Truth

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"What do we just love about photography?!!!"</em></p>

<p>First thing that comes to mind. Its connection to and separation from what the camera is pointed at.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p><em>"What do we just love about photography?!!!"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Essentially the same reply, in short form - the subject matter </p>

[charleswood]

<p>If I had to choose between connection and separation: it would be hard, but they seem to go together. I get some objectivity about my subjects while feeling more connected at the same time. My subjects are almost entirely from the animal world and I've learned a lot.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>By connection to and separation from what the camera is shooting I mean that photos are and are not about their subjects. Yes, they can be very connected to the subjects but they can also be, dare I say it, alienated from them in that they are photos, so they are in some sense denying that "real-life" subject. Often, it will be the light, the texture, the shadows, the photo taken as a whole, the abstracted quality of isolating that subject from its surroundings that will become more important than or even supersede the subject. Or, the subject can simultaneously, sorry, be and not be. The portrait you see is the man and is so not the man. The man photographed is connected to the man and is such a different animal . . . all at once. The subject is in a balancing act with photographic predicates. The photo of the pepper is about the pepper and is also a nude study in light. The camera points to something real. The photo is real and also an artifice.</p>

<p>I have a feeling this can be explained better, but it's the best I can do for now. Or maybe it can't be. Maybe it just has to be developed.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Fred - "The photo is real and also an artifice."</p>

<p>Interesting, a lot to think about. I don't think I entirely get it, but let me try another phrasing and tell me if it alters your meaning. I'll use your original words as much as possible.</p>

<p>A photo is real in that it is, after all, connected to its subject; and a photo is alienated from its subject by the fact of a photo being a mere artifact of the subject. A photo is real in that it captures something essential about a subject, but is alienated from the subject because it isn't in <em>really</em> the subject. And more than an artifact, artistic expression applied to a photo creates an artifice, given many contexts.</p>

<p>In a photographic image the subject is both on display as a frame and is within that frame. Within the frame is a display of light, texture shadows, etc. <em>On</em> display implies an importance of subject warranting display; and <em>within</em> display, contained in the photo itself, are elements that alone or in combination can exceed, even supersede the subject in importance. Thus, the subject in the photograph can simultaneously be and not be <em>the</em> subject in the photograph; a subject is and isn't, emphasis can morph back and forth between competing subjects. These nuances of view can combine in their effect upon the viewer such that although there is a connection between the subject and its photograph, each are alienated from each other, separate and distinct; that difference can produce an emergence where the subject that was photographed and that subject as pictured can split into different animals, can be two things simultaneously. The instantaneous discovery by the viewer of that qualitative difference between subject as artifact and subject as artifice can be profound.</p>

<p>In addition to artifact and artifice, a photo on display is artful. It is on display in the context of its forbearers. For example, a photo of a pepper is both about a pepper; but it is also a form, a nude study in light, preceded by other forms of nude studies in photographic art, preceded by nude studies in painting, etc.</p>

<p>That's pretty good Fred, if I correctly rendered most of your original meanings.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Nice recapitulation, Charles.</p>

<p>Only one modification at the very beginning. Actually just an addition because I like your first sentence that starts with "A photo is real . . . "</p>

<p>What I was also thinking of in saying a photo is real is that it is literally real. It is a thing in the world, every bit as real as the thing the camera got pointed at. It's a real piece of paper hung on a wall. Even an abstract photo, one where the subject is not recognizable at all, is real in this sense. The connection to subject can be completely severed and the photo is just a real thing on its own.</p>

<p>Also, artifice is the man-made aspect and the sometimes deceptive, cunning, even dishonest, but also creative side of the photo. Take portraits. So often I get reactions projecting psychology or characteristics onto the person pictured, when nothing could be further from the truth. It was just the way we used light, or focus, or perspective. The extreme change that can come in stilling a moment. That feeling of knowing the person via the portrait can be much more about a viewer knowing a particular expression and feeling it personally and deeply. It's why I often see the photographed subjects as characters, who are real and even hyper-real and eminently relatable, but different from the actor playing the part. Still, the actor himself is on stage and so is more than just the character. And the person who's pictured in the photo was, indeed, there, so I can't deny the person's influence even on the trickery of the transformation to character.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>By the way, I think this artifice happens whether it's a picture of a posed person or someone passing by or hanging out on the street - person - character - and in pictures of rocks and houses too. The disconnection happens in degrees and sometimes when we think it's not happening we better face the music because it may be happening more than we think.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, I like the discussion about a photograph being what it is (a type of graphic) and not the subject matter itself rendered in a truthful reproduction. That I believe is impossible to achieve perfectly and the photo, even a scientific one, can only hint at what is photographed, albeit in some cases being quite close to reality. It may however reinforce the perceptions of others or the photographer in regard to the subject.</p>

<p>Certainly the photographer, or simple chance (some unpredicted effect of lighting, of position, of reaction of the subject, etc.), adds something to the image, and artifice (from Latin artificium, or artifex) is one way to express that.</p>

<p>What is important in artifice is I think the sub-term art, as artifice expresses some form of art or innovation, as a strategem (an artful or crafty expedient), an ingenuity, or a cleverness or skill. Some might say artifice is a subtle deception, but I look at artifice in photography as something the photographer (or again, chance) personally adds to the image. Therefore, truth in terms of representation of a subject matter is a sort of non-sequitur in describing the objective of a photograph.</p>

<p>For me, that is great and is like removing a straightjacket from photography. Why does a photo have to aim at reality or at truth? We can use the medium to express something new or fresh or different about a subject matter (human, building, nature). In my example of a Port Hope (Ontario) intersection, what I wanted to communicate was not the normally busy crossroad or the colorful and warm hue of its natural or painted brick buildings, or a day in the life of a small city in a main street shopping area, but rather the city stripped of its everyday appearance and reduced to its architectural or topographical form. The single person in the lower right is almost an anachronism in this view, and looks uneasy about entering the frame.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/17410692</p>

<p>Artifice. Yes. For me it is the basis of interesting photography.</p>

<p>Asa contrast, the following photos, made last week in one of our island villages, have a minimum of artifices or artifacts. Their interest, if there is, is mainly in terms of fairly realistic records of life in a certain part of North America, but they are not not imbued with any manipulative or innovative intent on the part of the photographer, and therefore have a minimum of artifices.</p>

<div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>Another sans-artifice:</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>OOPs, here:</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>Another, from the village, to show lack of artifice (or is one perceptible? - arguable, but I think it does not contain an artifice, unless the photographer's choice is one...):</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, looking at your last photo, the artifice I see is the dimensional flatness of the scene, occurring because of the inclusion of such a small hint of foreground. Also, the very blatant framing, which chops the roof off in a rather jarring way. To me, there would be less artifice here if you'd included a little more foreground, giving us a sense of the natural or organic space and allowed the roof a little more completeness (or less). [i am talking strictly from the perspective of artifice and not suggesting what would make a better or more interesting photo.] I don't think artifice necessarily makes a photo a work of art. But I do agree with you that art and artifice are obviously related.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Therefore, truth in terms of representation of a subject matter is a sort of non-sequitur in describing the objective of a photograph."</em></p>

<p>I've been hoping to draw a distinction, in this thread, between truth as representation or accuracy of representation and truth as a sort of deeper emotional relationship to whatever a photo may show, express, or communicate. When I talk of photographic truth, I'm talking about the latter.</p>

<p>Ironically, sometimes the further from the first kind of truth (representative accuracy) a photo is, the more likely is the second kind of truth to emerge.</p>

<p>I think a lot of great documentary work, much of which I consider art, does not rely too much on artifice and tries to present as unflinching and unadorned view as possible. It's art not only because of what we see, but because of what we come to feel.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, as the scene (subject matter) is indeed flat, I don't think it has a particular artifice in that sense - as that is simply how it is.</p>

<p>The assymetric relationship of the door vis-a-vis the roof dormer windows (intentionally shown only very partially), and the suggestion that the windows, not seen completely (re the rightmost part of the image) are also assymetric with the door, and also with the the sign above the door, characterize this village shop which has evolved from a former residence and displays the non-symmetrical architecture, even evident in this more recent building (1850s), that is acarry-over from former much earlier vernacular buildings than this (cold winters cut down on the number of openings, windows and doors) in which openings were put wherever needed and not according to a more classical Renaissance inspired manner.</p>

<p>Digression aside, this is just a record image without any intentional artifice presumption, and it could be so also as a larger view or a more selective smaller framing than this and still remain such a record image. More blasé from the photographer and quite different from the artifice of my Port Hope example.</p>

<p><em>"I don't think artifice necessarily makes a photo a work of art". </em><br /> <br /> True, but this is also true for any other subjective interpretation of subject matter, artifice or not, which does not necessarily produce art. Artifice is just one important contributor to that possibility, but it is a quite wide ranging one, as it can cover many things in an intentional or even a non-intentional image creation that does more than just aim at some "truthful" representation of subject.</p>

<p><em>"truth as a sort of deeper emotional relationship to whatever a photo may show, express, or communicate. When I talk of photographic truth, I'm talking about the latter."</em></p>

<p>Fred, one might instead call that "effect" or "personal involvement" with the image and what it represents for you. Or an effect that complies with your emotions or values and perhaps reinforces them. But "truth"? Maybe the word "truth" is too definitive in that case, given that our points of reference may also be evolving as we mature or grow old or experience entirely new stimuli?</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Arthur my perception of 'End of summer in a village' changes if I instead retitle it for discussions sake: "Two people in a village at summer's end". Because the second person on the street is you, thereby 'in' the picture standing at the implied window we create out of the lens, the window always 'there' in the picture with we photographers standing behind it. So let me play around with that conceptualization just for the fun of it.</p>

<p>By extension, and over generalizing, a picture is as much a picture of the photographer as it is of the 'pictured' subject. The observational window of the lens points two ways. For me, my awareness of that fact works for and against me in photography at times; I am affected by a sort of personal straight jacket of persona that I carry as surely as I carry and operate the camera. A sense of unease with persona can come both from the living subject and living photographer. So can a sense of ease with all that. And depending on how we work with the interplay between mask and 'no mask', well, what, spontaneity? We all know we are not our masks, not our personas. Also we know that on any day we can be more in the process, or less. I'm not going for schema here!</p>

<p>So let me first quote exactly, and then rephrase what Fred wrote. Quote Fred: "By the way, I think this artifice happens whether it's a picture of a posed person or someone passing by or hanging out on the street - person - character - and in pictures of rocks and houses too. The disconnection happens in degrees and sometimes when we think it's not happening we better face the music because it may be happening more than we think."</p>

<p>Rephrasing to emphasize the person of the photographer, photographer persona (and more broadly character) behind the window of the lens: ...this artifice [effect] of photographer persona/character is imbued into the photograph whether it is a picture of a posed person (observer bias) or someone passing by or hanging out on the street of rocks and houses too. A photograph is a disconnection from the reality pictured, a photograph is the abstraction of an artifact from reality and the placement of that abstracted reality within a two dimensional frame. At the same time a photograph is the abstraction of the reality of the photographer's subjectivity, the subjectivity of the photographer abstracted and placed within a two dimensional frame. A photograph is a disconnection of the photographer from the photographer, a 'downloading' into the frame of the photographer's subjective state as it existed at the moment of capture. About that, or related to that in my mind anyway, Fred wrote: "The disconnection happens in degrees and sometimes when we think it's not happening we better face the music because it may be happening more than we think."</p>

<p>The persona and character of the photographer is a 'subject' of a photograph, the photographer's persona and character is pictured as surely as is the objective reality coming in for an interpretation through the lens. A scientific photograph of a subject is in fact also a photograph of the scientist. The subject is posed and the photographer is posed too; the better the pose in a scientific photograph, the more rigorously obtained is the result.</p>

<p>Effective posing by the photographer includes persona, but isn't limited to persona, I think that goes without saying. In the artistic process we work to voice our creative sides, both in our walking around, choice of subjects, use of imagination, and in the darkroom side of the process.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Charles, I agree that the photographer is always a part of his image, just as a scientist is always a part of his observations, measurements or postulates. Perhaps we can say that the photographer has certain biases that come into play when he selects whatever subject matter or position or other aspect of his photo. I think this is a bit different than his imbuing the image with personal values or persona.</p>

<p>Several monumental views of nature, or of man's realisations, are referenced by marked sites from which photographs can be made (I think I read somewhere that the Adam's half dome view in the USA is so referenced for tourists with cameras). Given similar light, whether it is photographer A or B or C who makes a photograph at that site, the results are close to being identical, and whatever bias existed is largely that of whoever chose that site from which to photograph. Creating a subjective and distinct image in that condition is not evident. In cases where we have more control of what and where we photograph we can introduce more or less of ourselves in the photograph. Once a micro-photographer has decided what inanimate object he wishes to photograph under the standard light of a microscope, the result is relatively free of bias or persona, or any artifacts created by those factors. General photos, like end of summer in the village, can contain relatively few biases or artifices. They may be truer to the subject (when shown to third parties) than those images made with a much more subjective intent on the part of the photographer, which as Fred mentions, can contain values (personal truths) that are important to, or which characterize, the photographer. The part of the photographer in an image may be very small or quite large, but I don't think either really establishes any truths that might be important to the overall viewing public. The photograph can nevertheless incite people to think about things, including its relationship to truth or the quest for it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Given similar light, whether it is photographer A or B or C who makes a photograph at that site, the results are close to being identical, and whatever bias existed is largely that of whoever chose that site from which to photograph. Creating a subjective and distinct image in that condition is not evident."</em></p>

<p>I agree. Well said. And this does, in fact, convey a lot about each photographer. It is true that many people watch American Idol, many people like kitsch, and many people want to be told where to take the "best" picture from. Just that someone did not adopt a different perspective does tell us a lot about the person . . . and probably more about people in general.</p>

<p>That being said, these are kind of default behaviors that tell certain truths, or the more passive activity of not really choosing a personal perspective to adopt when photographing something iconic. So I do think it's probably the case that we can tell more about a person when they appear to have made more aware or intentional or deliberate decisions in their photo making rather than just following the herd.</p>

<p>Some of the disconnection I'm talking about is exemplified in this story about the repetitive photos of Half Dome. In a sense, the photos are really not about Half Dome at all, but about possession, memory, and even competition of a sort -- "I want for myself what everybody else has." If you've seen tourists pull up to the picture-taking parking lots at Yosemite and other similar national parks, you've seen anything but a connection to the scenery and place. It is simply a passing glance. Like notching off a name on a list of things to do. "I have seen Half Dome in person and I have proof." Often, in fact, the camera in these people's hands serves as a means NOT to actually see the scene but rather to OWN some superficial part of it, its likeness, and move on as quickly as possible without taking the time to see it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"So I do think it's probably the case that we can tell more about a person when they appear to have made more aware or intentional or deliberate decisions in their photo making rather than just following the herd."</em></p>

<p>I said this and would like to add or clarify. It might also be the type of photo taking or making that is involved. Any photographer will adopt unconscious perspectives and we can tell much about the photographer even from non-deliberate photographic gestures he may make. When someone is following the herd, and that includes a lot of snapshot making, it's hard to read into what they've done and see something unique or personal to them because it is telling us more about the herd, cultural approaches to snapshots, etc. But someone like Arthur who, even though is taking the photos above in the objective manner he sees fit, but who does not really approach photography as a rote task will, I think, show us much about himself even through the non-deliberate or unintentional things he does to make the photo. My thought is that both intentional and unintentional things we do expose ourselves in our photos but less so when we are doing things by cultural rote.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, a good final sentence in your post. I was tempted to read "cultural rut" instead of "cultural rote". The effect of our culture on our life and photography is hugely important, and a challenge for any artist or thinking person (I should write and/or instead of or). Our cultures give us good things and less good things and whichever, they are hard to ignore or balance in or out when we are photographing. </p>

[charleswood]

<p>Fred, I agree with your characterization of the numerous Half Dome image makers, and Arthur's characterization as in a 'rut'. Adding to that, among the cave paintings I linked to somewhere in the foregoing, are paintings of human hands on the wall of a cave. A less artistically inclined cave dweller may have just made his/her mark with charcoal from the evening fire. With a camera today, we take our graffiti home with us leaving a site disturbed only by our footprints. It is the subjective reality in the details and textures within the creative impulse itself that holds my interest as much as the artifact imposed upon the photographic medium. Well at least sometimes, not as much as might be suggested by my continually repeating that point.</p>

<p>Arthur, emphasis added - "Given similar light, whether it is photographer A or B or C who makes a photograph at that site, the results are <em><strong>close</strong> </em>to being identical, and whatever bias existed is largely that of whoever chose that site from which to photograph."</p>

<p>As are the results of Einstein's to Newton's, <em>close</em>, but no cigar. If each camera at Half Dome also recorded its geographical position and elevation, differences however slight would be recorded. The camera roughly measures how tall the photographer is at the very least.</p>

<p>Likewise, Half Dome's reality is erosion and each instant places new little bits of Half Dome as litter down on the valley floor, Half Dome and valley floor quite different than when pictured by Mr. Adams. Different indeed in each frame of Half Dome captured in all the cameras since.</p>

<p>Likewise each camera records an image of its own structures. Further, each use of a camera is a measurement of the photographer's ability to focus, to hold a camera steady, etc. Random effects introduced by the photographer are in a normal distribution where random error is as likely to fall as much on one side of average as on another, errors self cancelling such that a recognizable picture of Half Dome emerges. We <em>miss</em> by an average the 'real Half Dome', the Half Dome in a state of active decay, though we do more recognize that a photographer is in a state of active decay, as is the camera, in order of longevity.</p>

<p>So Arthur when you say of Half Dome or anything else that can be capture in a photograph (emphasis added), "Creating a subjective and distinct image in that condition is <em>not</em> evident.", you are stating the common bias that allows us the courage to hike on Half Dome unreservedly. We don't expect that Half Dome would toss us to the valley floor as though we were just anther 'little bit' to shed in that process we memorialize in a photograph, that process of Half Dome's un-becoming Half Dome entirely.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Arthur - "They may be truer to the subject (when shown to third parties) than those images made with a much more subjective intent on the part of the photographer, which as Fred mentions, can contain values (personal truths) that are important to, or which characterize, the photographer. The part of the photographer in an image may be very small or quite large, but I don't think either really establishes any truths that might be important to the overall viewing public."</p>

<p>A personal truth, such as the impressiveness of Half Dome, is a personal truth established as important overall to the viewing public by their proclivity to then go there and take a picture of Half Dome for themselves. Values can be cultural, held individually and collectively. Where do we get our values?</p>

<p>On the one hand, its from culture that we get our values and the less such a value is presented as subjective then all the more 'objective' or self-evident a value becomes in the mind of its holder. On the other hand our value also are by choice.</p>

<p>In either case, from culture or choice, there is an ordering process involved in placing value. The process of the assignment of value, the feeling function as Jung defines it, "is an entirely subjective process,..", a "process that takes place between the <em>ego</em> (q.v.) and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite <em>value</em> in the sense of acceptance or rejection ("like" or "dislike")." I add not just like or dislike, but also <em>how much</em> like or dislike of that content, and how much in relation to other content contemplated within the operation of that valuation process Jung calls the feeling function. The result of that valuation process can be written thus: 2x, where x is the content and the coefficient is contributed to the expression by the feeling function, the feeling function having assigned the value <em>2 </em>to a content <em>x</em>. Jung goes on to say that 0x (Zero X), that is, indifference, is also an assignment of value in that entirely subjective process he called the feeling function. I might call the feeling function instead the 'integrative function' because it integrates content into an ordering of values. That ordering, Jung points out, is a rational function because "values in general are assigned according to the laws of reason, just as concepts in general are formed according to these laws."</p>

<p>From those definitions I take it that the expression of values by a photograph, and/or a viewer finding value in a photograph, is rational since the feeling function is a rational function and doesn't operate according to a pure subjectivity, isn't random or accidental. If you ask a person why their value assignment to the photograph differs from the photographer's, or from another viewer's, the explanation will be a <em>rational</em> discussion about value assignment: there are <em>reasons </em>that value is assigned<em>. </em>The assignment of value is subjective and yet made by a psychological function that has rules that are understandable to reason. Our moods, our emotions, may have no reason - but our value assignment does have reason of its own, is relational, integrative, with depth, dimension, and order. I offer that 'personal truths' carry more weight as the products of the feeling function's rational processes than pure subjectivity.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p><em>"I offer that 'personal truths' carry more weight as the products of the feeling function's rational processes than pure subjectivity."</em></p>

<p>Charles, you know more about Jung than I do, so I will from this remark assume that the feeling function can be ascribed a certain objectivity (rational process) as opposed to "pure" subjectivity. I should read your text again, as I seem to have the impression from your 4th paragraph that the feeling function is indeed a subjective one. Are we speaking of relative subjectivities when we talk of personal truths being more weighty when the feeling function is invoked? Or....? I guess that I am not convinced that personal truths are anything more than subjective (if honestly felt and personally rationalised) ones. </p>

<p> </p>

[charleswood]

<p>Arthur - "Are we speaking of relative subjectivities when we talk of personal truths being more weighty when the feeling function is invoked?"</p>

<p>Yes. The coefficient in 2x, 2, can vary across individuals, but x is any known content. (my expression isn't quite right, maybe ((+-)2x) is better) I think it has to do with any content that may come across our minds. On the one hand we can have a singular emotional reaction to content (of any kind), a purely subjective reaction because that emotional reaction, if we have one, is comprised of raw affect. At the same time we have to integrate that content, assimilate it, personally acculturate it in a manner of speaking. We make an integrative judgment - like or dislike with all value tones implied - and by how much.</p>

<p>Like and dislike involve comparisons to other likes and dislikes, so there is additional ordering taking place by virtue of that integrative function that Jung terms the feeling function. In English, common use of the word 'feeling' ordinarily refers to affective reactions (fight, flight for example). The word 'integrative' better conveys the sense to me of what the feeling function actually does: places a value, and a value in relation to other content, other content that has also gone through the grist mill of the feeling function. Once an emotional reaction like fight or flight is over, we're left to assess and integrate, order by value, the content. "I don't like lions in such and such a situation" would be a product of the feeling function, it guides future possible courses of action, and is a rationally determined value judgment, following the rules of reason. In another situation I might like lions enough to make an object of worship of them, because in some of its aspects, a lion may fall into a category other than predator so that we value 'lion' differently when in a non-predator category. The assignment of two contradictory values to a lion might seem irrational; but upon inspection, there is a reasonable rule involved in the value assignment.</p>

<p>Values themselves are not exclusively personal, not exclusively subjective. We share values by degree, and people will always disagree as to from whence values arise, or from whence value systems arise. Some research has suggested that our morality roots into our DNA, though with plasticity. Dogs have been shown to exercise moral judgment, so morality isn't a quality found only in human beings. Generally with values, we do know what another person is talking about and can assess for ourselves the coefficient they attach to a content. We can disagree as to the coefficient, the subjective factor, but generally understand the mechanisms and contexts of value assignment. That's because value assignments are made for 'reasons', one reason being to integrate content into what we recognize as our personal orientation. Our personal orientation is an island of sorts, but not an island entirely comprised of, when viewed by others, unfamiliar territory and unrecognizable features.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Thanks. I also looked back at Alan's rather simply stated OP and found your first reply:</p>

 

 

 

<p>"Maybe the broadest truth that a photograph can embody is an affirmation that humans have the ability to create."</p>

<p>That is a truth we cannot disclaim. Perhaps all other photographic truths are not really truths (like laws of physics, or other laws in science, I feel that truths need to have application to the overall human population or environment in order to justify their validity), but instead are referrals of the photograph or photography to personally held values of the photographer.</p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[charleswood]

<p>Well said, Arthur. I like that.</p>