charleswood Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 <p>Luca in an earlier thread I came across a Schles article where Schles spoke of a photograph as a significant space. That makes sense to me, the idea of a photograph communicating significances. A photograph that has a significance to me may not have a significance to you, and vice versa, or we could find different significance being communicated to each of us by a photograph, and that's all OK. We could disagree on significance yet still find that we could agree on why a photographic communication succeeded or failed, or partially worked or didn't work.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted January 1, 2014 Author Share Posted January 1, 2014 <p>Charles' mention of significance is important to me. Somehow I failed to raise the point of significance and meaningfulness in relation to subjectivity/universality.<br> I see a non-linear relationship between the significance a photographer targets when making a photograph and the intrinsic significance of the picture itself to the photographer and the viewer(s).<br> It seems to me that a picture can have a (nearly) universal significance when it touches universal sentiments. For example Nick Ut's picture of the little nude girl escaping the napalm attack.<br> The significance is less evident in Jacob Aue Sobol's documentary about his stay in Greenland and his relationship with the people in Tiniteqilaaq and with Sabine in particular.<br> Apart from the evident meaning of Newton's "They are coming", there are less evident meanings considering the main trends in photography in 1981. So the subjective background here is very important to appreciate the iconic photograph. By the way the image is technically a success, since it is not easy to show the dynamic striding of the four models in front of a white backdrop, repeated twice.<br> The picture of my grandfather, which I made in the same year, was very significant to my grandmother, who wanted a copy. But most likely meaningless and void of significance to most of all other viewers outside my family circle. The picture was important to me, subjectively, when I made it, and subjectively important to my grandmother because of her emotional bonds to the subject.<br> Every photograph is potentially significant and meaningful, but these heavily depend on the possibility of establishing a connection between the intended significance and the perceived significance. And it is also important who the photographer is, and the feelings of the viewers in respect to the photographer.<br> [sorry if I read confused and non-linear, but my ideas were hazy and maybe, maybe, they are becoming slightly clearer now]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 <p><img src="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/vision_venn01.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="500" /><br> Luca, if vision is like this, then the part that *might* escape subjectivity would be that pointed to by the red arrow. But, given the nature of "aesthetics" and the needs of expression/communication, can we "cleanly" access that part of vision without having to transit the larger choice/memory/desires circle?</p> <p>If that "outer" sliver of the vision venn is the point at which the cookie hits the tongue, can/do we have that experience in common with others -- with the cookie hitting other tongues? If so, can we communicate (about) it, or do we just smile at one another? Yum! Or if Yum! is not unanimous, do we question the cookie or the tongue?</p> <p>.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 <p>Addendum: I meant to add that it's worth thinking about the kind of photography that most tries to limit the diversity of response of its viewers -- advertising/commercial photography -- and why and how your personal or artistic work is not like advertising/commercial photography. It's also interesting to think about how advertising/commercial photography specifically targets/manipulates subjectivity -- and actively downplays objectivity -- to its own ends.</p> <p>So, contrary to simple expectation, subjectivity does not necessarily mean diversity of response. It can be "worked" via emotional triggers to do just the opposite, yet that kind of <em>narrowing</em> of response seems to me to be resisted by art -- which seems to me to be toward dilation/expansion. Liberation not coercion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charleswood Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 <p>Luca - "Apart from the evident meaning of Newton's "They are coming","</p> <p><a href="http://www.pinterest.com/pin/490399846894444408/">http://www.pinterest.com/pin/490399846894444408/</a> if you're referring to that photo, what I see is a taller, blonde, and (therefore) prettier model in front of women who aren't therefore as 'white' as she and aren't chosen to be showcased by Newton in the way the taller blonde was showcased in that photo. But I doubt in 1981 Newton was speaking critically to the white supremacist contexts present in his work and written about more generally by Bell Hooks <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_hooks">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_hooks</a> . So I don't think there is much hope of congruence between intended and perceived meanings. I see the image, whether intended to or not, as injuring subjectivities of people of color by reinforcing imperialist, white supremacist, patriarchal notions of female beauty and desirability, in the critical framework outlined by Ms. Hooks. Nor do I see Newton in that example as working in the critical tradition within photography.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 <blockquote> <p>if Yum! is not unanimous, do we question the cookie or the tongue?</p> </blockquote> <p>Without additional information, you might have to say "both". Notwithstanding the utopic appeal of your diagram, can we decouple vision from the rest? To obtain objectivity, do we not need a third phase or space on the diagram that might be described as "inscrutable objective criteria", a sort of comparator that would incite us to that ideal or condition?</p> <p>I like your notion of limiting the diversity of response of the viewer. As you mention, advertising can do that quite effectively, but can you think of anything more subjective than molding phenomenon or subject matter to fit a sales pitch?</p> <p>A simple non-dramartic photograph of a nail may generate a quite objective response. After all, a nail is a nail is a nail. There is always the possibility that some may think it is otherwise, but would they not be in the minority? In such cases, limiting the response may yield some universality of response and a leaning towards objectivity?</p> <p>"I think, therefore I am", is a well-known establishment of our personal reality. The "thinking" or thoughts can of course be quite subjective.</p> <p>"I doubt, therefore I am" is a modification I like and I think a step closer to objectivity. Doubting of one's response tends to show at least some intent to objectiveness. (But there is no guarantee of the result)</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share Posted January 2, 2014 <p>Julie</p> <blockquote> <p>Luca, if vision is like this, then the part that *might* escape subjectivity would be that pointed to by the red arrow.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, even if some would not agree. I would also say that the slice of objectivity can be considered more of an "interface" connecting with others.<br /> I would say that cookie meets tongue, the latter might also require another cookie after the first. I agree with Arthur, we need to question both the cookie and the tongue. The baker might have responsibilities, but also the tongue, with a more or less educated taste.<br> I would also say that your diagram would require arrows with double-pointed ends indicating exchanges between all levels.<br /> You are right about advertising, and more in general in activities which try to create targeted reactions, and maybe spread specific "cultural patterns". Conveying an idea time and again may diffuse a universal belief.<br /> Awareness is the response. How widespread this is I honestly don't know.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share Posted January 2, 2014 <p>Arthur,</p> <blockquote> <p>do we not need a third phase or space on the diagram that might be described as "inscrutable objective criteria", a sort of comparator that would incite us to that ideal or condition?</p> </blockquote> <p>Probably the inscrutable objective criteria are implicit in the diagram and in the potentially unlimited relationships between concepts and elements it embeds.<br> PS "I doubt, therefore I am" is the form I like best, too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted January 2, 2014 Author Share Posted January 2, 2014 <p>Charles,</p> <blockquote> <p>Nor do I see Newton in that example as working in the critical tradition within photography.</p> </blockquote> <p>Neither do I.<br> Newton's photo is only one of the four works I am referring to and I am honestly not interested in discussing Newton's aesthetics specifically. What I was referring to was the fact that the general presentation of full frontal nudes was not accepted necessarily at that time and that that might have been the implicit purpose of HN.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charleswood Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 <p>Luca thanks for the clarification that HN was confronting norms at that time though my main point was that meanings aren't necessarily evident and I shared some of my thoughts about those less evident meanings. For the sake of clarification, I wasn't discussing Newton's aesthetics either. I was speaking to the significance in the space he created in the one and other three photo's and how I might, and others might (women v men, white v. people of color, Europeans v non-European), see that significant space differently in ways that aren't very evident, but nevertheless are arguable part of his photographic communication.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share Posted January 3, 2014 Charles,<br> You make a point, confirming, it seems to me, the element of subjectivity in relation to photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charleswood Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 <p>Me not really confirming subjectivity: sexism, class, race, privilege for example are objective with respect to the subjectivity of an individual, are learned from others, not innately subjective. Liking or disliking photographic full frontal nudity or noting its introduction into a time period: such exemplifies a fairly subjective way of viewing art; liking a naked body is innate, primal, as opposed to the contextual cultural layers I mentioned that are acquired from culture and form an implanted part of individual subjectivity. As others pointed out above it is difficult to separate objective from subjective.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted January 4, 2014 Author Share Posted January 4, 2014 <p>Charles,<br> I was not referring to the subjectivity of the subject matter, but to the subjectivity of the reaction caused.<br> I mean that viewing HN's picture made you associate it with sexism and with white predominance, I associated it with some breakthrough in current photographic moral judgements.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charleswood Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 <p>I know, sure, but whose moral judgments? The thing is, if we examine ourselves as we examine a photograph, view ourselves viewing a photograph, certainly it is our own and others subjectivity that is there to examine. Although Julie has said that art, and is HN art?, trends toward liberation not coercion, dilation/expansion v narrowing: I think art also functions to coerce and close minds, functions to ask us not to expand at all. For example, art in ancient Roman culture: it's statuary comes to mind, and RN also celebrates values of the status quo by expanding its reach toward the lowest common denominator. I do think that although RN was a 'fashion' photographer, he was an artist performing on a commission much as many have done, celebrating their sponsors, working to close and narrow responses in the viewing public. So much for art as liberation when clearly it serves up the ideology of the status quo as well.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iliafarniev Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 <p>With some reservation reg. meaning of world <strong>art</strong> and modern times tendencies, often quite unbriddled btw, I must say for personal self-expression of different kinds, I would rather disagree with suggestion that "art trends toward liberation ..." For the most part of human history the creation of art objects were very restricted to ritual and rational purposes of society. And in very controled way, too. For the most part it remains to be so even in our days Western cultural tradition imo.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted January 5, 2014 Author Share Posted January 5, 2014 <p>:-)<br /> "Whose moral judgements?" The subjective moral judgements, which can become mainstream eventually, or remain isolated.<br /> I see a strong reciprocal contamination between Newton's creations and the fashion industry for which he worked, that paid him, and which he influenced.<br /> <br /> Art is also numbers: the number of individual thinking that it is art, or attributing an artistic (or monetary) value to a work.<br /> I visited Newton's museum in Berlin, and although I believe that there are a few strong iconic images, there were many images which bored me. On the other hand I was absolutely pleased with a Cartier-Bresson exhibition I recently saw, I could not get away.<br /> Isn't that subjective? Informed by my taste, culture, my aesthetic preferences? In the end I realise that, apart from a lot of snapshots I take, which have a value for me and for my "closed circle", the photographs which really represent me are of a very particular kind. But it took me nearly 40 years to find out. And some of the photographs which represent me I took 30 years ago without being aware of it.<br /> <br /> And the photographs which represent me are still criticised, taken apart by people I know. Recently one of these was appreciated, but criticised because the 2:3 ratio was not respected. What the hell shall I say. That the guy saying this missed the point? That he focused on a (irrelevant) detail instead of considering the overall visual message of the photo I proposed?<br> No. It's me who has to know. Considering the picture against my purpose and against my background. Possibly also against the emotions I create, which still remain very subjective.<br /> <br /> When I mention "subjectivity" I mean that there are no universal rules accepted by all. Everybody can and will be criticised by somebody. In some cases mainstream photographers will not be simply because they are famous, but only in some cases.<br /> <br /> That is what I mean. The fashion world of Helmut Newton required his photographs, accepted his provocations and acknowledged him as a fashion artist. Nobody saw Vivian Maier's pictures before John Maloof got hold of them by chance, and now they are considered an iconic documentary of her times. William Eggleston was heavily criticised after John Szarkowski organised the show at MoMA, apparently Ansel Adams wrote a very severe letter. But still many, including me, consider Eggleston an artist.<br /> <br /> Honestly I contest the combination of subjectivity and closeness. There can be subjectivity and openness. Szarkowski subjectively decided to support Eggleston publicly. And the fact that the mainstream photographers of the time did not agree does not make Eggleston "objectively" a snapshooter.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 <p>Ilia, can you give me a specific example of what you have in mind as "very restricted to ritual and rational purposes of society"? To my eye, religious and ritual art is intended as conduit or channel, and to condition or color your perception but not to "coerce" (as opposed to liberate as per my previous comment) "a" response. I don't think it's <em>possible</em> to coerce a particular response to the mystical or spiritual; by definition it is unknown or at least (far) exceeds the known. The icons or artwork is to serve as means (enabler) rather than a bracket of "what it is." It's supposed to be the aperture, the opening, the liberator into an unfamiliar or elevated or excited state, or out of the common condition, and so forth. As opposed to advertising/commercial photography which is for the "consumer"; directing your emotions toward a new car or a hamburger.</p> <p>Other than religious/ritual, is there a kind of "social" art that stands apart from those kinds?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charleswood Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 <p>Luca, another way to approach the issue is if I were to comment that you might have a subjective reason for your view on subjectivity in photography itself. Likewise, I could say about myself that there may be a subjective reason for my having those views about the significance in the space RN created in those four photographs. Some might say of me that my view of RN's four photos is created in me by a sort of thinking usually referred to as 'sour grapes'. Sour grapes would have me envious of the photographer and my envy would cause me to not like the photo and find intellectual reasons for my dislike, like "That photo is sexist" could be viewed as the statement of a small, envious man. Or I might not like the photo because I haven't examined my comfort level with nudity, a subjective reason that would cast my views as those a person who won't self-reflect. Or I might say I don't like the photo when I really do like it, perhaps another motive behind my 'opinion' that would have been just plain dishonest. So 'subjective' can mean many things, but here I'm suggesting a meaning that has to do with human foibles and folly. With respect to our own photography, we can, especially when coming from people we know, find an insensitive viewer irksomely subjective???</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted January 5, 2014 Author Share Posted January 5, 2014 Charles,<br> One quick remark: I think that subjectivity is completely and absolutely legitimate. And, as I said before, I do not think it means "closed" or even isolated. Subjectivity can be the start, it can help finding the purpose, but I do not think it excludes the outside, even if some may infer this type of association.<br> And my view of subjectivity absolutely includes self-reflection. Self-reflection, but also confrontation with others I cannot do without.<br> Finally: yes, I have at least a partial subjective reason for my view on subjectivity in photography, but it is also founded on empirical observation, thus there is a tiny bit of "objectivity". ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iliafarniev Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 <p>Julie.</p> <p>"...to coerce a particular response to the mystical ... " it is very possible and that's what they basically do, imo but mostly creating the structure for individuals to adhere to, creating bonds and boundaries, if you like. The specific example can be anything of high culture of W. Europe starting from XI century and up to the middle of XVII cen. where it also started to develope along the humanist - cecular - intellectual trends in societies as they appeared, still very controled to the general needs and determined by actual possibilities. Practically, the whole of painting, sculpture, architecture and music of the time period was cultural instrument of power. The word <strong>art / artist</strong> started to apper in the second half of XVIII when enough of the audience became available. All the artists before then were not artists in modern sense of the word but a craftsmen with particular talent hired to do the job. I don't think the <strong>personal liberation</strong> as such was anyones concern at the times simply because there was no room, need or practical possibility for it. The idea of personal freedom aka free will -- of any kind started to appear only in XVII cen. on very top of societies among conceptual philosophers such as Descartes, Kant and so on. Took at least two centuries of work before enough people with enough baily bread started to appear just to think this way.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted January 6, 2014 Author Share Posted January 6, 2014 Something came into my mind this morning: we photograph because it gives us <b><I>pleasure</b></I>.<br> Pleasure is subjective, it is not positive or negative <I>per se</I> and it can be shared with others.<br> That's what I mean when I speak about <I>making</I> or <I>viewing</I> photographs as a subjective activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charleswood Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 <p>Ilia - "Practically, the whole of painting, sculpture, architecture and music of the time period was cultural instrument of power."</p> <p>Or to put it another way, art of that time period was chiefly an instrument of state power, serving the status quo. Evidence of change: Contrast 16th Century Cervantes to Song of Roland/Chivalric 'literature'. As to religion, liberation theology criticized as the politics of envy v. theology as buttressing state power and the status quo; or the differences in Christian traditions in antebellum South between slave owners and slaves. The antebellum Southern church I attended at times as a child had a balcony with a door that locked from the outside: the balcony used during slavery as pews for the slaves, locking them in. It would have been interesting to say the least to have listened to an antebellum sermon on Moses, where the same Bible passages would have conveyed a different lesson depending on whether you were locked in or sat below. So Ilia it may also be that art in 11th century may also have had multiple meanings to different viewers?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 <p>Luca wrote: "we photograph because it gives us <strong><em>pleasure</em></strong>."</p> <p>Mmmm ... and much of the <em><strong>pleasure</strong></em>, much of what we seek in looking at photographs and in making them, is connections, communication, contact with others. Why does a 7 rating or an otherwise appreciative audience give so many people so much pleasure? Absent the possibility of such connections, do your photographs give pleasure? If you were the only man alive, how much pleasure would your pictures give you? (Imaginary companions are not allowed ...)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 <p>;-)<br> Luca also wrote</p> <blockquote> <p>Pleasure is subjective, it is not positive or negative <em>per se</em> and it can be <em><strong>shared with others</strong></em>.</p> </blockquote> <p>I am not sure where this implicit point on <strong><em>isolation</em> </strong>comes from.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 <p>Pleasure is a sensation.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now