Perception in portraits

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>your own interpretation, based on your own experiences</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hope not. I'm not that egotistical or solipsistic. I think the visual language is one that is shared. And not just between the viewer and photographer but between them and their culture as well. I don't believe I live in a world that is strictly viewed or understood through my own interpretation. I think we are all in this together and I think interpretation, understanding, and aesthetics is much more reciprocal than many give it credit for. I don't think my reactions, responses, and understanding are all about ME, ME, ME. As a matter of fact, for me, that would be an absolutely awful way to think the world works.</p>

[black_silver]

Take Fred's image, there above.

 

If I saw a real person that color, that grey color. ...

 

I would expect the person to be dead.

 

Black and white photos, especially, are not about truth. They can't

be. It's about tonality on paper or some monitor. Viewers have to

interpret those photos, change black and white tones to color in

their mind's eye; based on experiences with the real world.

 

Also, the person in Fred's photo would be about 8 to 10 inches tall, as sized on the monitor screen I am using. Photos are not truthful.

[dave_s]

<p>John Berger<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ways_of_Seeing"> discussed this</a> effectively, some four decades ago, and I'm sure it wasn't a new idea then. Interpretation depends on context.</p>

[LineMartel]

<blockquote>

<p>I hope not. I'm not that egotistical or solipsistic</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This has nothing to do with egotism nor solipsism. I am humble enough not pretend that I know, without a narrative about the photographer or the subject, what exactly the photographer was thinking or what the life experience of the subject is. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I am humble enough not pretend that I know, without a narrative about the photographer or the subject, what exactly the photographer was thinking or what the life experience of the subject is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You've misread me, as I never said I hoped to know exactly what the photographer was thinking. Why did you turn my talking about clues into my knowing exactly what the photographer was thinking? When a friend has a conversation with you, you may not know exactly what he is thinking, but don't you think you get something of your friends in their responses and words? That's all I'm saying. Photography is like a conversation. A conversation usually takes more than one person and the interpretation is not simply your making up your own story. The other person participates and, in the case I'm talking about, at the very least the photo participates in the dialogue.<br>

<br>

On interpretation, what do you think informs our <strong>own</strong> interpretation and our <strong>own</strong> experiences? It's what we've learned from parents, teachers, friends, previous artists throughout history, books by others we've read, conversations we've had with peers, and the photographs by others we look at, among many other very public things. Signs and symbols, language visual or verbal, does not belong to you alone. They are not your <strong>own</strong>. They've been inherited and are being developed over time among a community of people, not somewhere inside your own skin. Artists and photographers continually use those signs and symbols, whether intentionally or not and whether they know it or not, and add to that language and to our understanding of even our "own" feelings, responses, and interpretations. One can't help but see photos through the eyes of culture and history which includes other people. Interpretations are not our own private islands.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>To be clear, I'm not saying the showing and viewing of a photograph is necessarily as accurate or literal a means of communication as a verbal dialogue, though it can certainly be a more effective one and has the power to be more expressive as well. It's a different kind of communication, more metaphorical, more poetic if you like, but something goes from photographer to viewer and it's not all up to the viewer's understanding, isolated from the photographer's.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

What Fred said.<br>There is an agreement above on the principle, and that the differences are about degree. Language isn't really that precise either but also allows ample room to, for instance, hear something said, know what the speaker intended to say and still recognize and appreciate if for something else it evoked which was not the intention of the speaker. Visual language, photographic language is even more less precise. But it is a language, with vocabulary, etc. Not as precise, but stil something that can (and does) express and convey to the viewer what the photographer wanted it to. Just not always as precise.<br>Music is even more fuzzy, yet still very strong in conveying very inarticulate but at the same time overly clear messages. If the composer, or photographer, wants us to be, say, sad, it is not difficult to produce something that at least is recognized as something sad if not something that actually makes us sad. Sure, without the narrative, opera listeners do not know what to feel sad about. But it is not all up to them, isolated from the composer's understanding. Photography is more capable of (in the sense of more "accurate or literal") providing a narrative in itself than music is.

[LineMartel]

<p>I guess this discussion is a good example. I seem to be misreading your comments and your interpretation of my words are quite different than what I intended to convey. I never dismissed the fact that there was a communication. I only said that how you interpret what is communicated is very different for everyone based on their life experience and exposure. I work in marketing analysis and everyday I see how differently images and words are perceived across demographics and cultures. There is always an intention/message but the resulting impression may be far from its goal. When I say personal, it of course includes and is molded by "what we've learned from parents, teachers, friends, previous artists throughout history, books by others we've read, conversations we've had with peers, and the photographs by others we look at, among many other very public things."</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess this discussion is a good example. I seem to be misreading your comments and your interpretation of my words are quite different than what I intended to convey.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bingo! And if we care at all about each other, which I suspect we do, we will continue to respond to each other in the hopes of getting beyond our own misunderstandings and misinterpretations so that we actually get what each other is saying. This is done all the time. And if we care about the photo, we will do the same. We will not simply retreat into our own story and assume that our interpretation is a good one because it's ours and it's genuinely felt. We will work to reach some kind of accord with the photo itself, to give it its due, to understand and empathize with it so that we aren't caught in a deep misunderstanding. Yes, it is possible we are misunderstanding each other and can resolve that over time and with a bit of work on each of our parts. And it is possible that viewers will actually misunderstand a photo because of a lack of familiarity with certain symbols or signs or because they've put their own needs in front of what the work is actually showing or telling them.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>When I say personal, it of course includes and is molded by "what we've learned from parents, teachers, friends, previous artists throughout history, books by others we've read, conversations we've had with peers, and the photographs by others we look at, among many other very public things."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can anyone here say the photographers in the OP's linked video touch upon and/or are inspired by any of those cultural influences?</p>

<p>I couldn't but then maybe that's just my internal language I'm using to form that interpretation. But I wish I could state it in a way that doesn't sound insulting or arrogant or maybe that's on account of my lack of command of the written language or my lack of ability to express something I sense about that video that is undefinable.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yes, i can say that Tim. And i'm sure you can too. When they are told that the sitter is a rich person, or an ex-criminal, what those are isn't spelled out to them. They know, have their own understanding, from what they "have learned from their parents [etc.]".

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>They know, have their own understanding, from what they "have learned from their parents [etc.]".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure you can even make that assumption just on watching the video. I'm actually detecting a lack or limited amount of cultural influence more from the makers of the video and that may just be from their training and education in marketing.</p>

<p>Or the makers of the video could be just dumbing down the presentation of something more cerebral as demonstrating the power of portrait photography in order to reach a broader audience.</p>

<p>Then again the photographers could all be actors since it appears anyone who can operate a DSLR (even a cellphone) is qualified to be a photographer nowadays, so it's technically not deception.</p>

<p>I can't help but feel the video comes across as disingenuous. Or to just to put it simply in layman's terms..."I just don't like that video". What internal language or interpretation is that coming from?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Where else do people learn all those things, Tim?

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"Alcoholic" is mentioned. I would just think about different ways to convey that if I wanted to show that in a portrait, which I might or might not. I'd think about signs and symbols that would communicate that and I'd use them. I might also adjust the mood of the portrait (such as by lighting and perspective) to convey some emotional responses to alcoholism that are either felt personally be me or that I think viewers might be able to empathize with. I might completely disregard what some strange lady tells me about my photographic subject and talk to him myself. I might then completely disregard what he tells me and go with the roundness of his head and some of the expressions and gestures I note he makes, possibly looking for ways to tie his physical looks and his gestures to things in the room that will read as significantly juxtaposed shapes and elements within the frame of the photo. This may or may not have a literal meaning that's easily discoverable, but it will have a visual character and may well produce emotional responses in the viewer and in me.</p>

<p>None of this can work without my decisions and the signs and symbols I use being of necessity evolved by culture, family, and community. </p>

<p>On the other hand, I may intend very little and may think very little about how I'm taking the picture. Nevertheless my every move will be informed by my past experience, built out of family, friends, and culture. And, whether I intend THIS or THAT or not, both I and the viewer may share similar emotional responses to what winds up in the photo. If we don't have similar emotional responses (as Q.G. said, I might feel sad and you might not) we will likely still recognize something in common as a result of looking at the picture. </p>

[donald_miller5]

Ok, I looked at the video and I find a lot problems with it. Is this supposed to be some kind of controlled experiment? If

that is the case the there are too many variables and things we are not told. Does the character "act" differently based on

who he is supposed to be and how differentl does he behave? We are not given that information. Each character has a

different photographer with their individual style and competence and "language".and photographic vocabulary. As Q.g.

said the language is not precise. Communication is difficult. To draw an analogy to spoken language it is easy to tell

someone you are hungry but to discuss higher order things it might be like taking a dog to the movies sometimes. He just

would not get it. There are other lack of controls. So what is the video trying to conclude? From what I saw it is nothing

more than an example of chaos theory. At the same time the more controls you apply tends to deconstruct reality.at the

same time this is more like a portrait of a portrait where the producers are creating a portrait of their own. It is highly

edited by professional marketers and it was not made just for fun so it is targeting a group of people who they think will

buy their product after seeing.it. Talking about this being truthful is kind of naive because it was never meant to be

truthful. The photographers or actors know they are being recorded. If they are actors than this is probably completely

scripted. This would be a great conversation to have but not based on this video.