Your Shadow

charleswood · November 25, 2013

So photographer shadow may tend to feel disembodied, but they can't be, are a literal in a photograph just like everything else that is in the frame. Maybe photographer's shadow use falls into but two categories: 1. amusement; or 2. metaphor. Amusement in Steve's, metaphor in Lex's or Arthur's.

In choosing metaphor the photographer then uses "photography as a critical tool to point things out." (<a href="http://www.onshadow.com/artists/schles-ken/an-interview/">Ken Schles</a>)

Same source, Ken Schles:

"But more than anything, I begin to start thinking about photography as practiced in <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=times+square&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=WpJwT_2HM6fz0gGit9TVBg&biw=1459&bih=933&sei=XZJwT8-qN-fX0QG30KTiBg" target="_blank">the larger world</a> and how it is totally overwhelming our little practice of critical photography. I think a lot of what is seeping into… On the one hand we can say photography is cross-pollinating itself, but it’s also acting in ways that very much negates traditional critical practice."

</blockquote>

and, same article:

"Right, but photographs have many different functions. And I feel like a certain function it has traditionally served within the art community is being overwhelmed and eclipsed by photography’s more vernacular uses."

</blockquote>

More:

"Coming of age in the period where John Szarkowski was such a singular voice, his vocabulary about photography was the end-all. We endless [sic] discussed the work of the artists he championed: <a href="http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=1834" target="_blank">Gary Winogrand</a>, <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100688154" target="_blank">Robert Frank</a>, <a href="http://diane-arbus-photography.com/" target="_blank">Diane Arbus</a>, <a href="http://www.egglestontrust.com/" target="_blank">William Eggleston</a>, <a href="http://www.atgetphotography.com/" target="_blank">Atget</a>, <a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/evan/hd_evan.htm" target="_blank">Evans</a>. The whole dialogue about thinking about how information moves through an image, the use of formal devices… these are things that we all learned in school. How do you make a “<a href="http://photographyguide.org/" target="_blank">good photograph</a>?” How does it operate? Those discussions all addressed formal approaches, which had to be taught. And that language became fairly complex to describe these artist’s motives. I wonder if that language has extinguished itself to a certain degree."

</blockquote>

Maybe that language was destined to be extinguished because Szarkowski led photographic art away from its critical function and into the more vernacular uses Schles ruminates today; led there partly because of that democratizing trend from Szarkowski, a precursor of all that has now placed the curator in today's reduced position (that position also described by Schles in the interview.) From one point of view (mine maybe), Szarkowski led a great leap backward into the static model of society found in the portraiture of <a href="http://www.moma.org/collection/artist.php?artist_id=5145">August Sander</a> (called 'cyclic model of society' in that linked material, though my substitution of the word 'static' better conveys Sander's social philosophy.) Naturally, in a 'Sander-static" world, meaning escapes and alienation inundates photographic art.

But I think Schles is onto something: "I find images interesting, expressly because of the conundrum they present. They project things they are not; they allow us to see, through metaphor." And

In the end it’s all about significance and finding meaning. That’s why it’s interesting to me that Flusser would say images are significant surfaces. That’s why this whole discussion revolving around significance is so fascinating. And that’s why my 7 year old taking a photograph is also so interesting–because he’s trying to parse significance from the world, he’s trying to find significance. Finding significance is our human nature, our drive. It is our manifest destiny to divine meaning in a meaningless universe.

</blockquote>

Norma Desmond · November 25, 2013

Charles, when it comes to photographs, I'm usually at least as concerned with how things look and feel as with how they "are." How "are" they, anyway? A shadow can sometimes look more disconnected to a body than at other times. I don't have a problem with that perception. Additionally, in some of Lex's cases, I'm not even sure unless I'm told whose shadows those are. That's different from feeling certain that a shadow is coming from the photographer.

"So photographer shadow may tend to feel disembodied, but they can't be, are a literal in a photograph."

You don't seem to be taking your own advice here, or the advice suggested by Schles, unless I misunderstand you."They project things they are not; they allow us to see, through metaphor." How do you then turn around and tell me shadows may feel disembodied but can't be. Somehow, especially in a photo, how something looks is metaphorically more significant than what it "is." Photos can often be very much about appearance.

aplumpton · November 25, 2013

Fred, I think that Charles's interesting discussion refers more to shadows as a component of an image and thus able to play a rôle giving the image in some cases a metaphorical sense, rather than his saying that the the shadows themselves are metaphors. While they demonstrate appearance, as other elements also do, they can also be disembodied when part of a metaphor.

Just a quick reaction to the two latest postings, which may or may not "hold water" with you.

Norma Desmond · November 25, 2013

Arthur, thanks for that clarification. If Charles were, in fact, making that point, which I'm glad you explained and is likely on target, I would simply make the point that an element of a photo, such as a shadow, can also be taken metaphorically as well as literally. I shy away from formulations such as "but they can't be" when referring to shadows or almost anything in a photo, since usually they also can be, depending on the photo, the situation, and the context.

My main point was to say that some shadows feel more connected to the person who's causing the shadow and some shadows seem disconnected to the person who's causing it. In many self shadows, I can feel the shadow touching the feet of the photographer, as if there's a continuity between person and shadow. When a shadow is more projected, and especially emanates on more of an angle from the person, I get more of a discontinuous or what I metaphorically referred to as a disembodied feeling.

charleswood · November 25, 2013

In an earlier thread I tried to paraphrase Fred <a href="/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00c46l?start=100">http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00c46l?start=100</a> and here I develop that attempt a little more:

A photo is real, is a real object in a real world. Also, a photo is real in that it, after all, actually articulates to its subject through captured light from the objective world; yet as a capture, 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 really the subject. And more than an artifact, artistic expression applied to a photo creates an artifice, given many contexts.

For Schles, the artifice [noun] is created by a will, the will of the photographer, and the will of the viewer that both conceive of a photo, a photo that is a real object in the world, as a significant surface. Schles in the interview

"If you talk to beginning photo students, you’ll often hear them say, “I don’t know what to photograph, I don’t know where to look.” They’re usually lost because they haven’t found a way to visually express something that’s significant to them.

I’m reminded of Flusser, where in the very beginning of Towards a Philosophy of Photography he talks about significant surfaces. This, to me, resonates profoundly.

It’s all about significance."

</blockquote>

A photographic image is itself a real object existing on a wall or within a picutre frame, which gives the photographic image itself significance by virture of being on display. A photographic image is a subject on display within the borders of the photographic frame, has significance as such; and within that frame is a display of light, texture shadows, etc. On display implies a significance of subject warranting display; and within the display is the significance that can be found in the photo itself by an examination of the elements of the photograph. Interestingly, on display within the photograph are elements that alone or in combination can exceed, even supersede the subject(s) in importance. Thus, a literal subject in the photograph can simultaneously be and not be the subject in the photograph; a subject is and isn't, and 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 real (articulated light) connection between the subject and its photograph, the literalness of that connection loosens, photographed and photo becoming alienated from each other by multiple meanings, actual subject and subject as photographed becoming separate and distinct; that difference can produce an emergence where the subject that was photographed and that subject as it exists in the picutre can split into different animals, can be two things simultaneously. An instantaneous emergence by the viewer of that qualitative difference between subject as artifact and subject as artifice can be significant, even profound. Artifice carries, crystalizes, concentrates and amplifies significances. Further, Schles in the interview "In the end, while I might present an image to represent something that is of significance to me, you’re the one who’s ultimately going to say what it signifies for you. Gilles Peress talks about how half of the creation of the image is made by the viewer looking at the image and saying what it means and why it’s significant." Artifact, artifice and also a photograph exists within the larger contextual frame of its antecedents, that body of work called art.

So if we borrow from that earlier discussion the terms artifact, artifice, significance, and art as elements of a loose conceptual framework, then let's return to the OP on photographer shadow in a photograph. Photographer shadow is light articulated into the photographic medium. That photographer shadow isn't something other than exactly what it is, it is "my shadow" or "my dang shadow" and that literalness works both for and against an effort by a photographer to wrest significance from a cretin like device that just records what 'is'. How do you create artifice from artifact, what the heck is there to take a picture of anyway, the condundrum mentioned by Schles in the interview as the bane of the photography student who, in Schles view, hasn't yet learned to project significance in his/her photography, hasn't yet learned how to create a significant space in a frame. Like a poet, the starting point for a photographer is a blank piece of paper and a photography student spends apparently an equal amount of time staring at blank paper pondering how to get something 'on there'. But, as Schles puts it "That’s why this whole discussion revolving around significance is so fascinating. And that’s why my 7 year old taking a photograph is also so interesting–because he’s trying to parse significance from the world, he’s trying to find significance."

Then, Eureka, the shutter is tripped and "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." A pepper becomes significant both for the technical execution of a picture and for its placement among its antecedents. An artist is born, significant space is created.

Fred: "That's different from feeling certain that a shadow is coming from the photographer." And if that is the case as you say in some of Lex's, then his ambiguous use of photographer shadow is a 'shadowy' use, use of his own reflection or silhouette as a prop, as a stand in for something else. That's legitimate use, but how are we as the viewer able to tell whose shadow it is? That's all fine. When knowing shadow is coming from the photographer we're in unambiguous territory. A camera however isn't an illustrator's pen, it records literals, articulated light, and that connection between photographer shadow and photographer is an inescapable and restrictive starting point that is part of the uniqueness of photographic 'drawings'. Metaphor from photographer shadow thus is much harder to achieve than in pen and ink, the slight of hand used to achieve it always in full view, line of sight and light source being the tattle tale, we the viewer know it is you the photographer that cast that particular shadow, it had to be, photography unforgiving in some of its constraints.

So if we take a look at Arthur's <a href="/photo/11472731">Self portrait 1</a>. It is photographer shadow very literally. And it becomes metaphor when we attempt to understand the portrait as significant space. Arthur explains earlier in this thread:

The self-shadow suggests a human entering into what turns out to be a rather closed composition. (« Closed » here in the sense of...) Where does the staircase lead us? The rail diagonal, the stairs themselves and the directional light all suggest to the viewer that the person is going somewhere, like to a landing, followed by a reverse sense downward stair component. But that is not seen or otherwise evident from the photo. Also, the light on the far wall seems to suggest an opening. However, there is no such opening, only building cement blocks. The upward reaching diagonals on the right concrete wall take us back up to the original departure point, where stands the photographer. The opening below is a false one. Where does this staircase lead the person (shadow)?

</blockquote>

So if I speak metaphorically, maybe there is an opening down there at the bottom of the stairs. As Arthur points out, it does look in the photograph like there is an opening down there and if we allow for that in our interpretation, going down more would seem like the right place to go, or at least suggest to us that there would be a reason to go down further because there is an opening and to go down more wouldn't then to be trapped. At some point, we engage in an entirely metaphorical discussion as we search for and attempt to find significances within the significant space that Arthur created in his self portrait.

The other comments from Schles I thought were interesting was his view on Cartesian/linear thinking compared to emotive, and of the emphasis he attributes to images in that regard. Particularly his view that Socrates, who hated imagery, provides us with imagery, metaphor in order to best communicate his philosophical sense of things. Linear words fail as they always do because really, we seem to live on a forest floor of imagery and merely flail around with word language, with abstractions, to be able to communicate much about where we really live at all; where imagery in communication, metaphor, may serve us better than words which we can bend to any purpose, really, while the imagery seeming more fluid, isn't all that fluid at all.

charleswood · November 25, 2013

So if I continue with Arthur's example, and not taking myself too seriously: the appearance of things in his self portrait is two fold. On the one hand, the descent into the depths seems pointless because it by reason and abstraction indicates that there is no way out of that descent. Yet the photographic image, in some suggestive synchronicity, says that to the left at the bottom there is a way out although Arthur in his assessment 'knows' there isn't. Something is scintillating at the bottom of the stairs, at least as the camera sees it: but which view is the truth, is the descent worth it or not? The camera suggests that it is by its admission of a non-literal, an added meaning not present in the intent of the photographer, but there nevertheless. It I as if the camera developed a will of its own when purely metaphorical interpretation is used to assess the significance of Arthur's photograph.

Norma Desmond · November 25, 2013

I'm just looking and not thinking too much. When I look at a lot of the self shadows shown in this thread and elsewhere, I see a continuation from photographer to shadow, which may feel a little more literal, I suppose. In these instances, the shadow seems very attached to the photographer. When I look at a couple of Lex's, they are more detached, as I said, due to perspective and composition, how and where they are being projected. When there's a question as to whose shadow it is and when it seems more disconnected from the photographer's body, it feels more metaphorical and less "self" conscious, more a player in the photo than an extension of the observing photographer.

aplumpton · November 25, 2013

« On display within the photograph are elements that alone or in combination can exceed, even supersede the subject(s) in importance. Thus, a literal subject in the photograph can simultaneously be and not be the subject in the photograph. »

</blockquote>

« (The) difference between subject as artifact and subject as artifice can be significant, even profound. Artifice carries, crystallizes, concentrates and amplifies significances. »

</blockquote>

« "My dang shadow" and that literalness works both for and against an effort by a photographer to wrest significance from a cretin like device that just records what 'is'. How do you create artifice from artifact (and a significant space within a photograph) »

</blockquote>

These three thoughts (with a few added parenthetic additions) of Charles take on for me not just the question of using an artifact like a personal shadow in a constructed or perceived image, but represent much of the essence of an artistic approach in photography, which is less concerned with what the subject is and more concerned with what it can become as an artifice and porter of significances. I appreciate that Charles discussed subjects and the approach to them in that way.

The fact that the shadow is attached or not to the photographer becomes for me quite secondary to how that shadow becomes an element of the overall scène, how it or the scene becomes an artifice rather than a simple artifact. I understand nevertheless why Fred and others might find the photographer's connection to his shadow self conscious, but does not that create limitations by treating the shadow as a simple artifact and not something that can create significances within the context of the whole image.

charleswood · November 26, 2013

Fred quoting me: "So photographer shadow may tend to feel disembodied, but they can't be, are a literal in a photograph."

That quote is of me being too emphatic and close ended. It's difficult to find the language to use when dissecting a photograph into manifest content and sign/symbol/allegory/interpretive content. Still, Ken Schles' interview has been a kind of eye opener for me.

charleswood · November 26, 2013

Arthur - "I appreciate that Charles discussed subjects and the approach to them in that way."

Thank you Arthur for your kind words. I also want to emphasize that much of the core language in my comments above on subjects come from conceptualizations originally offered by Fred in an earlier thread.

Norma Desmond · November 26, 2013

Charles, for me, one of the things I'm most conscious of in using language is to try to avoid strong dichotomies. In that way, as you have quoted and stated yourself, what is "manifest content" can be viewed as sign/symbol/interpretive content and what is sign and symbol can be viewed as manifest content. When I talk about a disembodied shadow, that only takes on meaning, sort of, because shadows obviously emanate from bodies of some sort. So, the disembodiment is the trick of the mind or the trick of the cameraman. It can add mystery, enigma.

But lest the idea of disembodied shadows get overly dramatized, I try to remember that the reason I've emphasized it in this thread is because of your challenge to it when you said that though they may feel disembodied they are a literal. It was a wise and fruitful challenge but the fact that we then spent some time on it and all the subsequent considerations it led to shouldn't con us or anyone else into thinking that whether a shadow feels disembodied or not is the only aspect of shadow use that matters. Surely, I recognize, as I'm quite sure you do, the difference between a particular aspect of self shadows needing to be addressed in such detail and that same aspect of self shadows being the one dimension of them to be considered when assessing a photo. Restricting oneself to the latter would, of course, be extremely close-minded. As I re-read my own posts, I do see that I made several other points about why, in general, I find self shadow use often gimmicky and self conscious, and particularly non-varied in visual approach.

_________________________________________________

I tried to explain why I found Lex's use of shadows more interesting than most. If that reasoning, for my specific interest in and appreciation of Lex's photos over others, is going to be generalized to Fred's restrictions about self shadows in photography, so be it. Such rule finding would not be of my doing or making.

Norma Desmond · November 26, 2013

The enigma of a photo often lies in the visual and photographic possibilities it offers as much if not more than the narrative interpretations or meanings to be followed or found.

The possibilities in Arthur's photo are, to me, more graphic than "meaning"-oriented. We have a long downward staircase very graphically handled in stark black and white tones, little if any detail in the blacks and white of the stairs. The downward movement of the stairs is stark, not gradated. The graphics and tonalities of the staircase are solid. We have a banister along the wall that has the only suggestion of visual gradation, as the highlight widens and strengthens toward the bottom of the staircase. The light of the doorway is overall consistent, without much gradation and the very effectively-textured wall is consistently lit without much gradation. So an otherwise deep scene, looking down a staircase, is considerably flattened by a lack of tonal gradation. Then a fairly graphic black shadow covers the scene. It is like a puzzle piece, another graphic element sitting atop the staircase, blocking rather than showing or following the contours of the stairs, another flattening aspect.

The possibilities to me, here, are visual as much as narrative or personal (and, to avoid dichotomy I remind myself that the visual is to some extent narrative and vice versa). I often find that zeroing in on and feeling my way through the visual aspects will allow the interpretive "meanings" to fall into place, often more enigmatically than specifically or clearly. The visual will never be a substitute for the written word or distinct idea. Photographic enigma will often have to do with a unique and intimate relationship to that visual that actually creates the interpretive or at least moves it forward. It tends toward more enigmatic and less literal visualizations.

Norma Desmond · November 26, 2013

"Yet the photographic image, in some suggestive synchronicity, says that to the left at the bottom there is a way out although Arthur in his assessment 'knows' there isn't."

Charles, thanks for this. You've articulated something extremely important.

Intent, though it sometimes seems to be, is not control. Knowledge of what something "really" is in a photo cannot control what the photo shows. Photographers are often prejudiced (not referring to Arthur here and to use a word, not negatively but descriptively from another recent thread) by what they know. A photograph doesn't necessarily show that knowledge. It shows, as I said above, an appearance of the original reality rather than a knowledge of or exact representation of the original reality. It's what makes photos so interesting. They often can transform, especially by privileging a perspective but by many other means as well, the literal reality we know they photograph.

Norma Desmond · November 26, 2013

One new thought on the so-called "escape hatch" at the bottom left of Arthur's photo. What may be contributing to your perception, Charles, is that the lighting emanating from the side there is one of the only non-graphic, softer-edged and tonally subtle areas of the photo. That, in itself, provides a contrast to the rest of the more graphic rendering, which would have a strong influence on how it seems to operate interpretively in the photo.

It's not just a matter of content and its literalness that determines how things appear and how we interpret them. It's how all the photographic qualities and gestures we make interact with that content.

aplumpton · November 26, 2013

Fred, I am glad you spoke to the high contrast or truncated tonal range in the photo. The negative was quite well balanced in terms of tonal range, although the subject matter was grey concrete with little color (the railing was probably wooden and the only source of color). Beyond those properties of the subject matter, unlike multiple toned images of vegetation or human or animal presence, I chose to make a print (from which this digital photo has as subject) with high contrast, with only the uniform grey of the right wall and minimum shadow texture (perhaps lost to a limited degree in the photo of the photo process) departing from the white-black chiaroscuro like lighting.

That prompts two points: The first is that we often see graphic elements in an image when it is one with extremes of luminance between black and white. The lack of grey tonality in the stairs renders them somewhat as stark as black and white piano keys, the simple linearlity of which contrast with the other diagonal lines and forms. However, graphic elements can also play very predominant roles in images of very continuous tonality and sometimes even of very compressed (short range) tonality. They are harder to see, perhaps, and that may be why we look first for other pictorial elements than the simple graphic ones, whether or not they are there. Not always, but sometimes I believe, the presence of strong tonal contrasts and evident graphical elements leads us to categorize the image as principally that. My photo may not have much more to say to the viewer (and you may well be quite right in such a critique), but the presence of strong graphic elements should be only part of the question.

Point two is the fact that my "intention" in making the photo was consciously the play of light and shadow and amusement or intrigue at how the personal shadow appeared somewhat strangely in the composition. The interpretation by one viewer (me) that I mentioned above, is consciously and mainly post exposure. I think I saw something enigmatic in that composition, but I would be amiss in this case to say it was fully conscious at the time of exposure. I have made other photographs with much more analysis, perception and intent, even moving things around (or myself) to get the image desired, but in this case things were much less thought out than that.

charleswood · November 26, 2013

Fred - "The visual will never be a substitute for the written word or distinct idea."

I suppose not. There's some interesting commentary from Schles generally about significance and language in his interview:

Recent studies have shown that without emotion we cannot arrive at values. And it’s primarily our values that allow us to arrive at something of import, to surmise significance. On the one hand, it may seem that we’re moving in an irrational direction, when in fact, our emotive reactions are allowing us to assign value to our assessments. Our “irrationality” feeds the source of our rational decision-making processes.

</blockquote>

Here Schles confuses emotion with value assignment and by his confusion mistakenly identifies the operation of Jung's feeling function with emotion, affect, mistakenly terming the feeling function's assignment of value an irrationality. Affect is an irrationality, but value assignment is rational; but just because the feeling function is rational doesn't make it thinking. Thought doesn't assign value, thought is cold logic and the feeling function will make of cold reason's rationality what it will. So for clarity let me paraphrase Schles thusly although by doing so I recognize I break the link to the studies he refers to:

Paraphrase of Schles by me: Recent studies suggest to Charles W. that without the feeling function we cannot arrive at values. And it’s primarily our process of assigning values, the operation of our feeling function, that allow us to arrive at something of import, to surmise significance. On the one hand, it may seem that we’re moving in an irrational direction because the feeling function is often denigrated as 'pure emotion'; in fact, our feeling function operates to rationally assign value in our consideration of significances. That oft termed “irrationality” is a value based decision-making processes operating according the rules of reason, but isn't reason, isn't the reasoned cold logic of thought.

</blockquote>

So if an image 'speaks' to me, the feeling function as a value based evaluative and assignment function, isn't necessarily speaking to me with words, ideas, proper language. The value exists as a blip or clog in the field of consciousness, or as a bolder or a nit to be perceived and its a wrestling sort of process out of which we are in a sense commanded to produce language in order to fully comprehend. Schles roots that feeling process by calling it a drive, and here I am quoting Schles, not paraphrasing: "Finding significance is our human nature, our drive." Significance, values, Schles has properly taken the feeling function out of the dungeon of the irrational and set it at the side of the thinking function in its pantheon. Interesting that he would do so based on 'studies', would do so by citing 'studies', cold logic, previously the sole occupant of a throne. Schles, emphasis added: "The traditional <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes" target="_blank">Cartesian</a> way of looking at the world, where logic and emotion exist antithetically to one other, has been found to be false." Well thank you cold logic for validating the authority of mine own heart.

So as much as I value the information content in an image, I agree that without language to fully assess image, without word and distinct idea, the image can't fully speak to us. The chatoyance is present, but in itself isn't enough: the chatoyance itself seems to command that we speak to it in our own way with our own voice.

Norma Desmond · November 26, 2013

Charles, yes, well explained.

When I said "The visual will never be a substitute for the written word or distinct idea" it followed "I often find that zeroing in on and feeling my way through the visual aspects will allow the interpretive 'meanings' to fall into place, often more enigmatically than specifically or clearly." For example, when making a photo, I might think very specifically about an idea I have in advance or in the moment, but then the visual also kicks in and the literal and verbal ends will become a little fuzzier as the visual also guides me. I find that often leads to the most challenging photos, the ones that leave some questions unanswered, some literal statements incomplete.

When looking at or making a photo, I rarely find myself only considering content. Style, texture, contrast, color, etc. will all help guide whatever "meaning" I am going to give to the photo. Yet those things don't often come to me in the form of as clear and distinct ideas as content may. A shadow of the photographer set within an array of other elements doesn't get its photographic meaning simply by my combining and assessing all the elements as matters of content. Just like spoken words don't just get their meaning from the entirety of the sentence. Spoken words may be accompanied by certain gestures or facial expressions or intonations that will severely impact their meaning in a sentence, beyond what the other words will offer. Those accompanying gestures, expressions, and intonations are somewhat like photographic qualities of color, stylization, contrast, etc.

While I understand your point that the image can't fully speak to us without word and distinct idea, I am saying that the image can't fully speak to me without the photographic equivalents of intonation, facial expressions, and bodily gestures. For me, while those sorts of things help complete the picture, they never fully do. Artistic communication, expression, and interpretation is an imprecise "science" and I always leave room for doubt. I think it's a more open-ended sort of experience and I'm not sure the image has ever fully spoken to me. It's why I go back to photos so many times, just like paintings, over the years. Each time they speak a little more.

charleswood · November 26, 2013

Open ended then, I can grow to like that. And I do like that we are communicating. Thanks for making your points so clearly.

Sign In

Your Shadow

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in