Truth

[michaellinder]

<p>Allen - shades of Pascal?</p>

<p>Some lyrics from a song:<br>

I can't stop the world from turning around,<br>

or the moon's pull on the tides.<br>

I don't believe we're in this alone.<br>

I believe we're along for the ride.</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>""Anders, I don't think many of us cherish portraits of those we love because they provide us with ambiguity.""<br>

Fred, I did not discuss "portraits of loved ones". In general, I mostly appreciate portraits that by the skill of the photographer tells several competing stories in the same time, leaving it to the viewer to sort it out. This is done by ambiguity, as far as I see it. I do however very little portrait photography, but I'm a great admirer of many.<br>

</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Portraits of loved ones often set the standard. Think of Stieglitz and O'Keeffe, Weston and Charis Wilson. I agree, though, that many great portraits are also not made of loved ones but rather subjects that come to the photographer in other ways.</p>

<p>The important thing, though, is that I don't think ambiguity and truth in portraiture are mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, it can be the showing of various truths at the same time that can create that feeling of ambiguity. It's only when we identify truth with knowing (and as I said I like to also associate it with feeling, especially as relates to photography) that truth would suggest a lack of ambiguity. In the feeling realm, ambiguity and truth make for good bedfellows.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The truth (as I see it) is that most people are both quite recognizable in their individual expressions and gestures and bearing and also a mystery in so many ways. When a portrait captures something about the person that is very telling and knowing as well as something very mysterious and ambiguous, it usually rings quite true for me.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Very early in this conversation, Anders stated something like truth cannot exist in science, only knowledge (Sorry, Anders, if I have aptly missed your point, but I think not). I normally find Ander's points quite well taken but I think he misses the real character and power of best science. Science is the closest that man has come to understanding and measuring what is truth. Human behaviour (sociology, philosophy, law, or what-have-you) is a poor ground for establishing and understanding what is truth, and may always be so. </p>

<p>You needn't be a highly educated scientist to see truth in powerful formulas (laws) like those of Gibbs or Newton. They are about as true as true can get, tested many times over by multitudes of largely independent observers and found to be so. Even Einstein's exception to F=m.a is a special and extreme case, based on phenomena that are quite removed from the conditions that most humans experience and therefore not really a refusal of Newton's very basic and true expression as it relates to a part of the world in which humans exist.</p>

<p>Photography and truth. No. Photography and subjective or even powerful communication? Variable approaches to some aspect of truth? Yes.</p>

<p>But as a vehicle of truth, it is ultimately deceiving, due in part to its lack of rigor. Still, it is worth trying to find some truth in its application, just as we do in creating the mixrture of words and sentences by which we try to express some element of truth and only approach that quite distantly.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders, to keep it concrete, I wonder if you would mind linking to a couple of portraits you like that are ambiguous in the way you're discussing. I'd like to look at them with you.</p>

<p>In the meantime, I'll add another one of mine below to show a contrast with the color portrait of Will in my post above. This one of Stuart I think is more ambiguous though not as good a portrait, precisely because I think it's missing some truth about Stuart himself. The color photo of Will has both ambiguity (in his expression and vulnerability). But I think it also has a lot of Will, the man, in it. We wouldn't know this as viewers, but any of Will's friends or family looking at the photo (including Will) will tell you how much they see Will in it, in addition to its other more ambiguous and non-representative aspects. Not just that it looks like will but that it conveys something of his being. The photo below of Stuart, on the other hand, is more (as I see it) Stuart as prop and perhaps Stuart as any man. Don't get me wrong, I like the photo but just don't find as much truth in it, truth about Stuart.</p>

<p>My sense is that the portraits that are generally the most beloved by viewers, even viewers who don't know the subject, are ones that do actually capture some recognizable truth about the person. Though we, as viewers, wouldn't know that, I think it still imparts itself to the photo and affects us as viewers. Many people who have seen the photo of Will who don't know Will and have never met him have said to me it seems like it captures something very real about him. I can't recall anyone ever saying that to me about this photo of Stuart.</p>

<p>___________________________________</p>

<p>Arthur, so good to see you here. I love your parting thought above: <em>"Still it is worth trying to find some truth in its [photography's] application, just as we do in creating the mixture of words and sentences . . . "</em></p>

<p>___________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>nm</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I can't seem to post an inline photo because of a PN system quirk, so here's a link. Sorry for the duplicate posts:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/6818857">STUART</a></p>

[AJHingel]

<p><em>"I don't think ambiguity and truth in portraiture are mutually exclusive."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Fred I totally agree on this. For me it is because of the ambiguity of a portrait, that we might get nearer to the truth(s) - I'm sure it is in plural - of a person. Truth(s) of individuals are rarely how "loving ones" look at them or perceive them !<br>

<br>

You asked me for examples, and I will come back. <br>

Personally, I have mainly worked on composed, composite and collage of portraits (mainly paintings) in order to create photographical images (often almost abstract images) that go beyond the individual portrait, creating what I see as ambiguity.<br>

I could show one of these below, without telling the history behind it. Some of you might recognised the works behind it. </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Here it is, hopefully</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Truth(s) of individuals are rarely how "loving ones" look at them or perceive them !"</em></p>

<p>I can only look at those portraits by Weston and Stieglitz as well as so many of the other great portraits of loved ones throughout history to know how much I disagree with you on this point.</p>

<p>I didn't anticipate you would supply a collage as an example of photographic ambiguity. It's fascinating to consider, though a very different ballpark than what I was thinking of. Your example opens up an entire world of possibilities and is great. Thanks for posting it.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Arthur - "But as a vehicle of truth, it is ultimately deceiving, due in part to its lack of rigor."</p>

<p>Positrons were discovered photographically in 1922. Photography, then, is the use of an instrument whose rigor depends on purpose. So I don't agree that as a vehicle of truth, photography is ultimately deceiving.</p>

<p>Also, Heisenberg emphasizes "a subjective element in the description of atomic events, since the measuring device has been constructed by the observer, and we have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." (The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory).</p>

<p>My take on that is that the scientific method of questioning exposes truths for sure. And we now don't directly observe nature for truths the way Newton did. Instead we rely on instruments for our observations in order to arrive at truths deeper than available through direct observation alone.</p>

<p>I don't see a camera or a photograph as inherently any more, or any less subjective than all the other instruments through which we observe nature.</p>

<p>Arthur - "Human behaviour (sociology, philosophy, law, or what-have-you) is a poor ground for establishing and understanding what is truth, and may always be so."</p>

<p>Heisenberg places subjectivity at the heart of measurement processes and to me that places observations and explorations of subjectivity as an equally important component of nature's truths.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><em>""I can only look at those portraits by Weston and Stieglitz as well as so many of the other great portraits of loved ones throughout history to know how much I disagree with you on this point.""</em></p>

<p>I respect your point of view, Fred, but feel, that what we know about family life and relations between kinds, from research and not least from our personal experiences, people build images, myths, roles for each others and live most of their live reproducing these "loved images" in daily life. Photography is often a means of the same.<br>

It can sometimes, not always, of course, turn out to justify the infamous term: hell is the others ("<em>L'enfer, c'est les autres</em>", Sartre). When great portraitists take over, sometimes they distance themselves from these accepted images and something else is added: ambiguity sometimes emerges ! Often, I admit, it sells badly, if you try to sell it to the loved ones.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders, I was talking about portraits being made by loved ones, not sold to them. Note my examples of Weston, Stieglitz and other portraitists who were making them, not buying them.</p>

<p>Anders, as I said, I was meaning to be concrete, which is why I used specific examples. So, it's one thing to talk about research and trends of people in general but it's quite another to look at the Stieglitz and Weston portraits I was talking about and observe what's going on in them. I think the truth of their portraits is found both in the very recognizability and intimacy they capture from their subjects and in the mystery and ambiguity they also portray.</p>

<p>When I mentioned the everyday shooter or scrap-book collector, I was thinking of just wanting pics of our family members that resembled them and would provide nice memories of them, where ambiguity wouldn't really be an issue. This is a very different world of photography, though it definitely should be considered as well.</p>

<p>Yes, it looks like I will happily agree to disagree, which suggests a healthy variety of opinion.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Let me try to answer the demand for examples of portraits with ambiguity - sometimes going beyond , sometimes playing with, the myth and image of the persons: I'll limit myself to fourteen !: </p>

<p><strong>Francesca Woodman</strong>: <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ar7VPCZkZac/UHLnX64BWXI/AAAAAAAAFIg/P7_RfNf--W8/s1600/19_woodman_untitled_fwandbenjamin_s9798.jpg"> Self-portrait Untitled | Rome, 1977–78</a> or <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TJUo7UEktEo/UJ5xO2QMS3I/AAAAAAAABho/zPFrbGeFbm8/s1600/Francesca+Woodman+and+George_72dpi.jpg"><em>Untitled</em> (Portrait of Francesca Woodman and her father George Woodman)1980</a><br>

<strong>Richard Avedon :</strong><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_dd6Yv3kPxA/Tc2whD7DAsI/AAAAAAAALKU/oxbqZokcuXU/s1600/sieff+1970+serge+gainsbourg+et+jane+birkin+fb.jpg"> Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin</a>( 1970) <em>or why not his photo of <a href="http://lavidaenfotografia.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/med_truman-capote-new-york-city-october-10-1955-jpg.jpg">Truman Capote </a>, or his <a href="http://www.revistamilmesetas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Marilyn-Monroe-Actress-New-York-City-1957-by-Richard-Avedon.jpg">Marilyn Monroe</a> - and who said about his own portraitures:<em> "... what I hope to do is photograph people of accomplishment, not celebrity, and help define the difference once again."</em></em><br>

<em><strong>Edward Wilson</strong>'s photo of <a href="http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2008/12/11/1229044211_9863/539w.jpg">Cherish Wilson</a>, lover, model, collaborator...</em>And most of the photos of <strong>Deborah Turbeville :</strong><a href="http://www.fmag.lt/userfiles/IMG_2427.jpg"> here</a>, <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GxzJSrQDOl4/Tmhdjq0A1xI/AAAAAAAAHh0/fLIOq5UnW4M/s1600/Scan+14.jpeg"> here</a>, <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HnprcDWoluo/SoxARzqzx0I/AAAAAAAAAlU/0sZ5FKC6jfQ/s640/deborah+turbeville+005+Corenlia+and+Bianca+Brandolini+D'adda-+vogue+italia+(3).jpg">here</a> or <a href="http://i322.photobucket.com/albums/nn414/ilvoelv/ILVOELV3/52543_Variations_On_Chic_122_41l-1.jpg">Variations on chic</a>; or <strong>Eugene Smith</strong> and his: <a href="http://alexwaterhousehayward.com/blog/uploaded_images/Rebecca-and-Hydrangea-3-728635.jpg">Rebecca and Hydrangea</a>; and why not the German photographer <strong>Sibylle Bergemann</strong> like <a href="http://www.artschoolvets.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/04_popup.jpg">this </a>, <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iuu3lLgBBbs/TkUlBP1sMlI/AAAAAAAAAJs/USV6PC1b2HE/s1600/Sibylle_Bergemann_030601sb24.jpg">this</a> and <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5fqOdyUeP7k/TkUmFYZoBUI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/GV4RKc_gm6M/s1600/Sibylle+Bergemann+Polaroids+4.jpg">this</a>.</p>

<p>In one way of another, ambiguity is a term that comes to my mind in all these fine portraits. It is not examples that are lacking, but I'll stop !</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p><em>"" it's one thing to talk about research and trends of people in general but it's quite another to look at the Stieglitz and Weston portraits I was talking about and observe what's going on in them.""</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I don't see it like that. They are not different things. Good research and life long experience both help to put words on what you can observe when you look at a portrait (or live and communicate with people) and see, and even understand "<em>what's going on in them" and around them - </em>and it even helps to talk about it. Anti-intellectualism is not good for looking at portraits! <em> </em>Intellectualism alone, would be a catastrophe when we talk about truth and concrete portraits. </p>

[charleswood]

<p>Anders - "...people build images, myths, roles for each others and live most of their live reproducing these "loved images" in daily life."</p>

<p>Here is a photographic example <a href="http://users.rider.edu/~suler/photopsy/johari.htm">http://users.rider.edu/~suler/photopsy/johari.htm</a></p>

<p>There are known deceits, known to self/known to another. And there are deceits known to self but not known to another, and self-deceit known to another, and unknown unknowns where lies an 'elusive' sort of ambiguity.</p>

<p>Anders - "Often, I admit, it sells badly, if you try to sell it to the loved ones."</p>

<p>Why would a family member want an image that only showed a naïve view of a family member? Family might love a person because of their flaws, not in spite of their flaws, and not because family members aren't aware of flaws and ambiguity. A family member of a generally hated personage might want portraits of her/him out in the world that showed a good side of that person. Any generally loved personage will have an army of photographers stalking them in order to take a picture that shows the dirt. But that isn't portraiture that army is after. A good portrait is more about truth than lies.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, going back to what you said to Arthur, I was even thinking of how often photos are used in forensics, police work, and court cases. They are rather dependable in a lot of cases, though it never hurts, whether in science or art, to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism. Photos can be falsified and have been known to fool us by leaving out the more complete story. But, as you say, anything we use as proof has that risky potential.</p>

<p>One of the exciting things about photos is the varied uses and genres of them, from snapshots, to records of things, to documenting things and events, to making pretty pictures, to art, to religions that fear they steal souls. Pictures from the holocaust have been very helpful in proving important truths about history, and even in reminding us of them, even though some will still deny those truths.</p>

<p>In some ways, the overlaps of genres and types of photos are most intriguing. When I'm making a portrait, I'm to some extent influenced by loving snapshots and by the documentary capabilities of the medium . . . and I do always promise to return the souls of the people I shoot, someday. :-)</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Charles, thanks for the example of the role of photography in science. It becomes I think simply an extension of the act of observation, controlled by man. When I take a microphotograph of a very small subject, invisible to the naked eye, it is aided by the magnification of the optical (or at smaller dimensions, the electronic) system and the recording device. Can I be sure that what the camera observes and records is real? Is there something that is acting that is falsifying what I "see"?</p>

<p>What Heisenberg is seeing poses a problem for him, but for different reasons than the fact he cannot see it. My remembrance of a somewhat short and incomplete (and for me to some degree incomprehensible) exposure to quantum mechanics is not very useful in contemplating the Heisenberg principle or any other observations/postulates he made, but we know that he questioned the nature of what is the atom and its constituents: Are they waves or are they particles? His principle suggests that the closer we get to seeing what is there, the farther we get from differentiating what is there. Truth was denied to him.</p>

<p>But Einstein's thoughts of what happens to matter and energy at or near the speed of light (the velocity of the latter was already known and had been measured long before his birth), or Heisenberg's thoughts about the nature of atomic sized matter, are phenomenon quite remote from us and to our capability to see or experience ("To be or not to be") and quite special cases (although not so for Hamlet's question, of course).</p>

<p>Photography applied to communicate ideas or emotions rather than measurements places it I think on different terrain and one less rigorous (deceiving) as a path to truth. The nature of the beast, and its users.</p>

<p>Fred and Anders: Is ambiguity truth or is it simply a vehicle to excite our imagination? The road to truth, never completed, is that not more interesting than truth? Truth would be too final.</p>

<p>Fred, just read your last post. Interesting point about possessing the souls of our subjects. But do you really think you or any other photographer get that close to the nature or essence of the person? I am a bit skeptical, even though I might be quite excited to realize just that. I think we (referring to we in general) overestimate at times the power of the image perception and capture, of what we achieve (in depth) as opposed to what we appear to achieve.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>""<em>Is ambiguity truth or is it simply a vehicle to excite our imagination?</em> ""<br /> It could be both, couldn't it ? It can excite our free flowing imagination, but it is especially rich if it has its roots in reality and tells some kind of accepted "truth" (accepted by those involved) about the person, the role, the context, the period, the country, the photographer etc. The main subject matter in a Portraits is not always the one, that is pictures. Artists use portraiture for many things. Viewers too. Just like buyers of portraits do. The perceived and accepted "truth" about a person, the family, the culture, the religion, the situation etc, are just some of the dimensions in a portrait.</p>

<p><em>""Why would a family member want an image that only showed a naïve view of a family member?""</em><br /> I would not use the term naive, unless you believe that normal life of most people is a sign of naivety. I don't see it like that. Normal life and relations between people, within which fits some kind of "true" image of the individual with its roles, history, perceived qualities and potentialities. However, always individuals are much more, and might have different roles and being perceived differently by others in other context away from the circle of the "loved ones". Portraiture for the loved ones is therefore not naive, but partial and incomplete. Ambiguity opens up for the whole, but never totally covers it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, I was being tongue-in-cheek. I don't believe in souls, period, so I certainly don't believe in stealing or capturing them. The smiley face :-) was meant to convey the humor.</p>

<p>And, Arthur, regarding truth and ambiguity, what I've been saying is that, IMO, portraits capture some truths (individuals' recognizable expressions, gestures that seem to convey something significant about the personality of the subject involved, lighting that shows an identifying tattoo or blemish or wrinkle or gleam in an eye, capturing that familiar twist of the head, etc.) and some ambiguities/mysteries and that there are overlaps among the truths and ambiguities of portraits.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Arthur "Can I be sure that what the camera observes and records is real?"</p>

<p>At some point the instrument contributes an effect to a phenomenon, and as I understand it that effect at some limit contributes to ambiguity. For example, we can't know both position and velocity once we have passed some limit. So with a micrograph of an inanimate object at some level of magnification: we can be sure that what the camera recorded is real. (With an animate object under magnification: at some point we have to beware of cooking it.) However at some point of magnification reality can't be measured with precision. We are today in physics still uncertain about the nature of the Nature we observe at a fundamental level. For string theory, our instruments are not up to the task of experimental confirmations. We don't really know what we are looking at with our instruments. Also, and this is my main point: we expose nature only to the extent that we have adopted for that purpose a particular method of questioning. In science, that method is intellectual. As Heisenberg puts it more narrowly "...in our scientific relation to nature our own activity becomes very important when we have to deal with parts of nature into which we can penetrate only by using the most elaborate tools." But that subjectivity was always present, even with the phenomenon that can be observed directly. More broadly Heisenberg agrees that "in the drama of existence we are ourselves both players and spectators."</p>

<p>In candid photography: can we ever be sure that a photographer hasn't contributed an effect to the resulting photograph? In portraiture, that effect is embraced and if I read Fred, others, correctly, that effect can create a truth from within the interaction of observer/observed.</p>

<p>At some point, physical observations of matter aren't candid, our instruments impart a 'portraiture' effect to the phenomenon, uncertainty.</p>

<p>Which is to say that even with the powerful tools of our intellect applied to the problem, when observing nature we really don't know <em>what</em> we are looking at. I don't think we should forget that fact when speaking broadly of truth, since truth includes emotional truths, etc. The knowledge available to us through the use of our intellectual tools: everything we know gets used in some way or another in a process governed entirely by subjectivity. That is the scary thing. We are despite our knowledge stuck in terrain less rigorous.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"In candid photography: can we ever be sure that a photographer hasn't contributed an effect to the resulting photograph? "</em></p>

<p>Probably never can be sure we have not contributed something, but we can be fairly comfortable that we've photographed more or less degree of candidness. Still, even there, we will probably be fooled or fool ourselves sometimes! If nothing else, we are contributing the framing through the lens, which has a basic effect on the photo. But I do think there are cases of what we understanding to be basic candidness, as opposed to posed or staged. Again, though, it's always a matter of degree rather than absolutes.</p>

<p>Note <a href="/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=17464300">THIS WEEK'S POTW</a>. It really does look like a candid shot of the woman and what she's doing, but there is a strong feeling of determination and influence from the photographer in terms of the strong geometrical composition and the closeness and hardness of the wall. Had it been shot from a different angle, maybe we could see other random action and wider view down the street, we might feel that the photographer had operated more candidly.</p>

<p>It's interesting to consider that we often think of candid photography in terms of the candidness of the scene or subject being shot. Do they know they're being shot. I think there's also more and less candid states of the photographer and more or less candid ways to approach shooting.</p>

<p><em>"In portraiture, that effect is embraced and if I read Fred, others, correctly, that effect can create a truth from within the interaction of observer/observed."</em></p>

<p>Yes, it often is. Though I also think there are portraits that rely on more rather than less candidness and prefer to keep the interaction to a minimum in favor of keeping the photographer's influence to a minimum. There are also some good, candid street portraits, though I suppose we could debate if those are more street or more portrait, but I don't really care much what we call them.</p>

<p>What I take from your statement is something important. People often assume that candid is more truthful. I don't happen to think so, since I think there's so much truth in intentional human interactivity.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"What I take from your statement is something important. People often assume that candid is more truthful. I don't happen to think so, since I think there's so much truth in intentional human interactivity."</p>

<p>Imagine a scientist providing arbitrary inputs to an experiment, or rather, in letting the experiment (conditions) itself direct the outcome. Arbitrary fashion, like Brownian movement. The result of not directing an experiment (not setting it up, not establishing some conditions, etc.) is often unyielding of wothwhile results. Such a candid experiment seldom aims at, or approaches, truth.</p>

<p>So I agree entirely with what Fred refers to as intentional interactivity. It is important in science, art and photography. </p>

<p>I am familiar with the subjectivity of the researcher as referred to by Charles. It is very hard to ignore and I have had some biases in my own work, but subjective reasoning is part of an interactivity that is important in attaining an objective. The benzene molecular ring owed to the researcher thinking of an animal chasing its tail.</p>

<p>I am drawn to artistic photography and to the conscious and intentional interaction of the photographer. I know that this is not the intent of many of my photographer colleagues, some of whom disdain the interaction of the photographer, because to them it limits the attainment of an unbiased (if there ever is such a thing) capture of a subject. </p>

<p>We all have our own approaches and I am glad that photography is not straight-jacketed to one approach or that truth is in any way essential (on the contrary, I believe that to seek it is often superfluous to making a successful image. I believe we should only be true to our own ideas and perceptions, however distorted in the context of any notion of truth.<br>

</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Arthur - "The benzene molecular ring owed to the researcher thinking of an animal chasing its tail."</p>

<p>To be more precise: "He said that he had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail (this is a common symbol in many ancient cultures known as the Ouroboros or Endless knot). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene</a></p>

<p>So the benzene molecular ring wasn't a 'thought' of a researcher: it was a day-dream or reverie that revealed a truth that I assume was later verified by thought. It may be fair to say that few scientific truths can claim only thought as contributing to their discovery and despite the utility of the scientific method it is just one of many points of view into nature, its view of nature entirely a matter of what questions we can legitimately ask within its framework. The discovery of the ring shape of the benzene molecule is a classical example of the progressive interaction that can come out of both rationality and irrationality. Not all irrationality is unreasonable!</p>

<p> </p>