Ambiguity

[thomas_k.]

<p>Over the summer of last year I created a series of double exposure photos, link: http://thomasakiss.zenfolio.com/p371303201<br>

I noticed that majority of viewers reacted with quick question about how my images were made apparently having difficulty absorbing them and asking for additional information. I do not know if I failed to produce uniform, if ambiguous, images or the viewers felt simply confused by them. My hope for these images was to trigger reactions without need for dissemination of processes which led to their creation. Maybe if a viewer feels immediate need for interpretation of unknowns is a sign of image failing to captivate, to charm rational mind?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>While I must spend enough time to read and think about the recent posts (skimming replies is not the best way), what Fred says about just feeling something from a photograph and the value of simplicity in an image are no doubt of relevance, and sometimes more so than devolving deeper meanings. Of course, the qualities of simplicity and feeling can apply to other image characteristics than ambiguity, to which they are not necessarily related. There are some photos I have made that I return to as they are very simple or unassuming and probably represent the feelings I had for the subject matter, whether it was (is) my fascination for their appearance or symbolism, their textures, purity of being, or ambiguity. For whatever reason, they seem to relay some truth for me regarding our lives and environment. But possibly just for myself. It is sort of a mixed bag in terms of images and personal responses, but I do agree that philosophical interpretations are only a part of what might come out of our imaginative extension of the image into other dimensions of thought or feeling.</p>

<p>Thomas, nos. 2 and 7 of your double exposures seem to hit the mark for ambiguity rather than just examples of photographic technique or interesting graphics. They do not seem to need any explanation about how they were made and seem to create simply a questioning of our environment and its perception, which was enough for me to take away from them. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Possibly off-topic, and not related to the first paragraph of my last post, but on the subject of multiple exposure, the following photographic accident of double exposure contains some elements of ambiguity (discount the inapt title that is too informative): http://www.photo.net/photo/11472750 </p>

[wolfgangarnold]

<p>Seeing the POTW and McCurry examples, it seems the conversaion is primarily revolving around how individuals react to ambiguity rather the ambiguity in certain photographs. There's a tendency to trying decide always whether something's black or white, good or bad, etc - while it seems to be a challenge to allow and deal with ambiguities (or oxymorons). I like Fred's "Sometimes the dialogue simply has to stop ... Same is true for art." - we may jump too quickly to conclusions ('she's escaping from the wedding').<br>

Yet, in the discussion another - related - aspect surfaced: truth - is the black eye about male violence or vulnerability of the human body? How does context influence our dealing with ambiguity and perception of truth?</p>

[spanky]

<p>You want ambiguity Fred? I got your ambiguity right here. The picture below is from last summer. Doesn't look like much does it? Even careless perhaps. Maybe there is more to it though, maybe not. Your interpretation is appreciated. Remember, if photographs speak to us in a symbolic language, then all photographs are metaphors.</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Marc, I've been saying throughout the thread that I'm not that interested in interpreting ambiguous photos, so I'm not sure why you've invited to do so. In any case, I won't.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Something I've been thinking about relative to ambiguity seems to be its opposite, though it probably isn't. What about taking a stand in our work? What about making decided commitments to a vision, an issue, a perspective, a way of wanting to show something? This way of approaching making photos is to commit to something, an idea or a perspective. We can visually take stands, which I actually notice many people NOT doing. To be honest, I often think lack of commitment in the name of ambiguity or mystery can be a copout. Obviously, not all the time. Ambiguity, as has been said, is wonderful and intriguing and inspirational, etc., but I dare say it can also be the excuse of many a <em>faux</em> artist. When I hear again and again that "I have no idea what my photos mean" or "I just go out to shoot with no idea and no purpose" I'm very often turned off. That's because I think a sense of purpose can be a very good thing and photos and all art can certainly have purpose or be purposeful. When does ambiguity, in your mind, become wishy-washiness and more of a banal lack of focus and voice and lose its power as an artistic challenge? And when does a clear visual statement, tmaking a stand, work for you? For me, it's NOT just in documentary or journalistic work. I think Brassai took socially complex stands. Mapplethorpe did. Goldin often does. Jock Sturges. That's not to say some emotional aspects of their work aren't still ambiguous, but it often comes within an overall very unambiguous visual perspective and photographic statement.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Over the summer of last year I created a series of double exposure photos, link:<br /> <a href="http://thomasakiss.zenfolio.com/p371303201" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://thomasakiss.zenfolio.com/p371303201</a><br /> I noticed that majority of viewers reacted with quick question about how my images were made apparently having difficulty absorbing them and asking for additional information. I do not know if I failed to produce uniform, if ambiguous, images or the viewers felt simply confused by them. My hope for these images was to trigger reactions without need for dissemination of processes which led to their creation. Maybe if a viewer feels immediate need for interpretation of unknowns is a sign of image failing to captivate, to charm rational mind?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thomas, you certainly weren't ambiguous about avoiding "The Rule Of Thirds" in your compositions and you've done it so beautifully with an unbelievable amount of diversity and uniqueness in each one.</p>

<p>My head is reeling trying to figure out not how it was done but how the heck you could pre-visualize so many different and the same time compelling compositions. I think you covered every positive/negative space combination of the photographic frame possible.</p>

<p>You need to give a class on composition. I'm serious!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Thomas, I also wanted to address your concern about viewers questioning you about process. I wouldn't take that in any way negatively or as a sign that your images fail in some way. In fact, just the opposite. I think it's great they're showing interest. Look at it this way. You introduced it as a series of double exposures and you've titled the series alluding to the double exposure as well. In fact, the process IS very much a part of the expressiveness of the work. You are working with the craft of photography in a creative way to make a different sort of picture and I think the process very appropriately and suggestively weaves its way through your work. I think many viewers who notice creative craft will make that part of the viewing experience. You've already recognized the significance of that process by including it in your title and introduction. Don't expect viewers not to wonder about it. Think about people like Man Ray, who also made the material aspects and the craft aspects of photography part of his art. Viewers and critics and curators spend a lot of time dissecting the various processes Man Ray challenged himself with. It's not a distraction from the work but rather a desire to learn from it and appreciate it for what it is. In this case, the viewer gaining knowledge by asking questions can deepen his appreciation for what you're doing. I wouldn't rest just looking at your photos as if they were straight compositions from a single exposure. I think I'd miss some of the interest and beauty of them. Being unfamiliar with many artistic processes, viewer's interest will be piqued when a process is used as such an integral part of the expression.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>When does ambiguity, in your mind, become wishy-washiness and more of a banal lack of focus and voice and lose its power as an artistic challenge?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When it looks like an obvious quick snap shot that doesn't give back to the viewer with regard to composition (i.e. interesting use of negative/positive space as in Thomas's double exposures)...chosen subject, lack of captured ambiance, no sensitivity to color or tone. IOW when it's utterly fatiguing to look at. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What about making decided commitments to a vision, an issue, a perspective, a way of wanting to show something?...When I hear again and again that "I have no idea what my photos mean" or "I just go out to shoot with no idea and no purpose" I'm very often turned off.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, Fred, my purpose and meaning is realized after I get the Raw images on my computer and work them into my vision which I see as unique moments in time of my short existence on this planet and how I feel about my little local touristy town that seems on the surface not so remarkable. </p>

<p>I compare them to B&W 1940's archived snaps of my town taken over the years by a long standing photo lab operator who donated tons of his personal B&W photos to our local heritage museum after he passed. His images captured and evoke a unique melancholy, nostalgia for the undeveloped, strange looking wilderness of this area back then that made it look like an unspoiled, prehistoric oasis very different from similar nostalgic shots of other towns.</p>

<p>None of this guy's images look like random quick snaps with wonky, off kilter compositions often associated with personal snaps even though they mostly comprise non-posing families dressed for summer frolicking and lounging among the beautiful fauna and river recreation facilities. And they certainly appear more than just touristy post card fodder.</p>

<p>Was the photo lab guy being ambiguous in what he was wanting to capture and convey or am I reading too much into his images primarily influenced by its nostalgia for a time long ago? Does the passing of time change the perception, out of context of the original photographer's intent whether it was ambiguous or not?</p>

<p>Maybe the photographer was just randomly shooting snaps and happen to have a good eye with the intent of capturing the indescribable about a place the photographer saw as unique and meaningful. In a sense the photographer was taking a stand or establishing a vision for finding value in just the mere minutes within each day of a life the photographer realizes is quite short and fleeting.</p>

<p>That's my purpose and meaning.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Tim, you bring up a good point, which is that a photographer can intend to be ambiguous and can have a purpose and it may or may not show in the photos for a variety of reasons. And both ambiguity or purpose can show up intentionally and non-intentionally. Sometimes, a photographer may be clueless about his own purpose and yet his work will consistently show a point of view that is rather unambiguous. Sometimes a photographer will think he's showing a particular emotion in a portrait, for example, and yet the expression comes across as ambiguous because the photographer hasn't visually translated what he's feeling. And there are all sorts of degrees and permutations of this. A photo is not necessarily a direct translation of what one is feeling but one can certainly want to portray a subject in a certain light or with a certain twist or bias and fail at doing so.</p>

<p>To me, your own photos show a sort of soft-spoken and matter-of-fact quirkiness. And matter-of-factness as a photographic accomplishment can be not that easy to achieve and very effective at engaging a viewer. Taken as a whole, what your pictures of town do so nicely is juxtapose detail with bigger picture shots. Having the photo of tubing on Stinky Falls right next to the picture of the soda bar, with its lighted tourist photo hanging on the wall (which may be of the same or at least a similar place) adds up to more than the two pictures would be if shown separately. </p>

<p>In general, I'd say the ambiguity seen in individual photos can often start becoming quite revelatory and more telling as an individual's body of work takes shape.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>Yes. But the trouble is that human minds operate lexically (no pun intended). This basically brings us to the choise of presenting a photo to intelligent audience which unavoidably will make interpretations or present it to the unintelligent, so to say (which, hopefully, will make them more intelligent so they can ...) and so it goes. Lucky, we still have supra intelligent segment to challange.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ilia, yes, good point. We do operate lexically. What I'm getting at is the different grammars and vocabularies and lexicologies we use to respond to photos (and to create them).</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>Exactly, Fred. I think one has to see the paramount purpose in personal creative endevours.</p>

[Brad_]

Some people may better understand photos with all the blanks filled in. Some enjoy contemplating the

possibilities when only provided with partial or ambiguous information. Nothing new...

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I never thought the word "ambiguity" could make such an interesting discussion but this thread has actually gotten me to think, examine and value more about what I do compared to other photographers (both amateur & pro) shooting my local town and the degree each of us communicate intent with regard to whether we see a touristy or a historically and socially insulated surreal like hamlet. It got me to notice how choice of subject with regard to composition, lighting and presentation (including post processing) can vary the level of ambiguity each of us communicate this intent.</p>

<p>As my small town has grown rapidly in population in the last decade more financially sophisticated out of state development type folks are settling in and attracting like minded creatives including photographers whose images show how much out of touch they are compared to my vision and interpretation. But I had to have their work to compare in order to see this in my work. Now I look at my images has being less ambiguous and clearly having an intent and vision the more time passes and I keep going back and assessing what to keep and throw away.</p>

<p>It's like the unsung photo lab operator who took all these beautiful snaps of this town no one ever saw until our local heritage museum scanned and made them public within the past decade. Even his work conveys an intent that now doesn't seem ambiguous compared to all the wedding, Chamber Of Commerce touristy and real estate driven images that dominate online and in print.</p>

<p>Thanks for the analysis of my images of my small town, Fred. It's interesting and a bit weird to get an intelligent take on them since I've been taking them for granted in the years since I last added to my PN gallery. I feel like I'm going to end up like that photo lab operator where my work is going to be discovered out of cultural context of my generation 50 years from now by some heritage museum after I pass.</p>

<p>I found this 1942 HDR gem, not sure if it's by the photo lab dude... http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/images/card373.jpg</p>

<p>From this site: http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/comal.html</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Fred, for days I try to get back to a question you raised on page 1 (to Wolfgang and me), and even though I read all posts after it, and realising I'm putting the thread though a time-warp, I think it's still valid to get back to that question:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was wondering whether interpretation is necessary and to what extent photos, to be experienced fully, are best put into words or thoughts. If they get translated verbally, how literal do those thoughts have to be? Can the thoughts or words be more like poems or metaphors rather than essays or novels and would that, in many cases, make more sense?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Necessay is a tricky word. Nothing is necessary; just looking at a photo in awe absorbing it can be more than great. Not so much interpretating, but just emotionally letting things poor in. Not that this excludes interpretation, though for me it's not something I seem to do at the same time. And with those two not-so-mutual-exclusive approaches, what is the full experience? I really don't know - it depends heavily on the photo. Some photos provoke words like essays, some like poems, some just music.<br>

I think reading through most of the posts is something that's be nagging my mind on this topic from the start: 'ambiguity' isn't one thing - it's ambiguous in itself too quite often. As already notes, ambiguity can be a planned part of the photo (insert here quite a number of Fred's photos as very fine examples), or just a technical/compositional oversight, or at least something that wasn't very deliberate part of the scene while making the photo. And it's not always as noticeable what is what. But the first one is more begging for interpretation than the second.</p>

<p>In the end, in a way I can get what your point is, but I see no mutual exclusives, no 1-on-1 relationships... A non-ambiguous photo to me doesn't take more stand, isn't necessarily more answer than question, doesn't necessarily avoid the need to interpret, as there is always context that isn't in the photo. And vice versa. These are all things happening in a continuum, partially conscious processes, partially not (I cannot suspend my interpretation-engine - good photos trigger my fantasy, and frankly I wouldn't want it any other way at the moment).</p>

<p>__<br>

Thomas, impressive work on the double exposures. I've been having a go at them recently (some in my portfolio here), but just first baby-steps and oh my - it's one brilliant way to tax pre-visualisation skills to the maximum. Very satisfying when it works out, but it's going to take some time to get grips with it. All the more respect for your results, because they really work out great.<br>

The first few I shared (outside this site) people assumed I would have done it in Photoshop - in a sense, I don't mind they ask me for the process used. I don't mind Photoshop, nothing against it, but getting double exposures like yours to work "directly from the viewfinder" is a different thing.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Ambiguity is the result of a conflict between equally convincing points of view that might make sense of the same thing. I don't believe that something is ambiguous if it makes no sense at all.</p>

<p>Ambiguity is inconsistent with the notion that there is one true or best point of view (interpretation) at least for the person who finds himself stuck up in the air between plausible but different interpretations. What's the point of declaring that there is a best point of view when you can't decide which one to pick?</p>

<p>Consider the photo of the person who has suffered a beating mentioned earlier. The discussion around it described the subject as a woman. She's not a very feminine looking woman. In fact, I, for one, would be willing to believe that the subject is actually a man in drag. The way to find alternative interpretations is to ask questions about the subject and its setting. What exactly am I looking at here? What's going on? As matters of fact these questions typically have no answers evident. An object is simply there with little or no back story to make sense of its presence.</p>

<p>So it's up to the viewer to stretch his imagination to make as much sense as he cares to for the photo. You can see that such things as a person's willingness to accept things at face value, inquisitiveness, tolerance for ambiguity, experience with things that the photo might suggest, etc. are all part of the subjective workings of the active viewer's mind. (An objective interpretation occurs when a consensus exists validating its plausibility.) My prejudice here is that a passive viewer would simply pass over a picture without putting very much work into trying to figure it out.</p>

<p>At any rate I think that, when you find that the image before you is ambiguous, you have already given up as lost any notion that there is only one best explanation for it. You have the bounty of possibility before you. The idea of the one true interpretation gets in the way of you exploring the richness of your own mind. It could be a woman, but it could be something else instead...</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Albert that's said with precision and concision.</p>

<p>I think the way Steve Curry's Ethiopia picture works for me is that because there are competing though uninteresting literal interpretations possible, the fact of that ambiguity leads me toward a meta interpretation more in the direction of McCurry's philosophical blog statements. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Consider the photo of the person who has suffered a beating mentioned earlier. The discussion around it described the subject as a woman. She's not a very feminine looking woman. In fact, I, for one, would be willing to believe that the subject is actually a man in drag.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The fact of whether she's a woman or a man in drag can easily be answered. She's a woman. Nan Goldin has done many self portraits and is fairly well known in some circles. She's a woman and she looks like she does in many of her photos. But it raises a couple of interesting issues. Because often certain factual ambiguities get answered as we learn more about a photo or a photographer. So, reactions, interpretations, understandings, meaning usually remain quite fluid and changeable. It would be interesting to consider what would change for me if I learned that this was a big joke and that Nan Goldin was in fact a man dressing up as a woman. Surely some things would, especially the factual hookups I may have made. Other things wouldn't. Since men dressed as women are likely to be treated even worse by a lot of males even than women so often are. It wouldn't negate what I was thinking about violence against women. Instead, it would add some layers to it. Of course, sometimes my understanding and relationship to a photo would do a more complete about face upon learning something factual that I'd been unaware of. All depends.<br /> <br /> Since ambiguity and interpretation have to do with meaning, I would have to ask what a more and less feminine woman is like, especially given our 21st-century sensibilities? Would different make-up, figure, and hairstyle be thought of as more feminine? In this day and age? Just what meaning, what interpretation do we give to "femininity"? One reason I feel rather exposed when attributing meaning to photos or critiquing them is that I'm well aware that it often shows my own biases. That's why discussing these things with others is such a good thing for my own growth. Getting different perspectives allows me to see what meanings and interpretations I kind of take for granted and whether or not I can here and there be shown a different way of seeing things, one of the reasons I not only look at and talk about photos, but take them myself and listen to the feedback I get.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Wouter, good points. I didn't mean to suggest that ambiguity and taking a stand were mutually exclusive. I thought I gave some examples of where they could reside together but may not have made that clear. So I'm glad you emphasized that point. But that they are not mutually exclusive doesn't mean that some people, myself included at times, don't use ambiguity as a way not to commit. It's not unlike how a lot of people are in relationships. I'm not sure what I want from the other person, and I'm not ready to commit, so I'll give lots of mixed signals. That can be done intentionally or non-intentionally but to the person receiving the mixed signals, in given situations, it can really fall short of being fulfilling. What I'm saying is that there are lots and lots of photos that have no mystique or ambiguity or unanswered questions that wind up being really boring and unengaging (though, as I said, plenty of unambiguous photos are great). But I also think that many who think they've hit an artistic stride SIMPLY by being ambiguous or mysterious are in fact not quite getting it either, for their work lacks the kind of commitment and the passion that comes with taking stands which has a very furtive history in art throughout the ages.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>FERTILE, not furtive, though sometimes these stances can be made surreptitiously I was thinking that many are taken very intentionally.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Thank you for your thoughtful comments Fred.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Fred, complete agree and certainly I would not want to imply that ambiguity is a free pass to making things interesting. A lot of ambiguity I see is merely a lack of (cohesive) thought, and more like an unfinished part rather than an integral part.<br>

I think bringing up biases in this context is good - maybe bias has a bit a negative tone to itself, but I take it you mean it a lot less biased, so to speak. As stated earlier, in my view, there is a level of inevitable personal interpretation, which has an inevitable bias (based on our experiences, cultural background, taste and all those othyer factors that shape us). We can't leave ourselves behind at the door as we enter the room to inspect it. Initially, this isn't a conscious process, but our very first impression of an image (or any piece of art) is shaped this way. We can overcome that with a more reasoned conscious study - and yes, for that discussions as these, or sharing critiques to me is vital - but there will always remain a trace of that bias, and that first impression will have a profound impact on how willing we are to listen to others and (ex)change ideas.<br>

Taking an image as-is, even if it's not ambiguous, obvious and near-literally telling me what's what, there still is a level gut reaction between me and that image. At the least colouring in the blanks on why the image was made, whether it fits into something bigger or smaller... some extrapolation that I can't seem to avoid (could be my defect, though). And even those literal images (product-photos of any kind of product for advertisements jump to mind) can become ambiguous once our fantasy starts to play with it.... Why show the product under a left angle? Is the other side a design-mostrosity? Etc. Not something we can always actively avoid from happening. In short: my question remains if the ambiguity exists before we see it, whether a photo is ambiguous in itself, or whether our interpretation from it makes it such. It's hard to pin down where things start and end, as they intertwine and amplify one another quite a bit.</p>

<p>Not quite sure we're talking the same things here, maybe I'm thinking something else in the end than what you actually are aiming at. But with the continuum above I meant not only the various shades of ambiguous that an image can be, but also the continuous and continuous-changing play between a viewer and an image that can shift meaning and the 'absoluteness of its message' from left to right. In a way, we see what we want to see, none of us looks without coloured glasses, and that (to me) seems to always affect whether we regard something as ambiguous to start with, seperate from what the artist hoped to put in there.<br>

But as said, maybe my thoughts are off to something else entirely, in which case my apologies for the detour.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Of course, you don't want ambiguity in pictures of food on a restaurant menu, a good one is apetitious and not suggestive of alternative and equally convincing points of view. So at least in a product shot we know the intent is to make a product appealing to the viewer and we can readily mark the point at which our individual tastes contribute to our assessment of the product, there being no underlying confusion about the intent of the photographer. Ambiguity as a design element can as thoughtfully be employed by a photographer as is clarity in product shots.</p>

<p>In thinking more about Albert's "Ambiguity is the result of a conflict between equally convincing points of view that might make sense of the same thing." I don't think there is necessarily a conflict between equally convincing points of view, interpretations. Each interpretation if well supported in the image isn't necessarily in conflict with other interpretations, much like where a good poem could be read in several equally convincing ways. But just being vague, letting a photograph just support any number of equally unconvincing interpretations: to me that happens when I find that in a photograph I can only discover my own personal associations and for me, my own personal associations aren't interesting except if it is the case that either I'm trying to communicate or am trying to receive a communication. I don't like spending time with a photograph only to find that the photographer was must mumbling, being intentionally obtuse or intentionally vague for no worthwhile purpose.</p>