Why do we like what we like?

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here is one by Sam Ryan that was just posted as the "Latest Request for Critique." Whatever it may evoke from the past or conceivably promise for the future, it is as close to being "in the [present] moment" as any photo I have seen lately:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/18249874">[LINK]</a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Fred - "There's a big difference between why I like a certain picture and why I like what I like."</p>

<p>The way I read "Why do we like what we like." equates "what I like" to a particular picture. That which I like (what I like) is a picture. Why do I like it, the particular picture and where the picture is what I like. I wasn't aware that a conflated reading of the question was possible.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Lannie, I won't fall into the "trap" of presenting a photo I like, as there are many of those, both my own and many others. I think it all comes down to personal taste. Taste is not always a constant value (we are creatures of some occasional change) but it is related I think to social consensus (our milieu and how that affects us) and to what I would simply call familiarity. The more we see examples of things we like, the more we like what we have decided to like. Taste.</p>

<p>The 54 or 55 photos making up my current summer exhibition at a local cultural foundation are all what I "like" (I guess that I wouldn't have printed and mounted them otherwise). An artist friend suggested to my partner the other day that I likely posted too many (he has yet to see it, or each of the five themes involved) and he may be right, but I wouldn't change it, and will do so only only when I can add something different to the project via my future works (and the ideas there are exciting). My exhibition pub (announce) is rotting slowly in the Member Photo News forum, where the last time I looked it had received 0 hits. I think I really like that 0 score, as the possibility of any member being in my area during the summer showing (now to Sept.5) is probably nil, so the visibility both here and there are in synch.</p>

<p>One theme is "visualising the immaterial" (related in this project to identity of place and its people, or to its placelessness). I may not like the photo as much as I like what it suggests. The non material countering, and in, some cases, assimilating the material (whether the the photo or the portrayed symbol).</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Fred, yes, the future orientation and goals could certainly have an emotional component, which is cued/triggered by an image. I guess I am positing here that "like" has an emotional component to it, but emotional components aren't always positive either. <br>

I do have an example of one of my photos that triggered an emotional response readily identified by one person commenting (Bela). http://www.photo.net/photo/18196040&size=lg<br>

Not all reactions are as readily identified as this, but it does illustrate. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, the familiarity of classic black and white for that photo seems unnecessary. And, for me, a reading of your photo that makes it subjectively memory-inducing for the viewer tends to yield a reading that feels more possessive than empathetic. This is what I mean by memory having the potential to be an albatross. The wonder here, for me, is the new and unique relationship I'm privy to.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Steve, yours is a nice example and someting the viewer (like Mark, Bela and Jack) can easily empathize with, while not even knowing the subjects. Love of humans for each other is the core statement and one which resonates. Bela said it reminded him of another older person he was close to, which is one value one can receive from it, but the general reason it can be an image liked is probably more abstract than that and yet meaningful for other viewers. Nicely done. Simplicity is often the key in strong visual works. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Cues and triggers are parts; the sum of those parts is another thing entirely.</p>

<p>A 'psychological explanation' goes to motive. A picture, a never before seen whole (no matter how familiar the parts), has its own motives; <em>I am taken by surprise</em>. My psychology conditions or mitigates whether I take its arrow in the head or the heart —or it misses me altogether — but <em>my</em> psychology is not what initiates the attack.</p>

<p>I like pictures that <em>work</em>; that work on me (in all the delicate-to-violent flavors of that word). Of course I react, but the chemistry of the interaction is driven, powered by <em>its</em> work. Pictures teach me what I like, to my eternal surprise.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Look. A question such as Why do you Like. The elephant in the room is: that question calls for a discussion of feelings and emotions elicited by the photograph. Why do you like this photo? Do you like the photos that are abstract so you don't have to discuss your feelings? What a bunch of men.</p>

<p> </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Julie H said: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I like pictures that <em>work</em>; that work on me (in all the delicate-to-violent flavors of that word). Of course I react, but the chemistry of the interaction is driven, powered by <em>its</em> work. Pictures teach me what I like, to my eternal surprise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But they "work" on you in a unique way because you are unique in your past experiences and genetics. Cues and triggers are unique to each individual and don't have to bring up a memory, as in my example. Cues can just trigger emotions or other reactions not expected at all. A picture "works" on each person in a different way. That's all I'm saying. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, have you ever been to the holocaust museum or a similar exhibit. Isn't there actually a great deal of similarity in the way people feel and react: revulsion, horror, nausea, sadness, anger? You might well expect a fair amount of lighthearted, bemused, yet still quite moving reactions from people viewing a show of Bresson, but I think you expect a very different sort of reaction from people coming out of an exhibit of Larry Clark's Tulsa photos.</p>

<p>Visual cues, visual symbols, visual languages are not just a matter of individual subjective responses. They communicate in human/community/cultural shared ways. That's not to say there won't be subtle and sometimes fairly obvious differences in reaction to various photos, but photos are to some fair degree about communication and human expression and in those things we tend to have a lot in common.</p>

<p>I'd question your assertion that we are unique in past experience and genetics. While, of course, at a certain level, we are each genetically unique, we humans also share many, many important traits. And we also share experiences.</p>

<p>Imagine most of us seeing the famous picture of John Jr. saluting his father's casket in Washington, D.C. in 1963. Sure, some may not have appreciated Kennedy's policies or whatever, but the common experience of those few days and what that evokes in most people (certainly here in the U.S. and probably world wide) is really not all that unique to each individual.</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>Fred,<br>

I see your point, but you are referring to a common reaction to a particular photo by thousands of people, that may not equate to a 'liking' for the photo by that same group of people. For example, I may emotionally react to John Jr's picture, but I may find Weston's pepper more appealing due to my individuality. On the other hand, someone who has experienced the traumatic loss of a close relative in the past may identify more strongly with John Jr's photo.</p>

<p>Multiple persons may show a common reaction to a particular photo, but each one may prefer a different photo over all others due to individual experiences and genetics, I think that's what Steve was getting at.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Supriyo, I still don't really know what is meant by "like" and I'm not sure I actually care all that much about it. I associate "liking" with popularity. Many, many people "like" the same things. Isn't that why Beethoven is popular? There are a myriad of reasons why lots of people like Beethoven, among them the influence of knowing Beethoven is considered great . . . in addition, of course, to the fact that he <em>is</em> great! ;-)</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>Fred, <br /> I agree many people like what they like due to a lot of factors, may be because their friends like those things, among others. Or because they are friends with a photographer, and haven't really explored anything beyond their friend's work. Making oneself believe that he/she likes something, and truly feeling for a work of art from the bottom of one's heart are probably two different things. I agree with you on that.</p>

<p>I noticed that you pointed out early on in this thread the distinction between 'liking' as in 'facebook likes' as opposed to deep individual appeal for a certain photo. I have assumed throughout that Lannie referred to the latter when he used the word 'like'. I agree it is better to clarify what he meant. For now I assume, liking here refers to the feeling of an individual who is in the art world for a while and had the chance to see some quality works to develop a 'benchmark', as opposed to casual viewers of photos or casual listeners of music etc.</p>

<p>Here in PN, I see many photos where I find nothing to dislike, but I also don't find anything to make me stop by. 15 years back, I might have been fascinated by the very same photos. Even now, if someone points to one of them and says he/she likes it, I may not disagree, but my search definitely lies elsewhere. I think people are constantly changing, so do their tastes. Past experiences play a major role in such changes, and by past experiences I not only mean personal life, but also studying of others' works in the past. I cannot say that I have experienced any major personal life event in the last 15 years that can potentially affect my photographic taste, but during this time, I have seen a lot of other people's works that have impacted my taste majorly.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Yes Fred, I did mention earlier on that there are certainly universal perhaps even "archetypal" themes that humans respond to such as the ones you mentioned. I would add things like sunsets, scenes containing pathos (homeless people etc.), babies, etc., many of which become clichés.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I suggested "taste" some posts ago as the basis for liking and remain surprised that nobody seems to have tweaked on that aspect. Liking is both a personal and communal reaction and what seems to me to drive it are familiarity with the liked thing and what social consensus we have acquired from our milieu, education and experiences. It is for me not something that is very mysterious, or requiring of great reflection or pondering.</p>

<p>I very much like my work (here referring mainly to the non-photographic work) and what I accomplish by it, not just the financial reward. I like the people I choose to frequent on a daily basis (even those I strongly disagree with on some subjects, as they allow me fresh windows on what and how I think or see, with the possible reward of new knowledge and insight). </p>

<p>It wasn't some form of nepotism that made me say in my last post that I like every one of the 50 or so photographs in my summer exhibition. I like them because I have been closely connected to the intention and chance associated with their creation, their raison d'être, their physical production and framing, and perhaps because I wish others to share a bit of what motivated me to peceive and capture those subjects. I am just as happy to hear the reasons why others may "like" them (often for somewhat unanticipated reasons) as to hear those who state that the image for them is without significant meaning, punctum or aesthetic value. Once presented, their future is determined uniquely by the viewers. Taste or liking is happily not a constant or unique value for all, even though the advertisers and opinion makers of this world may desire that uniform response.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Phil, are you not putting the cart before the horse? Taste or liking is what the viewer contributes or brings, independent of the image. There can be symbols and signs that mean something to the viewer, but the liking or taste is in the viewer's head.</p>

<p>It can be argued that the "photograph" has absolutely no intentions, it is a medium, initially a blank piece of paper like that before a writer until he determines what it will contain, or a photographer will determine what it contains and is visually displayed. It has no intentions, but it does have a life, and, in the absence of its maker, it can interact with the viewer. But what is interacting with the viewer, if not simply the photographer and the subject matter? Any variability or ambiguity is in the perception of the viewer, or in what the photographer created, intentionally or accidentally. The photograph is simply a vehicle for that.</p>

<p>Here is one of my exhibition images with an intention. The woman who has stopped bicycling to reflect on either the supernatural or on her cultural heritage, is seen on a country road, which the photographer centers and allows it to trail to infinity, suggesting the nature perhaps of her pondering? </p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I suggested "taste" some posts ago as the basis for liking and remain surprised that nobody seems to have tweaked on that aspect. Liking is both a personal and communal reaction</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, as usual, had you taken the time to read the thread and posts made by others, you would have seen that taste and the personal and communal aspects of liking have already been discussed in some depth. Perhaps your points had been "responded to" before you even posted them. But you'd have to be interested enough to read what other people have written in order to become part of the dialogue. I know, I know, you're busy and don't have the time. That's all fine, but then please don't chew us out for not addressing your points, so often written in a vacuum.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>a work or art in general is best approached with as much a blank state of mind as possible</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Phil, I am wondering how shooting with "a blank state of mind" would be different in practice from "mindless snapping."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, I have no intention of challenging your lofty position that allows you to frequently make such challenges to the ideas and sincere comments and motives of posters. But I guess that is likely normal fare on an Intenet site where one doesn't even know the identitly of posters and apparently one fees little need for politeness. You in fact said ""Perhaps" your points have been responded to before you even posted them".</p>

<p>Fine, you may be right, but back that up by showing me where that occurred in the preceding discussions, because in my usual haste to enter into a discussion at a late stage "perhaps" I missed them?</p>

<p>I also posted an image above with a photographic approach of "intention", to add to the present discussion of that aspect, but it seems few are interested in concrete examples or willing to critique or question that point via an image.</p>

<p>I understand that you feel that an occasional poster who is not glued to his computer and Photo.Net discussions has really no place in the discussion. Please continue to feel that without the need to always aggressively assert your opinion of others and their motives, as the others (me in this case) are really only interested in making positive contributions and not terribly interested in verbal dogfights with yourself or others. Open your shutter, but open also your sensibility to fellow posters.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"a work or art in general is best approached with as much a blank state of mind as possible"<br>

<br>

Phil or Lannie, where does this statement originate? Unless I miss the context that would better situate it, such a statement is I think quite far from fact. Perghaps you are thinking of some mental analogy to what Erenst Hass once said, that he could not be creative on a full stomach (He would go out before eating as that allowed him to be more sensitive to his subject matter). Sometimes we also have to clear our mind of unrelated noise or preoccupations, but the act of creation most definitely excercises much we have in our mind, including values, experiences, aesthetic intentions, etc.<br>

<br>

</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>"a work or art in general is best approached with as much a blank state of mind as possible"<br /> <br /> Reading the original comment, I think Phil was referring to viewing and appreciating an artwork with a blank state of mind rather than shooting or creating an artwork in such a state.</p>

<p>Trying to understand the message from another person's artwork with a mind full of preconceived notions or attitudes could be counterproductive.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>a work or art in general is best approached with as much a blank state of mind as possible --Phil</p>

<p>Reading the original comment, I think Phil was referring to viewing and appreciating an artwork with a blank state of mind rather than shooting or creating an artwork in such a state. Trying to understand the message from another person's artwork with a mind full of preconceived notions or attitudes could be counterproductive. --Supriyo</p>

<p>Supriyo, yes, that's what I meant and what I wrote. Thanks. --Phil</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for that clarification, Phil. I really didn't know what you meant, even though you probably said it pretty clearly.</p>

<p>Arthur, that is the entire exchange at its most basic, I think.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>THESIS:</p>

<p>Sometimes analysis is neither necessary nor helpful.</p>

<p>(I really mean that. In spite of the fact that I asked the original question, perhaps there are photos for which the question is pointless--for whatever reason. Maybe that would be a question for another thread. . . .)</p>

<p><a href="/photo/7626670">[LINK]</a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>If we have come full circle back to<a href="https://newlinearperspectives.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/barthes-punctum-vs-studium.jpg"> Barthe's <em>punctum </em></a>that Phil linked to earlier, so be it.</p>

<p>If the emotive force of the shot that I just linked to in the preceding post were simply a result of showing flesh, then many of the photos in <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=937882"><em><strong>this folder</strong></em></a> would be even more compelling. Yet, for me they are not. Others may differ in their preferences.</p>

<p>Barry Fisher has actually given us a fascinating study of human beings "at play." Photos of that sort can be compelling. I am sitting here a bit puzzled as to why Marc Todd's shot just above does indeed hit me with more force. Both Marc Todd's and some of Barry Fisher's shot succeed equally well at getting one's attention, I suppose, but my first reaction upon seeing Marc Todd's shot is that I really do like it. It is more than a "grabber," although it is that, too.</p>

<p>In other words, though I have tried to "sum up" and reaffirm what I said at the outset of the thread, now I am myself beset by doubts. I don't doubt that the <em>punctu</em>m is real, but is it irreducible, as Barthes seemed to suggest?</p>

<p>Have we come this far only to conclude that we can reach no conclusions? In any case, I cannot, at least not at this late hour--and I have another eight o'clock class staring me in the face.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>One more thought: I have just revisited Marc Todd's photo again, and I left this brief remark: "Perhaps it is the hint of intimacy that is most appealing. Let me think about this."</p>

<p>It is certain that the nudity in Barry Fisher's folder is not associated with any particular sense of intimacy. The nudity is far too open to be truly "intimate"--I think. There is no nudity in Marc Todd's shot (though it is sexually charged), but I think that there might indeed be a sense of intimacy--a vicarious intimacy for us as viewers, since we are looking at a fairly intimate situation between two people, but intimacy nonetheless.</p>

<p>The force of Marc Todd's shot might also be related to the fact that this degree of intimacy is being displayed in a public place--but am I not now contradicting myself? (Did I not just say above of Barry Fisher's shot, "The nudity is far too open to be truly 'intimate'"?)</p>

<p>Is there intimacy in putting in eye drops or contact lenses? Well, perhaps there can be. Perhaps there is some sense of intimacy in domesticity--even if in a public place. So. . . perhaps we have both intimacy and incongruity, and then there is that issue of domesticity. Is the <em>punctum</em> exploding, at least in this case? We are certainly spectators in both shots. Barthes' intellectual presence is almost palpable.</p>

<p>If it should be the case that it is indeed some sense of intimacy that makes Marc Todd's shot more compelling (again, speaking personally), then perhaps we have to go back and examine Barthe's<em> punctum</em> once again--not to mention my rather flippant opening claims of this thread. This is not to say that I would like to do this thread again, simply that the issues raised remain (in my mind) unresolved.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>