Favorite symbols?

[Spearhead]

<p>Well I put crosses in my photos and I don't "get" them unless there's vampires involved. I'm Jewish and my understanding of other religions (and Judaism to a pretty big extent) is minimal. But I like that they seem to symbolize something, so they're there and I don't stress it. My favorite use of the cross is the young woman with tons of exposed cleavage and a big cross in the middle. I don't get that, but it's amusing.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Just want to add another voice to the B&W conversation. I shot black and white starting in the 60's, developing my own film and printing in the darkroom. It was really the only medium that I could afford (I was a teenager), because color film was more expensive and I couldn't process it myself nor print it. What I am saying is that I never choose this medium for its symbolic meaning, but rather, it was what was available. I really learned to use and love Tri-X 35mm, particularly with D-76, although I did try all the commercial developers out at the time, as well as making my own D-23 from scratch. When you are confined more or less, to one medium, you learn to use its characteristics in the way you "see" and shoot. After a while I knew instinctively what settings to use when shooting indoors with available light, and how much to develop it, and what to expect in the finished print. It becomes part of the way you think. Its like a wood carver using the same species of wood for years. I have to add that breaking out into medium format and large format gave me opportunities to explore a totally different feel to my work, which I greatly enjoyed. These larger formats were "smoother" and provided more detail, but also required a different way of working with natural light. Just to sum up: the medium and materials for me were chosen because its what was available in my budget, and not specifically for the particular "look" for symbolic reasons or because it was more "artistic." Many examples of this period are in my 70's folder here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=405901</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I think this discussion has gotten to the point where we're arguing if the chicken or the egg came first.</p>

<p>Does black and white film make something arty, or do we know more artists that use black and white film? More specifically, did Postwar Japanese photographers (Hosoe, Domon, Kawada) choose to make grainy photographs because that was the style, or because it was a result of shooting the stock they had in the way they wanted to?</p>

<p>Do symbols make a photograph more interesting, or are we more interested in the work because deciphering those symbols requires that we pay more attention to it? Is an artist good because of his use of symbolism, or do good artists see symbolism in existing scenes more readily?</p>

<p>Unfortunately, for much of the discussion going on in this thread, figuring out who is right requires figuring out if the chicken of the egg came first, and I don't really see how we can do that.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Zack, I'm not trying to figure out who's right. I simply enjoy hearing different takes on the matter and discussing these things. Others' ideas stimulate my own thoughts on the subject. Something that often happens is misunderstanding each other, which is its own problem. But I don't think anyone will be right. Because there is no right. Your chicken and egg thing is a good way of framing some of the issues, but doesn't forestall discussion. A lot of philosophy has a chicken and egg character and a lot of philosophy doesn't have a right answer. Philosophy is a seeking, as can be photography.</p>

[andrew_molitor]

<p>Zack, the usage of these things in the past is precisely what makes them symbols now.</p>

<p>Circumstance forces (for example, war) people to make contrasty, blurry, grainy photos, let's say. We see these in Life magazine for years, and they appear in retrospectives, all with loads of context and text around them telling us what it is.</p>

<p>Then, later, we see a blurry, grainy, high contrast photo created by a contemporary artist. What do we think? That photo evokes memories of those other photos, and thereby connects the new image with the old ones. The new photo now evokes that sense of immediacy, danger, filth and destruction. That's the symbol working, right there. This is how symbols work -- we experience a thing in the same or similar contexts over and over, and we come to associate the thing with that context. If "most" people in a culture have a similar experience of that thing in those contexts, we'll mostly agree on what that thing stands for -- that thing becomes a symbol of that kind of context. The blurry, grainy, contrasty photograph becomes a symbol of war.</p>

<p>Now the new image might not be about war. Maybe it's a picture of a flower. There's nothing wrong with that, but now the viewer is experiencing an image of a flower through the lens of war and so on, the flower is juxtaposed with the symbol, for good or bad.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> More specifically, did Postwar Japanese photographers (Hosoe, Domon, Kawada) choose to make

grainy photographs because that was the style, or because it was a result of shooting the stock they had

in the way they wanted to?

 

I think it was much deeper. And along with Fukase, Moriyama, and Tomatsu, it was the result of dealing

with the war, and huge changes in Japanese post-war society; Hiroshima (Kawada's The Map), the effects of the

occupation, rapid westernization, negative local effects brought by US bases, changes in government, etc, and wanting to develop a unique visual

language that helped express their views, feelings, and moods about those dramatic changes.

[luis_g]

<p>It was a shift in consciousness, and the visual language wasn't solely theirs. These shifts seem to ripple through the minds of many at nearly the same time, like a shared dream. At about the same time, R. Frank and others in the US were turning away from the cliche's of the '40s towards a different photographic reality. The grain was only part of it. Besides all the changes Brad mentioned, the Japanese became a <em>defeated culture </em>after WWII.</p>

<p>Symbols do not always mean the same thing, even in the same culture. The cross in a church is not the same as the cross in cleavage, a natural cross form, upside down cross, equilateral cross etc. They're a lot like color, which is transmutable by other colors, shades, etc. around it. </p>

<p> </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p> Fred, I think we're on the same page. I was thinking of contemporary symbols. <em>Getting</em> symbols used to bore the crap out of me in school. I think it ruined me for poetry and good literature. Damn English teachers! I didn't recover until middle-age.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>Damn English teachers!</em>>>></p>

<p>LOL. I had a great high school Shakespeare teacher, Mrs. Matthews. I can still see her as if it were yesterday (<em>were</em>, not <em>was</em>). She managed to find as many sexual references and symbols in Shakespeare as she could (and then some . . .), which was especially helpful to the budding adolescents she taught. It made us excited to look for symbols and gave us a way of diving under the text for all sorts of surprises, not just symbolic. I loved finding the hidden sonnets in <em>Romeo and Juliet</em>, too, especially when they were shared by two lovers. Symbols have long appealed to me, though they can devolve into academics and, of course, be heavy handed . . . not unlike saturation. At best they provide depth and add a dimension which can often be easily ignored. They can add a level of familiarity and, probably most significant to me, <strong>connectedness</strong> (to others, to the universe, something greater than) which can be enriching.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I didn't have an English teacher I really learned from until sophomore year in HS. He was a science fiction author (Jack Williamson). Virtually everything referenced Cold War era fears - not too subtle for me to get. <br>

I'm always recalling stories with my wife about our shared academic experience (long, long ago) with the same female English teachers. She, and the other girls in the classes, did extra credit work. Sheeesh! The guys were intimidated and didn't want to seem like "sissies" (read <em>effete</em>).<br>

Women, I can fairly say, are more inclined to share feelings and seem to respond to symbols, at least the more subtle ones, better than men. I sense changes from back then in that feelings-focused gender difference. Perhaps it is due to a wider, and likely more feminizing, variety of families like single and same-sex parents. I would say more things are seeming less sissy.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'm not sure we're on the same page, Alan, so much as we may be in the same library. In that fantasy High School library, maybe the women are using appropriately hushed tones, the straight guys are sitting around burping and farting, and the real sissies are gettin' lucky in the bathrooms under the stalls . . . just as God intended it. :-)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm intrigued by the notion of film grain itself as a symbol of some concept of integrity or artistry... and perhaps more.</p>

<p>Note the continuing debates over whether digital camera noise or grain effects added in post can ever satisfactorily mimic true film grain - tho' even as a fan of b&w film I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in some prints and hi-rez JPEGs I've seen by others, and produced myself.</p>

<p>I'm not so much interested in the disputes over aesthetic authenticity as in the visceral reactions some folks have to film grain. Why do "they" (let's use the hypothetical they for the sake of efficiency) want film grain? We get a lot of questions about that on the b&w forums here. Why do those other "they" object so strenuously to digitally mimicking film grain? That sort of emotional baggage implies there's more at stake here than mere aesthetics. It's reminiscent of the early 20th century outrage over <em>les Fauves</em>.</p>

<p>It's tempting to believe these reactions are tied to the context of our own experience. Would a viewer who had no concept of film or film grain or notions of nostalgic attachments (whether personally experienced or longed by by proxy) react the same way? Or would they instead respond as they might to differences in brush technique between, say, Monet and Caravaggio? Would anyone declare Monet to be more authentic because there are actual grains of sand in some of his paintings?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lex, an interesting question. I think part of it you may have come upon in your post already, when you use the term <em>mimic</em>.</p>

<p>I think there is a kind of beauty and inherent-ness in film grain. It is of the medium in a very physical and direct manner. So, if reproduced digitally, it can recall some of that, it can wax nostalgic, it can recall an era.</p>

<p>Maybe the negative reactions to it have to do with mimicry, to some extent. There are qualities inherent to digital photography (you mention noise, pixels are another, backlighting of monitors another) that might some day come to mean and be used as effectively or "naturally" (I use that word with trepidation because I'm far from wedded to what's natural) in their own right. The imitation of grain, while I have no problem with it, might put some off because they see it as not moving forward, as an adherence to an aesthetic already accepted. Film grain. Been there, done that. Why not move on to what digital uniquely has to offer and exploit that aesthetically rather than mimicking things of the past? Again, this is not my point of view. My point of view is that we are in a transition from a film to a digital aesthetic and overriding that is a photographic aesthetic which transcends the particular medium and materials. So, it makes sense that there would be some keeping in touch with the aesthetics of film and some moving on to the aesthetics of digital, some doing both, and some just doing photography without paying too much attention to the changing materials. Tensions will result as they always do in evolving sensibilities and visions. Some people see monitor viewing as a substitute for print viewing and some are using monitor viewing as a medium and art unto itself. Backlighting is a strong element inherent to monitor viewing, much like grain was an element inherent to film. Grain and backlighting can simply be accepted, some will attempt to overcome them as nuisances, some will attempt to use them creatively, some won't notice either.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Right, I completely agree regarding accepting a new aesthetic rather than continuing to emulate the past.</p>

<p>Regarding issues like noise, I'm reminded of the audio equivalents to les Fauves, the musique concrete experiments that evolved into musical forms that are now well established and so pervasive we're seldom aware that we're listening to what some might consider "noise" rather than some narrowly defined concept of "analogue" music produced by traditional instruments.</p>

<p>There may be an entire visual genre waiting to be explored in digital photography "noise", something akin to a subconscious steganography, a search for hidden symbols that exist only in our imaginations. And one day the first generation digicams may be regarded like the Moog, newly endowed with desirability by a generation experiencing nostalgia by proxy for the good ol' days when noise looked like noise rather than faux film grain.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Lex, you said, (second-to-most-recent post, above): "It's tempting to believe these reactions are tied to the context of our own experience. Would a viewer who had no concept of film or film grain or notions of nostalgic attachments (whether personally experienced or longed by by proxy) react the same way?"</p>

<p>I think not.</p>

<p>That's what I was trying to get at in my Sunday post. It's my feeling that symbols are perceived "from the outside." In other words. they are "strange" in some way; they bring their own identity and are interesting and powerful *because* of this.</p>

<p>As compared and contrasted to metaphor, which are perceived "from the inside." In other words, a metaphor tries to put you "into" the topic/subject; it tries to share embodiment, to find common kinetics.</p>

[russell_contreras]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"In police work and in eyewitness memory research, there is discussion of something called 'weapon focus.' <strong>A witness/victim of an event is distracted by/fixated on the weapon to the exclusion of most other elements in the scene</strong>.</em><br /> <br /> <em>For some reason, with this photo, I have 'penis focus.' Perhaps it's the unusual presence of the penis in such form/position, but I keep looking at...the...penis."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em><br>

<em>Fred G.,<br /></em><br>

That was in <em>The Godfather</em>. When they are instructing Michael Corleone on how to assassinate Sollozzo and McCluskey they advise him to walk not run out of the restaurant because the people will be looking at the gun not his face.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>The same thing was done in an episode of <em>Deadwood</em>. One of the whores goes to assassinate Hearst. She walks across a busy street with her tits out. Later a different whore is blamed for the attempted murder.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily what I "like" to use but one that I have used and seems natural for me to use and seems to garner a lot of attention and revealing, charged, strange, moralistic, and even sometimes juvenile reactions: <strong>the penis</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Male frontal nudity by and large is not attractive or pleasant to look at. I'm not a meat gazer but I can tell you from the few pornographic movies I've seen a flaccid phallus is not attractive. A small erect phallus just looks pathetic. Really the only phalli I've seen that don't mar the scenery are big erect members that are attached to usually hairless muscular dark men. And maybe I'm homophobic but even those images are only okay to look at if there is a female that is holding the thing and about to guide it into a female's orifice of choice.</p>

<p>In contrast a female nude from the front, side, or back can look quite nice even when nothing particularly sexual is going on. The thing that separates nudes from pornography for me is sexuality. A nude looking in the mirror combing her hair is not sexual to me. For example I wouldn't think anything of a picture of nude children swimming in a lake. On the other hand an erection by definition is sexual.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Russell, nothing you've said strikes me as homophobic. Phallic-phobic, perhaps. :-)</p>

<p>I look at both male and female bodies and find attractiveness, beauty, amusement, sensuality, physicality, earthiness, character, etc. I'm not perturbed in the least by the fact that you don't. More importantly, I can look at <em>photos</em> of both male and female nudes and find all those things in the photos, remembering that photos of nudes are something different from the bodies themselves.</p>

<p>Many people find the curves, etc. of female forms more beautiful or aesthetic or attractive, what have you. Many gay men have said as much. I don't find that to be the case, but I understand why others feel that way.</p>

<p>But, especially, consider that there is more to male (frontal) nudity than the penis, though it does seem to command many people's wrapped attention and seems to distract many. Also, there's much more to images of penises than porn.</p>

<p>Check out Greek sculpture sometime . . . and be not afraid.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>In any case, I don't a think a penis has to be attractive, pleasant, or beautiful to the viewer in order for it to serve as a symbol. </p>

<p>And a lack of sexual response to a penis doesn't have to prevent an aesthetic appreciation of photographs of them or photographs which include them.</p>

[russell_contreras]

<blockquote>

<p>I look at both male and female bodies and find attractiveness, beauty, amusement, sensuality, physicality, earthiness, character, etc. I'm not perturbed in the least by the fact that you don't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well now you said "penis" not "male body." I like some female nudes but that doesn't mean I would put up snaps of a female's colonoscopy on the wall. I certainly enjoy looking at images of male athletes that show their anatomy. Those are some very powerful images. I just said looking at a pale shriveled phallus is not my cup of tea.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But, especially, consider that there is more to male (frontal) nudity than the penis, though it does seem to command many people's wrapped attention and <strong>seems to distract many</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which is why I wouldn't include it. It's like lens flare or a thumb over part of the lens. If it distracts I get it out of the frame.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, there's much more to images of penises than porn.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not it my book. Phalli in other contexts are just not very appealing to me visually. But of course that is a personal thing. People like to take pictures of different things. People like to look at pictures of different things. To each his own.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Check out Greek sculpture sometime . . . and be not afraid.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Times have changed my friend. The Greeks considered large phalli comical. Nowadays if you drop trou and your phallus looks like the demure appendage of a Greek statue you are the one who will be a comic.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>Well now you said "penis" not "male body."</em> >>></p>

<p>Yes, that's what I originally talked about, but the reason I was now talking about male bodies and nudes was because you responded with this: <em>"Male frontal nudity by and large is not attractive or pleasant to look at."</em> To me, male frontal nudity is more than penises. Maybe I misunderstood what you were getting at. I'm not sure why you're so focused on shriveled-up flaccid penises as something not attractive. No one was talking about shriveled up flaccid penises. I was talking about penises as symbols, not different types of penises. As far as different types of penises, it would depend on the context and the photo they were part of how I felt about them. I, too, wouldn't want to hang a picture of someone's colonoscopy on my wall and can't fathom what that has to do with this discussion.</p>

<p><<<<em>It's like lens flare or a thumb over part of the lens.</em>>>></p>

<p>No it's not, and I suspect you know it's not.</p>

<p><<<<em>If it distracts I get it out of the frame.</em>>>></p>

<p>It depends, for me, on the cause of the distraction. White racists will be distracted by black people in photos, yet I wouldn't exclude black people from my photos because of that. If someone is distracted by a penis, I consider that their issue, not mine. I understand and like the fact that my photos won't appeal to everyone. I'm not in this as a popularity contest.</p>

<p><<<<em>Nowadays if you drop trou and your phallus looks like the demure appendage of a Greek statue you are the one who will be a comic.</em>>>></p>

<p>Being gay, I run into many size queens. Given several things you've said here, I will now count you among them.</p>

[russell_contreras]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, that's what I originally talked about, but the reason I was now talking about male bodies and nudes was because you responded with this: <em>"Male frontal nudity by and large is not attractive or pleasant to look at."</em> To me, male frontal nudity is more than penises. Maybe I misunderstood what you were getting at.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Male frontal nudity" only means one thing. People don't say that to let you know an umbilicus is going to be in the picture. It's a civilized way genteel people let you know what will be dangling in your face.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure why you're so focused on shriveled-up flaccid penises as something not attractive. No one was talking about shriveled up flaccid penises.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I spoke about other phalli. It's just in the context of "art" one type of phallus seems to predominate.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It depends, for me, on the cause of the distraction. White racists will be distracted by black people in photos, yet I wouldn't exclude black people from my photos because of that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would not equate the general desire to not see a limp phallus to racism. You yourself admitted most people are distracted by that symbol. Your response is, I'm going to use it more. Okay. I mean it's your choice. I'm not going to stop you. Sometimes I really like a picture and I don't care if anyone else does.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Being gay...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wish you had just said this in the beginning. Actually it's really not your fault. I am a victim of political correctness. My mind has been so brainwashed I just wouldn't allow myself to assume anyone who likes taking pictures of phallic symbols must be gay. I will not make that mistake again.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Being gay, I run into many size queens. Given several things you've said here, I will now count you among them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just giving the ladies what they want. Don't hate the player... hate the game.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>Your response is, I'm going to use it more.</em>>>></p>

<p>Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say I would photograph a penis because others were distracted by it and I didn't say I would be more likely to photograph a penis likely to photograph more penises because others were distracted by it. I said their being distracted wouldn't dissuade me from including penises in my photos.</p>

<p><<<<em>"Male frontal nudity" only means one thing.</em>>>></p>

<p>Sorry, but this is juvenile thinking. Most of us got it out of our systems around Junior High School.</p>

<p><<<<em>I just wouldn't allow myself to assume anyone who likes taking pictures of phallic symbols must be gay.</em>>>></p>

<p>As well you shouldn't. I don't represent all gay men or all men. There are plenty of straight men who have penises in their photos. And I doubt it's as simplistic as their "liking" taking pictures of phallic symbols. Besides, I'm not sure why you keep insisting on using "<em>likes."</em> Making photos, choosing subjects, having a vision is about a whole lot more than "likes."</p>

<p><<<<em>Just giving the ladies what they want.</em>>>></p>

<p>Well, aren't you a catch!</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>Great topic for discussion (well done on bringing it to light Andrew M) and fascinating reading of everyone's thoughts on this.<br>

For me its all about the light. Like colour (or the absence of it), light is not a static form of symbolism in real terms (its every changing and fluid), yet ironically enough in photography its very much both a momentary and timeless capture; an oxymoron if you will....<br>

And so for me light is the ultimate form of symbolism both as a viewer and a photographer. For me it represent the message being conveyed both obvious and subliminally, not independent of composition but part of it. As a simplistic example, for me, harsh light appeals to my sense of rawness/edginess/aggressiveness while soft light symbolizes an ethereal/soft/ gentle mood. I try to use soft light to symbolize the gentle nature of animals that may hopefully appeal to one's environmental consciousness , as an example.</p>

[kristina_kraft]

<p>It is a nice overall conversation here. Thinking about symbolism. I used to photograph woods in snow with a slide film that gives blue tones. It meant to stand for a 'magic', 'fairy' world. For me blue colour can depict the liveliness, vibrancy of life in the forests. It's all connected to the legends, fairy-tales of the Middle Age when life in forests was more abundant then it is today.<br>

Recently I was working on a book that is all about flowers as a symbolic representation, or allegories for human characteristics - emotions, thoughts, fertility; and comprising also of human power to idealised the life through beauty, love, religion beliefs. I saw in my husband's pictures of flowers another world, symbols and allegories and have based the book on a completely different side of what he was expecting. I looked at his images of flowers and got ideas about them. It was instantaneous 'light bulb' in my mind! So his flowers reminiscent of various human conditions.<br>

I remember that the famous Impressionist painter, Edgar Degas, said that his ballerinas aren't really about ballerinas. They are a symbol for something else. Maybe femininity, gracefulness in the body movements, etc.<br>

Krisi</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Kristina, thanks. Your post stimulated me to see what Degas had to say about his dancers and I found an interesting quote and then a couple more gems. </p>

<p><em>"They call me the painter of dancers. They don't understand that the dancer has been for me a pretext for painting pretty fabrics and for rendering movement." </em></p>

<p>I like his use of the word "pretext" rather than symbol. It goes along with some of his other thoughts, which can sound a bit radical but convey a lot, I think.</p>

<p><em>"</em><em>In painting you must give the idea of the true by means of the false."</em></p>

<p><em>"</em><em>Art is vice. You don't marry it legitimately, you rape it."</em><br>

<br>

_______________________________<br>

<br>

Art, regarding your post, it is thought-provoking. I'm left considering whether there's a difference that matters between light symbolizing certain feelings and light evoking certain feelings. I think there is, but need to think about it a little more.</p>