No Meaning Intended, but that doesn't stop viewers from applying one

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I didn't really notice that in the composition when I was taking the shot</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, more important than meaning, viewer interpretation, and concern with who says what in the art world, something about what you say here would be my key take away from this photo, if it were mine. It's not that I'm not sometimes surprised by something that creeps into a composition unnoticed, but improving my vision is always at the forefront of my own concerns. That wouldn't necessarily include "noticing" something so obvious at the edge of one of my frames occupying space in front of my subject, because "noticing" could imply overt awareness. It would be more about developing a gut instinct for expressive and/or effective composition (by effective composition, I mean composition that helps communicate the significance of what I'm showing in the frame), which I am at the early to perhaps mid stages of developing, so that even such surprises would work or my instincts would lead me to include what works for the photo and leave out what doesn't. Of course, someone running into the frame at the last second, I'm not necessarily responsible for, but other things I believe I am. Of course if the person running into the frame made it a better picture, I'd be happy to accept it as a gift.<br /> <br /> I wouldn't put all the responsibility for reading too much meaning or not enough meaning onto the viewers. I think when a photographer him or herself has a very fluid and instinctual eye and voice, it is more likely that some actual communication will take place, even if there is still mystery, ambiguity, or open question to that communication. [sometimes, "communication" is not the right word here, and "expression" is a better word.]<br /> <br /> Ultimately, my point would be not to worry about viewers I don't care about or viewers I think are pretentious or out to impress someone or who over-indulge in intellectual interpretation. Likewise, I wouldn't worry too much about all the hollow souls who might view my photos superficially. The people I want to share with are a different sort of viewer than that. I'm not trying to appeal to or communicate with everybody.<br /> <br /> __________________________________________<br /> <br /> Something important to me I thought I'd add at this point . . . Even if we don't find intent in certain things about our own photos or those of others, for example, it seems like Bill didn't intend that crossing post to be there so we could find ourselves in a pickle if we talked at length about how marvelous it was that the photographer made a purposely haphazard maneuver in including it, he picked the photo from out of hundreds and probably thousands of others to show the world (at least the world of this thread). In picking what photos we will process and show, we are also using intention and also saying a lot. So, in picking this photo with the crossing post cut off by the edge of the frame, Bill does become, in some sense, responsible for it. It wouldn't be an issue if he files it among thousands of other negatives or files but when he chooses the photo, it becomes, IMO, a little more his to own.</p>

<p>[Of course, this photo is a specific case in point, because Bill is obviously using it as an example and may only have chosen it for that reason. So, I mean in general, when we choose a photo, we use more intention and I think more will then naturally be attributed to us as photographers because of our choice to show it. So, though Tim was seemingly not responsible for the American flag in his photo other than his being there for the accident (which actually does account for something in my book), he may very well have taken a bunch of shots of trains that day, and the others may not have had an American flag, and he may well have chosen this photo because it does have the flag. So, suddenly, it gets some of his intention even though that intention wasn't there when he shot.]</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>In a bathroom with three urinals, if none are in use, does the one you choose say something about you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This question will be with me for the rest of my life. Selecting a urinal will never be the same again.</p>

<p>I tend to shoot the one closest to me but furthest from anyone else.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Sorry Lannie.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>he may very well have taken a bunch of shots of trains that day, and the others may not have had an American flag, and he may well have chosen this photo because it does have the flag. So, suddenly, it gets some of his intention even though that intention wasn't there when he shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very valid point Fred. I did consider that as this conversation progressed.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

 

<blockquote>

<p>In a bathroom with three urinals, if none are in use, does the one you choose say something about you?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I tend to choose the urinal with cigarette butts, gum or wads of paper in it, so I can play machine gunner.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>So, though Tim was seemingly not responsible for the American flag in his photo other than his being there for the accident (which actually does account for something in my book), he may very well have taken a bunch of shots of trains that day, and the others may not have had an American flag, and he may well have chosen this photo because it does have the flag. So, suddenly, it gets some of his intention even though that intention wasn't there when he shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did rattle off 3 shots and picked the one with the American flag and threw the others away. However, I'm not sure it could be considered meaningful intent since I didn't know the train that was about to pass from right to left out of my line of sight as I waited was going to have an American Flag. </p>

<p>My intent behind choosing the version posted here and what I hoped to be communicated to the viewer was a sense of silly luck and happenstance which to me feels more meaningful and entertaining. I actually laughed seeing this one shot out of the three chimping my camera's LCD preview after the train passed. Don't know if it was the ultimate demonstration of the "Decisive Moment", but what the hey! It was fun!</p>

[jordan2240]

<blockquote>

<p>but what the hey! It was fun</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ultimately Tim, that's all that really matters, isn't it. For most of us, photography is simply fun, and if we do move a viewer from time to time whether it be with a message or the aesthetic, that's an appreciated bonus.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Ultimately Tim, that's all that really matters, isn't it. For most of us, photography is simply fun, and if we do move a viewer from time to time whether it be with a message or the aesthetic, that's an appreciated bonus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is a crucial difference among photographers and painters. Many artists don't seem to be having fun or, if they are, it's not their primary goal. When it's not the goal <em>per se</em>, it may or may not be a by-product. Some artists do suffer, even though there may be a mythology that's developed around that, too. I think this is a good reason why all photographers should not be considered artists. Photography is, indeed, a hobby for many and should be respected and honored as such. But I am constantly reminded that photography is many different things to many different people.</p>

<p>________________________________________________</p>

<p>Tim, I was going to include the fact, and I'm glad you mentioned it, that even though you picked the one with the American flag and even if you had had no other photos that day, you may have picked this photo for other reasons. Maybe you liked the exposure. Maybe the light was just right. Maybe, as you say, it was a silly happenstance. Still, I would tie your intent to the American flag as a sign of that silly happenstance. That's the cue in your photo, to you, and now to others who are listening to you, of the silly happenstance. And the flag is carrying that. Furthermore, there would likely have been some things that could have been printed on the side of the train as it went by that would not have moved you to process, print, and show this photo. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the flag has other associations for you that moved you to pick it as a symbol of happenstance vs. some other thing on the side of the train that wouldn't have done so. Symbols are rich that way. They have many associations and meanings.</p>

<p>Yes, sometimes a cigar is a cigar, but cigars (and even trains!) have rich phallic history and denying symbolic gesture, even if unintended, can be tricky. This train, because of the very horizontal and static perspective on it (even though it's not static in that it's moving) doesn't seem like a phallic symbol. But if a photographer shoots a train from a different perspective, emphasizing its length, hardness, and power, perhaps heading right for a tunnel, people might well read in phallic symbol. The photographer could deny the symbolic intent all day long if he hadn't thought he shot or chose it for that reason or meant it that way and yet, IMO, he'd as likely be in denial as the people reading something into it might be wrong. That photographer may not have formed the intent to make a phallic symbol, but his subconscious may have, or his being steeped in a certain visual culture may have, or his instincts may have.</p>

<p>Something can be fun, silly, and meaningful all at the same time. I will say this. If it were the only American flag or symbol of Americana or political symbol in your portfolio or your current show that I was viewing, it would have much less impact than if I saw the flag or a related symbol more often. This is where body of work can be so important if we're going to try to tie intent to results and if we're going to try to understand the photographer's sensibilities and sensitivities.</p>

<p>In any case, the important thing for me is not so much your intent, but what the PHOTO has to offer. And its offering a blurred American flag on a moving train has meaning and message regardless of your intent. As they say, it is what it is. And to someone else, including you, it may be something else. But, for me, I take photographer's and artist's explanations with a grain of salt. They can be very helpful in their insights in helping me understand things about their work. But they don't have the last word on the meaning of what I see. A lot of artists don't even like words, so they use them off-handedly and sometimes even purposely to mislead because they think a lot of this stuff can't be put into words. My approach to people talking about their own photography or art is healthy skepticism. It's important but the photo and the art also speak, often more truthfully or at least candidly.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>But if a photographer shoots a train from a different perspective, emphasizing its length, hardness, and power, perhaps heading right for a tunnel, people might well read in phallic symbol.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I definitely saw my train as a cigar, Fred. ;)</p>

<p>You're the second person that's associated a possible "phallic symbol" to one of my images. Back in '79 our art class at the Art Institute of Houston was asked to paint an object that was colored red and I chose to paint a picture of a fire plug on a residential curbed corner dead center with a receding fence line toward horizon on either side forming a chevron shape behind the fire plug.</p>

<p>A rather liberal, "Lilith Fair" bohemian-esque young, intellectual woman classmate stated..."Wow! Tim, what's with the phallic symbol?" As a country boy new to the big city, I didn't know what she meant and once she told me, I fired back..."Well, now that you've explained it, I'll start thinking and seeing those kind of shapes in that way from here on out. I thank you for putting that in my head".</p>

[lewis_lorton1]

<p>Coming late to this discussion, I may not have absorbed all the points made.<br>

There seems to be a line between pure documentation, whose meaning and content is known by any viewer, and work that is so personal that only the maker has any insight.<br>

In my experience many photos fall too close to that personal end where the hints of meanings and emotions of the maker are so faint that the viewer asked to provide so much of the connection that every viewer has a completely different interpretation. IMO, these images are too often within the confidence interval of nothing.<br>

I prefer my own pictures to be overt enough that the viewer understands what I am seeing and presenting to them.</p>

 

[jordan2240]

<blockquote>

<p>There seems to be a line between pure documentation, whose meaning and content is known by any viewer, and work that is so personal that only the maker has any insight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> And between those lines, Lewis, I believe lie those photos taken simply because you thought the scene was 'pretty' (many landscapes, for instance) or the subject interesting (like macro perhaps). But maybe that's what you meant by 'documentation,' though I took it to mean something more like photojournalism.</p>

<p>Your comment is actually more appropriate, I think, for the sequel discussion regarding photos taken with specific intent. Thanks for jumping in.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I think it is more than documentation, Bill. It is saying "look at this, because it is pretty". People may disagree both about that landscape being pretty and about that it is worth looking at. It is very much a statement, not pure record.<br>Pure documentation does not exist. But now we're firmly into a discussion about the supposed but never found Truth in Photography.