the horrors in a deeper more personal understanding way. </p>

<p>" If you disagree, please take a careful look at Fred Goldsmith's posts in various threads on this Forum".</p>

<p>I would much rather read the thoughts of those who have actuallyy suffered and are sharing those thoughts than your internet mate... although I'm sure he is a wonderful clever person, Michael. Just personal choice.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>http://booktwo.org/notebook/the-new-value-of-text/<br>

I found this an insightful article. It may give you a fresh idea on this thread as well, which funny enough consists of words.</p>

<p>If anything, each type of media works different, appeals different and has different effect. Not either/or, not better/worse. Just different.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Allen: I suspect that Wouter has a productive response to our "debate". People do react differently to different media. </p>

<p>"I would much rather read the thoughts of those who have actuallyy suffered . . . ." One final point: although this clearly is a statement of your personal preference, mine is not to prejudge the possible impact of a photograph because I may happen to think that verbal expression is more powerful than its counterpart in the photographic world.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I was reading <em>Annapurna</em> (1950) by Maurice Herzog some decades back, and even after all these years I can remember how I felt when he described how he felt as he saw one of his gloves sliding down the mountain even as the summit ridge was still ahead of him. He was somehow able to convey the mystic beauty of the mountain that drew him on up to the summit, at that point never before climbed, even as he knew that the choice to go up rather than down after he dropped the glove could cost him a limb, if not his life. As it turned out, he lost all of his toes, to the best of my recollection--and yet he described his joy through the intense pain of having his toes thaw and then rot on him as he tried to make his way back to civilization. The most compelling words were yet those describing the lure of the mystic beauty of the mountain as he pondered his choice to go up or down.</p>

<p>I think that writers can provide context, and sometimes photographers can, too. At other times, however, photographers momentarily have to become writers in order to convey the full context within which it is possible to feel the full impact of a photograph.</p>

<p>In at least some situations, that is, words can be more powerful than photos, in others, no.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p><br /><strong>WW! </strong>(Wow Wouter!) Thanks for the great blog. Lots to chew on. Looking forward to seeing what "book futurism" is all about. <br>

I'm thinking that rather than dumbing down, technology has dumbed up. Blogs and such don't use or have editors. Even smart, insightful people can't write well without editing. The old <em>writers</em> and <em>typist</em> quip is more fitting in these times than ever. Work that aspires to be literature or even formally correct doesn't benefit from editing it just flys upward and downward. Much of what is up-loaded (can't call it publishing in the traditional sense - as pointed out in article) is written in the vernacular. The idea of some sort of homogenized graphic/text/sound/whatever, is a double disaster for clarity and art.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>[Crickets chirping.]</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"mine is not to prejudge the possible impact of a photograph because I may happen to think that verbal expression is more powerful than its counterpart in the photographic world". Michael</p>

<p>Neither do I have any prejudge against a Photograph but to my mind words go deeper. Notice we are using words to express our ideas and thought on this forum. However, I think Wouter has nailed the answer on the wall to the original question....</p>

<p>"I"f anything, each type of media works different, appeals different and has different effect. Not either/or, not better/worse. Just different"." Wouter</p>

<p>"Crickets chirping"</p>

<p>"What is that supposed to mean, Luis"</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Allen: I'm really a stubborn s.o.b., so I'm taking another stab at this. What about instrumental music? I have been so touched by such music in various genres, my experience is capable of description only by one word - Wow!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Is it fair to say that some things cannot be expressed by words or photos? I am not sure that a novel describing being in love, or a photo showing a couple in love, could possibly convey the feeling of being in love. Still the questoin remains: can photos convey the phenomenon of being in love better than words to someone who has never been there but who has reached puberty and sort of gets the idea?<br /> <br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJiZKoGxj8c<br /> <br /> Yep, Luis, those crickets have had more to say than most of us, although the chill up here has driven most of them wherever crickets go for the winter. <br /> <br /> The clouds are drifting nicely across the moon tonight, though. I just said that. I can get a photo of it, too.<br /> <br /> Say, can someone get a recording of crickets chirping? <br /> <br /> Things really are hopping on this thread. Yessiree. Why doesn't somebody just shoot it and put it out of its misery.<br /> <br /> I knew I should have posted a question about nudes. Maybe someone can impel Mike Palermiti to go out onto the beach tomorrow to capture that which words cannot express:<br /> <br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/13759032&size=lg<br>

<br /> Ah, the wonders of philosophy. . . .<br>

<br /> ---Lannie</p>

[luis_g]

<p>As requested:</p>

<p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>The problem with words is language, including the understanding of words/terms within a language. The problem with photographs/pictures is their inadequacy in portraying context, which is why they need words to support them - indeed changing the words that support a photograph can completely change the impact of an image.<br>

e.g. - "He killed her". - what does this mean? Manslaughter, murder, legal execution, he ran her over, justifiable homicide (whatever that is) - perhaps he had her in fits of laughter. etc<br>

e.g. - a picture of a very old person is just that, make of it what you will. But we could support the image with any number of phrases which can completely change the impact of the picture. 'Mr. Smith before he died." "My grandfather, still going strong at 95". "Mr. Smith following his jail sentence for child molestation and murder'. 'Mr Smith the last surviving weaver of fine cloth at the mill'. Same picture.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Stephen: Can you please conduct a quick experiment? Take a look at this photograph <a href="../photo/14461293">http://www.photo.net/photo/14461293</a>, and provide the words (or some words) that are needed to support it.</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>The sea rushed out before the Tsunami struck.<br>

60 years ago on this very beach Allied forces were cut down in machine gun fire.<br>

The cold light of the turn of the day reflected the her mood.<br>

A fine example of the use of long shutter speeds to give a sense of calmness.<br>

Time seemed to stand still for them.<br>

10 seconds later the Dolpin surfaced in front of us.</p>

<p>Each set of words guides/distorts the viewers own perception. No words are necessary, however without them (which includes any title) a photograph becomes a 'loose cannon'. In the this case the photographer has attempted to lead the viewer in a particular direction. <br>

It would be interesting to know what somebody who has never seen the sea would think of the photograph, compared to somebody who has - would the 'message' be the same, of course not, each of us brings our own 'baggage' when we view an image.<br>

A picture of US soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan being watched by the locals will have entirely different messages to both parties - words will assist in clarification, but if those words are in a foreign language...... </p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Alan, glad you liked it. While I do not 100% agree with that article, I did find it a very refreshing view, and it is correct in pointing out those things that text does excellently.</p>

<p>Allen, it wasn't my intention to nail the answer to the wall. It was just my opinion, and frankly maybe also a testament to the question's weakness. Why does one has to be more powerful than the other? Does that really matter? Or, if we manage to communicate clearly - didn't we do our job properly then? Be it in words, be it in images, be it with a mixture of those?</p>

<p>A picture speaks a thousand words. It sounds often so very true. And it is true at times, and at times it's very much not. It is simple statement, and it clouds a much more complex matter. A bit like one-liners like "l'histoire se répète", a false simplification of matters that are too complex to catch in a few words or a single photo.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Stephen, consider a series of photos, documentary work. Photos sure can support their own context that way. And some photos communicate great because of their lack of context as well. What you seem to imply is that an image should faithfully reflect the subject that was captured, and transmit that message. But for a lot of photographers and photos, that really isn't all that important.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Luis,<br>

Real Crickets? I was hoping for something hip esoteric like Buddy Holly and the Crickets' first album <em>Chirping Crickets</em>.<em> </em><br>

<em>Ooo-bop, wop-bop-bop Ooo-bop, wop-bop-bop </em></p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>Wouter,<br>

<em> "What you seem to imply is that an image should faithfully reflect the subject that was captured, and transmit that message".</em><br>

Absolutely not.<br>

To me, 'communicate' means the transmission of a message from one person to another. Without supporting text/prose/words/title, can a photographer ever be presumptious enough to assume their message is clear and unambiguous? Nearly all the docmentary photography I have seen is always supported by some sort of text - the photographs become illustrative and are rarely capable of getting the right message across unaccompanied (of course any viewer will see something in a set of photographs - if they actually look at them, I'm astonished how many people don't, especially photographers, but that's another post - but seeing 'something' doesn't mean communication is taking place).<br>

Of course, I fully accept that even with the most illustrative photographs and the most graphic text, some people will still fail to get the message.<br>

I think we also have to accept that any photograph is specifically a fabrication that the photographer uses to portray the message they want to get across - even more so in today's digital media - we have to accept photgraphers are 'honest' in their representations.<br>

An interesting thought. 'Looking down the street, you can see City Hall in the distance' - is a fairly simple statement. However a photograph showing the scene down the street to the distant City Hall, will tell you what sort of street it is, maybe the kind of neighbourhood, local ethnic mix, which side of the road the people drive on, stray dogs, litter, etc. etc. - so much extra information that the message 'down the street is City Hall' is lost in other messages not intended by the photographer.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Stephen, you're killing me.</p>

<p>Luis, I now have two crickets in the house. I will let you know what happens. The other one got in a couple of weeks ago and I cannot find it. Maybe this one will lure him out--if it's a "she." (Are there gay cricikets? For all I know, we may now have two male crickets vying for domination of my domicile.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Stephen,</p>

<blockquote>

<p> can a photographer ever be presumptious enough to assume their message is clear and unambiguous?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, but in my last post, the last sentence was there to make the point that the message in a photo sometimes does not need to be clear and unambigious. Just like poetry can be very ambiguous, just as humour uses ambuigity frequently.</p>

[GBarrington]

<p> Are photos more powerful than words? Well, they are two different mediums. Could Shakespeare have DRAWN King Lear to equal effect? Probably not, and has any film of his work been as good as seeing it live? I personally don't think so. <br>

For certain artists, at certain times, and with the right audience, yes, a photo is far more powerful. But in different hands of equal talent? Maybe not. I like making photographs, and I like stringing words together, but I don't think either have some inherent worth outside of my skills.</p>

[gary_meader]

<p>Go here: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.thescarproject.org/gallery/" target="_blank">http://www.thescarproject.org/gallery/</a> see if you can find any words in our language as powerful as these images.</p>

[GBarrington]

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.thescarproject.org/gallery/" target="_blank">http://www.thescarproject.org/gallery/</a> Interesting and profound,and several are certainly worthy photos, but do ANY of those photos describe the emotional content of those injuries? Not really. Those photos say, "I'm now comfortable enough with my life to share my disfiguration with you." But do any of them even hint at what those women went through emotionally? </p>

<p>No - They do not. Like I said earlier. different mediums, different audiences, different artists.</p>

<p>I would suggest to you that many of the words found at this web site are at least as powerful as your photos. http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/real-life-healing-stories.html. (Note: I don't necessarily agree with ALL the conclusions drawn from those stories, but certainly, I am capable of recognizing the power of the belief held by the authors.). </p>

<p>You might also want to look at the book, "5 Lessons I Didn't Learn from Breast Cancer", by Shelly Lewis. Great Art? Maybe not, but certainly it provides a perspective that the photos you suggest do not.</p>