How does one capture an emotion?

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Some bushman in the Kalahari who had never seen seen a photo would see. . . what?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no idea, but I very much doubt it would be a moment frozen in time. What would he see when he sees a painting? What do I see when I see a painting. Not a moment frozen in time. And when I look at photos, I see something somewhat different than a painting but something that has a lot in common with a painting as well, the non-moment in time stuff.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But, out of context, what are they?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They're never out of context, nor is anything else. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Julie posted above:</p>

<p>[<a href="http://www.lost-painters.nl/wp-content/uploads/Levi-van-Veluw-Landscapes-I-II-III-IV-Foto-op-dibond.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the many personas of Lannie</a>]</p>

<p>Ah, I was still morphing toward this, my first selfie through my phone (shooting unintentionally backward). I think that I should have gotten my eyebrows even closer to that wide-angle lens.</p>

<p>Out of context: Someone on the way to being quite mad</p>

<p>In context: Someone already there?!</p>

<p>Fred, we shall now have to define and discuss "context."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Fred, I meant outside of the original [cultural?] context, like the Coke bottle in the movie (<em>The Gods Must Be Crazy</em>).</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>In addition, Fred, there is the simple fact that a photo represents a point (almost) in time.</p>

<p>I would submit to you that, without a "delta <em>t</em>" (<strong>ΔT</strong>, the difference [or change] between two points in time), there might not really be any time at all. Perhaps we need at least two points in time in order to be aware of time.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred, there is the simple fact that a photo represents a point (almost) in time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lannie, it's OK for us to disagree on this. Your calling it a fact and then going one step further and calling it a <em>simple</em> fact doesn't really persuade me to see photos that way. I just don't. If you want to, you are welcome to go ahead and do so. You would be in good company. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>My point, Fred, is that an artifact from an unknown culture is going to be interpreted differently by members of another, different culture. No real communication has occurred. Had the Kalahari bushman known the story of how the Coke bottle was used as a vessel to contain a liquid, his response to it would have been quite different from what it was (in the movie).</p>

<p>Every artifact or message has a context out of which it is created, and another context (which may be quite different) in which it is interpreted. Persons locate photos (when viewing them) in their own context, personal and otherwise. Persons creating photos have their own contexts. Is there any surprise that there is a miscommunication?</p>

<p>There are a lot of hidden issues on this, I know. I'm not trying to be glib.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>As far as the movement of time, that is another issue, one that you have already addressed quite well. Photos can convey a lot of things that are not limited to the point in time that the photo was made. There is a tie in here to the problem of context, but I won't try to explore that here.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Lannie, am I going to have to make you look at Duchamp's urinal until you cry uncle?</p>

<p>[love the selfie; obviously the eyebrows are stupendous, but the wrinkles are clearly a coded message dependent on their context]</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Julie, perhaps we need to have <em>une pissotière en porcelaine </em>installed at your place, replacing your existing convenience. It could change your whole worldview.</p>

<p>I have an image in my head at this moment. . . . It will almost certainly never be realized in a photo.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Just don't throw it out of an airplane. I'm pretty sure my insurance policy has an exception for <em>pissotière en porcelain </em>thrown from airplanes. They have exceptions for everything else.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I wonder how well <em>The Gods Must Be Crazy</em> would have been received if that, and not a Coke bottle, had fallen from a plane. My guess is that there are cultures where they would worship that sucker until the end of time. Fine porcelain can do that to people. Just look at the money that goes into bathroom remodeling at a typical McMansion.</p>

<p>There's art, and then there's art.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p><a href="/photo/17697674&size=lg"><em><strong>This one by Barry Fisher</strong></em></a> is going to tug at some heartstrings.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[spanky]

<p>As Lannie mentioned, the emotional impact of a photograph has a lot to do with whatever knowledge of the content we bring to it. This we all know. The Napalm Girl picture by Nick Ut resonates strongly with Lannie because of the backstory behind it. The photo itself doesn't tell the viewer that the girls clothing was burned off. If I recall correctly in an interview even Ut himself described the picture as him simply being in the right place at the right time. So much of photojournalism and street photography is dependent on chance and serendipity.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Context in which it was <em>made</em> and context in which the thing that gets produced was <em>used</em> (for) ...</p>

<p>... have different kinds of relevance depending on if you are a journalist, or an artist, or Ernst Haas, or a bathroom fixture maker.</p>

[spanky]

<p>I was thinking more about this thread just now while in the shower and decided to post a picture of my own. The picture below is a selfie I took in my darkroom years ago. I don't know what brought this on, but it's evolved into a body of work and it's basically a ritual for me to take one every time I go in to print. Now, all of my friends and co-workers are unanimously together in describing these photographs as "awful" "horrible" "freaky" and "scary." These are how they respond to them emotionally. So then, where do these emotions come from? Is it from a narrow view on their part of what a photograph should look like? It's a selfie remember, and selfies have become part of the cultural fabric. They have a source from narcissism so what you see on social media are selfies that some thought went into to make the photographer look good. Mine are the opposite so does that account for their disgust in them? How much are people reacting to how they know I look and their history with me as they view these pictures through that prisim? And does it really matter?</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>My point, Fred, is that an artifact from an unknown culture is going to be interpreted differently by members of another, different culture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right. Agreed. They never don't have a context. They may have different contexts. <br>

<br>

Which would seem to suggest that photos being a representation of a moment (or point) in time is simply one very limited context in which to view photos. That's all I'm saying. It's a small part of the story. It's a take on a photo that simply looks at them from one particular context, even among us humans. <br>

<br>

Someone from Mars doesn't know that so-called two-dimensional image came from a camera whose shutter snapped at some previous 1/30 of a second. So they're not seeing it as a representation of that moment in time. I know how the photo was made, so that 1/30 of a second is kind of baked in but there's a much wider context for me of what the photo is. Partly, I know it's not a representation at all. Just like the Martian who might simply take it as a real object there in front of him which may make him feel a certain way only because of the shapes and colors he sees and how those affect his nervous system. He would have no reasons whatsoever to tie it to some other moment that occurred at some other time. His "literal" understanding of it may be nothing like ours. There's a level on which we all see photos non-literally or semi-literally as well, non-represenatationally, and that's part of my context when I view photos. Like I said, think of all the similarities between paintings and photos (the aspects of artifice, of storytelling, of—dare I say it—beauty, of abstraction, of composition). All of those things that photos share with paintings have nothing to do with a moment in time. When I hear that a photo is a representation of a moment in time (or a point in time), the entire spatial world, the world of composition, of relationships of light and shadow, black and white and gray, emotion, are all left out. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>They never don't have a context. They may have different contexts. --Fred G.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, the phrase I used was embedded in this exchange;</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I disagree with all of this, Lannie. For me, only one small aspect of photos is that they can be seen as a moment frozen in time and that's rarely how I approach them or think of them. --Fred G.</p>

<p>In context, yes, Fred. But, out of context, what are they? Even to define a printed artifact is a photo is to demonstrate that we already have some sense of context. --Lannie Kelly</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I am not sure where we are disagreeing. It is true that I said, "But, out of context, what are they?" Saying that does not mean that I am making some claim that art or anything exists "out of context," simply that things can be and are typically misinterpreted when TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. Indeed, to say to someone, "You are quoting me out of context" is not to deny that something exists (or does not exist) in some context, but that someone has tried to understand it apart from that particular context.</p>

<p>I may be misunderstanding your point here, but I doubt that either of us is trying to debate the ontological status of contexts. As far as I can tell, "context" is something that does not belong to some object or artifact outside of some perception of it, some attempt, that is, to understand it or interpret that perception. (I could be wrong about that, but I see no other way to say it.) If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it or see it, it has no particular context if no one knows about it. (That is not the original point of that saying, I know. George Lord Berkeley is not on trial here.)</p>

<p>To quote Billy Bob Clinton <strong><em>out of context</em></strong>, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Clinton was parsing words, of course. You and are trying to clarify our positions, a very different thing.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, I'm saying we COMPLETELY AGREE on the matter of context and I agree it's relatively unimportant to this discussion and should be dropped immediately.</p>

<p>My main point was to say that I don't think photos are representations of a moment in time. I think that's a much more important consideration and eventually probably does have a lot to do with emotion, emotional responses to photos, and a photographer's imbuing photos with it.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Phil, how do you 'rate' an emotion?</p>

<p>I think we've already addressed the "rationalize" thing under the name of "objective."</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>My main point was to say that I don't think photos are representations of a moment in time. --Fred G.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I guess that I meant only that still photos do not show two or more points in time. Does each separate frame show a point in time? In some trivial sense, that is perhaps true, maybe even obviously true, but it is not very interesting, is it? Again, I may be missing your point.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Single photos represent a moment frozen in time. If printed, they are two-dimensional representations entirely out of the flow of space-time. The amazing this is that they have any power whatsoever to evoke emotions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You seemed to tie your claim that a photo represents a moment frozen in time to your amazement that they have any power at all to evoke emotions. I'm suggesting that when you see photos (which I obviously know you can and do) as something other than or more than a representation of a moment frozen in time, your amazement may disappear some. I'm not even sure why a moment frozen in time evoking emotions would be so amazing. What it all tells me is that it's NOT just meaning that is the key. Your example of movies suggests why a movie or a series of stills would have more meaning (and I'd say more literal and narrative meaning) than stills. But, it may be the lack of more literal and narrative meaning in still photos that is a key to their emotive potential. <br>

<br>

I think tying photos too much to their original moment can be problematic, especially in some cases. When it comes to documentary and journalism and a even portraits and still lifes to some extent, of course a tie to the original moment will be significant. But departing from that original moment and its meaning can also be significant. So, even while you're in the moment, you can be sort of in a state of potential, in a looking ahead mode even without thinking about it too much or at all. It's often the <em>transformation</em> of the moment and not the <em>representation</em> of the moment that's the more significant aspect of making photos, IMO. <br>

<br>

You read my description of how Stuart and I worked together to create that photo with the shadow. If I were to represent that moment, I'd want to show that we are working at it, somehow communicate that we moved around to get the right angle, etc., since that's what the moment actually was. But, judging from my own take on it and viewer reactions to it, what that photo is is a transformation, and not a representation, of that moment. A representation is kind of a substitute for the original thing seen. To me, that's not what a photo is or at least not all it can be. It's very much a new reality and won't always be tethered to the reality of the moment of its taking.<br>

<br>

When you call it a representation, then I can tell you you're wrong about the photo, which I would never want to do. You might say, this shows the mysterious side of Stuart. Well, if it's a representation of the moment I'd have to say, no, it's not that at all, it's my finding a position where the light falls on Stuart evocatively and Stuart getting into a position where he casts an effective shadow. How dull. I prefer the transformative take. The representation angle is a bit too clinical for me.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Mental, Emotional, Perceptual - all parts of awareness, all important.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Lannie (if I may), thanks for finding the photograph of Nick Ut from the Vietnam war. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Lannie, the words "photos do not show two or more points in time" or more particularly the word "moment" have no meaning if you can't get your bearings in location and/or time.</p>

<p>Even in a time-stamped photo of Mars, or from a precisely time-stamped record from a particle cloud chamber, or the insides of some anonymous patient's intestines that will include a date/time; <em>in the resulting image</em>, "moment" or "point in time" has no meaning other than internally to itself, if/because you can't get your bearings reference that picture.</p>

<p>Think about all that "get your bearings" entails -- before "moment" or "point in time" has any meaning. "Moment" is a <em>consequence</em> of those bearings.</p>

<p>[Also relevant is Bergson's bit about: if you take a slice, maybe 1/8 second out of a song, the bit of sound that you get is meaningless; but I'm too lazy to look it up, you'll be happy to know. And I realize that your "point in time" does not claim meaning, it just claims point-ness, which the music analogy does not defeat (though my argument above does, I think).]</p>

<p>******************</p>

<p>Back on topic ... the same wind bends all the trees; each tree bends differently. How to show the wind and not just a bunch of bent trees; and/or how to show the wind-bend of just the third tree on the left ... Include a wind-gauge in the picture? I think not.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Julie, of course there can be elements in a photo that bespeak motion, and there can be (and is) in our minds something (some things) that allow us to infer motion based on some context.</p>

<p>I concede that and all points made related to it, but I think that you and Fred are rebutting a position that I have not taken. I have said that "Context is everything," and it is one of my favorite quotes to my students in various classes, but never more so than in my Spanish classes (not my doctoral field, but something I like to do for fun now and again). Of course, in Spanish class, I say, "Contexto es todo," and what I mean is that <em><strong>MEANING</strong></em> depends entirely on context. What is true for words and sentences is likewise true for photos and everything else that involves inferences that relate to some kind of "meaning" or "significance," and only things of significance have the power to evoke emotion.</p>

<p>So, it is not that you and Fred are wrong. It is that I entirely agree with you. To say that a photo nonetheless records a "point in time" may be uninteresting, but it is not thereby false. As I said above, it is probably true but true in some uninteresting sense. Perhaps some inference was made by you guys as to where I was going with that. Actually, I was about to examine the psychology of perception, but I don't know enough about it to take it very far, and so I dropped a line of exploratory argumentation that I never really got going with. I may come back to it if I have any further insights on it, but right now I am not pulling up any new theoretical insights or even suggestions of insights. Certainly two sequential stills can give the obvious feeling of motion, as can "smeared" images that show a stationary background with a moving subject. We learned a long time ago that something moving can appear as a "smear" or portion that is out of focus. We learned, probably at an early age, that a photo like that, with part of it in focus and part of it out of focus, gives information about motion: we have captured motion in one still.</p>

<p>I don't know where to take that except to drop it. We all know it. It is true, but it is obvious--and yet it is one more tool in the arsenal of photographers. Sometimes we follow the moving object, keeping it in focus, letting the blurred background give the message of "motion"--another closely related tool or technique of photographers which we all learned a long time ago.</p>

<p>I am not totally uninterested in such considerations of technique, but I do think that Fred has been on to something much more interesting, and that something has to do with what I referred to earlier as "what we bring to the photo." What we bring is some possible sense of a larger context, etc. The story starts with what we bring to the photo. It does not end there, of course.</p>

<p>I would be interested in further considerations of how you or Fred use this or that technique to evoke motion, emotion, and meaning/significance. As I pointed out of your grove of saplings, Julie, the bends in the trees remind me of bent knees, and bent knees remind me of (or suggest) motion once I have seen the trees as human limbs--or perhaps it is the bends that make me infer human limbs.</p>

<p>"Locked knees don't move." True but trivial, I suppose. You and Fred are getting into some much more interesting terrain than that by going beyond such trivial observations, but perhaps you will need to "spell it out' for some of us so that we will know how to use it in our own work. At the moment, I feel as if you are "preaching to the choir." My own "context is everything" expressed the fullness of my own understanding of the issues at stake a long way back up the thread. I am out of fresh insights. Enlighten me--and I don't mean that in a sarcastic sense. I really mean it. If you can, show me what you mean by reference to your own pictures.</p>

<p>This has been a fascinating thread, and I appreciate the insights of you and Fred and others in making it so.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>