jonathancharlesphoto

<p>If you strip away the various authors' specific angles the overall theme of post-modernism (in art criticism) is IMHO that the creative process is not really the work of the artist as an individual but a result of the philosphical milieu at the time and the person's development. This is reflected in works of art which concentrate, often in a quite unreal way, on the process of construction - which is seen as somehow more important than what has been constructed (if anything). Like most fashionable (at some time) movements there is some value in the ideas, even if they are only part of the story.</p>

<p>The contrast is on one hand with modernism which was a movement of intellectuallising and driving forwards the creative process in a consciously intentional way (impressionism, expressionism, cubism, surrealism etc.). On the other hand with "post-postmodernism" which is a rejection of process in favour of content and its emotional impact - a "new romanticism", in some ways harking back to a kind of un-focussed pre-raphaelite and even renaissance approach.</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter Willemse</a></p>

<p>Thank you for the info about self recognition, and the link. It's not a subject I've looked into myself and I was just quoting the article. It's interesting that dolphins have the ability - I guess they see other dolphins reflected in the water surface but not themselves so it's quite surprising.</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter Willemse</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>... do you feel the discovery of that wider spiritual world became evident to you through photos, or by making them? After discovering it, did you see it have a more profound effect on your photography?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me it has been a cycle of development - as I take a photograph I am inspired by some aspect of the subject and when I look at the image I try to see what especially caught my eye and did the photo really capture the important essence of it ... which makes you think about what is important about the world, and yes: humanity is generally the key element - though not in isolation but in our relation to nature. And as you explore that relationship the idea that it is all the result of random chance does not seem to be sufficient - even if theoretically possible (though this requires the monstrous assumptions of the multiverse model) it makes it all rather pointless and to me life just does not <strong>feel</strong> pointless so I construct a model which allows meaning to have a place. Having done so it comes as no big surprise to find other people have done the same and this, of course, is the basis of most religions - which, at their origins, say pretty much the same thing (though mostly they are rapidly corrupted by hierarchical organisations with power-grabbing agendas).</p>

<p>So yes, a spiritual view of the relationship between humanity and nature with a sense of cosmic purpose has become a major drive for my photography.</p>

<p>Now I don't wish to cause offense but I think the idea of humanism is a bit of a cop-out: we are all (apart from a few psychopaths) humanist and it is a question of whether we are <strong>exclusively</strong> humanist <em>ie</em> atheist - if so, why not say so? If humanity is just an infinitessimal random event in a deterministic multiverse what is there to get so excited about? There is nothing very wonderful about a super-computer creating the works of Shakespeare by a random process after 10^n attempts but I do think there is something wonderful about one man doing it at the first attempt - it is the success of the intention which makes it wonderful and I feel there is something of this kind about humanity and the world we live in.</p>

<p>Anyway, enough of my personal philosophy, there is an intersting article in the French magazine PHOTO Jan/Feb 2012 pointing out that humans are exclusively able to recognise a mirror image as being themselves (which we do from the age of 12-18 months) - even the most advanced chipmanzee cannot do this. This is essentially the same as understanding the nature of an image and so you <strong>can</strong> say that photography is a humanistic process!</p>

<p>I think the principle of original question can be seen more clearly if the specifics are removed <em>ie</em> "<strong>does</strong><strong> art determine our philosophy or does our philosophy govern our art?</strong>".<br>

<br /> For me, both "alternatives" are correct but perhaps in reverse order: our creative process is based in our philosophy of life (conscious and unconscious) <strong>and</strong> practising our art helps us to develop our philosophy.<br>

<br /> In my case photography has actually led me away from the mechanist/humanist philosophy of my youth to an appreciation of the wider spiritual/cosmic world I now feel we inhabit, while still recognising the importance of our humanity. But the specifics are personal and there is little point trying to find an agreed view of "the meaning of life"!</p>

<p>In each case I preferred the "before" to the "after" but I think some subtle post-processing of this sort is justified in portraiture because the initial photographic snap often exagerates the skin textures, double-chin effects and other unflattering elements compared with what you see in a "real life" situation.<br>

A good portrait should represent how the photographer/artist sees the subject, often based on multiple views in different circumstances over a (sometimes long) period of time. So, just like drawing a portrait, there are a range of minor distortions that can make the resulting image more "realistic" than the optically correct projection in 2-d.</p>

<p>Yes Lee, there is a rather wonderful mystery to a photo found in an abandoned building or blowing down the street with no known history.</p>

<p>I think, from the range of opinions, the not-very-surprising conclusion can be that we all look at photos in our own particular way, some value contextual information in making the image part of a story, others either don't want a story at all (just an isolated moment in time) or prefer to be free to make up their own. For me a photo is a window into the life and person of the photographer so any information that enhances that insight is a bonus.</p>

<p><strong>@Allen</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>It works just on its own or it does not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, that may be your experience and it's interesting to me if people can entirely isolate the image from its context ... but (and I may be unfair to suggest this) it sounds more like a theoretical ideal or argued position than a real human response. </p>

<p>What's especially interesting is that you imply would prefer <strong>not</strong> to see the photo encumbered by the additional (you might say superfluous) information. But can you "take it or leave it" or does the presence of a title or background info immediately spoil the experience of the image?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You assume that a picture is or should be purposive, intentional of or about what is shown. This means that you are taking the picture to be a map, not a territory...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well unless it's taken by a random process there must have been a purpose in taking it. You could say that the scene photographed was the territory and the image is the map, which then becomes a new (modified) territory for the viewer of the photograph to re-map. But I agree that the viewer's interpretation of it doesn't have to be aligned to the original purpose - and I started this thread to explore this issue.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> -- it's a reduction for informative purposes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it's only a reduction if the viewer feels constrained by it. The words are actually additional information, giving some insight to photographer's original mapping process - this may potentially be "reverse engineered" by the viewer: eg:</p>

<p>Photo of a pretty girl. Title "love of my life, 1980". Interpretation of the title: the photographer was probably not being objective in choosing the moment/angle/lighting etc. but showing us her best aspect. But not just that: the image now shows us the photographer's view of what makes her lovely. And from that: what was the prevailing style of loveliness at the time it was taken and in the culture that the photographer lived. And from that we can imagine what it was like living in those circumstances ourselves and how it compares with our present situation. And ... and... And back to the image (if the viewer is also a photographer), how did the photographer use available techniques to get the wanted effect ... can I adapt these when I want to photograph the love of <em>my</em> life?...</p>

<p>So even the bare bones of the title can add a lot of interpretable data to the image - allowing an extra dimension to the map made by the viewer - like adding roads to the satellite view on Google maps. </p>

<p>Rather than getting too caught up with particular words, I think there i scommon ground: that photos (or other art works) <strong>can</strong> stand on their own but in some cases the background story adds a perspective which gives the image more meaning. My own view is that the more a photo depicts a real-life scene the more it benefits from the additional info but the more it's abstract or allegorical the less this matters and the <strong>lack</strong> of info is actually helpful as it lets the viewer's mind wander over different possibilities. Obviously it also depends on the viewer's preference and way of looking but if not wanted the information can be ignored.</p>

<p>I have been interested to hear the different views (and welcome more)...</p>

<p>(apologies for the typos)</p>

<p>It's powerful firstly because it affects me emotionly. It's often a challenge to analyse the phenomenology of an artwork, but here goes...</p>

<p>It's more than just a snap of an ill old man - though this is in itself an unusual start and more original as a subject than most photos on p.net. the subject presents an unvarnished openness to the photographer (and through him to us priveleged viewers). His expression says that he accepts his situation with peace even though he would rather it were different. The quiet wisdom of the soul contrasts with the crumbling body and possibly deteriorating cognition.</p>

<p>The composition is beautifully balanced: he is placed slightly to the right, facing to the right so there is more space behind him than ahead (like his life) but overall it is a centred layout which has the semiotic of stasis - he is not going anywhere, suspended in this moment, boxed in by the surrounding door frame. His body, distorted by the wide-angle perspectiveand supported on the medical contraption appears nothing like the normalactive physique he once enjoyed. The lighting picks him out in heroic Caravaggio-style chairoscuro, again contrasting with, and transcending, his rather pitiful physical state.</p>

<p>"I think the fact that it was Fred's Dad has enabled them to connect with deeper feelings and understandings which is reflected in the Photo."... and alows us to see that.</p>

 

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=499395">Allen Herbert</a> - I agree it's a powerful image, but are you saying that the title "Dad" adds <em>nothing</em> to (or even degrades) your appreciation of it?<br>

I am interested that you find it so, but for me it gives an extra dimension of significance and allows a deeper understanding of the situation and the person portrayed.</p>

<p>Luis that's a good point about the different pathways but I'm not sure it explains the experiment you referenced - that was looking at the positive (presumably not scary) response to art <strong>after</strong> a fear-provoking experience.</p>

<p>If the picture itself provoved fear then the non-cortical pathway would make you act (or at least panic) before the cortex had figured out what you were looking at. The cortex is actually better at sorting out unclear images, but rather slow. So you might jump away from a snake-like root and then realize it's just a root - but if it <strong>had</strong> been a snake that jump could have saved your life.</p>

<p>But I think you're right that the non-cortical system does pick up on emotional cues that the cortex can miss - <em>eg</em> "For some reason I just don't trust that guy". I find this useful when looking at a portrait - I don't try to analyse it I just look and try to feel "What is that person really like?" - if I don't get a clear impression I reckon it's not a very good portrait: if the personality comes through loud and clear the photographer / artist has done a good job.</p>

<p>Luis, re the "fear" study, I have seen a similar study (but I don't have the reference to hand) showing that sexual attraction was much enhanced by recent experience of fear - possibly explaining the war/disaster surge in pregnancies. It's interesting to speculate if this shows that our appreciation of art is based on an evolved (or God given) refinement of sexual attraction, which would justify the popularity of the nude in art through the ages.</p>

<p>Fred, I like your idea that the artwork is the whole caboodle - all the elements of the image, the frame, the gallery, the written info, the artist's life, the time and culture we live in - well maybe I've extended it a bit beyond your view but all these affect the experience plus, of course, the beholder. Many artists unconsciously (Modigliani) or consciously (Picasso) create a life story that enhances the power of their work. On photo.net or other net galleries we have the opportunity to check back to the photographer's bio or manifesto as well as other works: this may enhance (or otherwise) our view of the particular photo.</p>

<p>A good example of the "otherwise" was seeing what appeared to be a salvaged print from the 40s or 50s of a rather lovely intimate scene, only to find on looking at the other work that there were a dozen other photos with exactly the same fading and blemishes, some looking very contemporary in content - evidently using the same "antiquizing" filter, possibly an off-the-peg one. My appreciation of the first photo was then spoilt by the feeling of being, in some way, cheated.</p>

<p><br /> A few years ago I was on the other end of a "cheat" when my photo "Kate with Turban" was PoW and there was a lot of discussion of the rather poor technical quality due to an over-exposed neg. Some people had commented that they liked the grainy appearance but when I admitted that the original grain pattern was too lumpy so I had smoothed it and then added more even artificial digital grain, there followed a further discussion of whether this was "valid" (and I argued at the time that if it looked convincingly like grain it didn't matter what caused it). I think I could be changing my mind about this...</p>

<p>Julie, I think you have identified a universal memory-making process and the two stages are a little different from mine (comment above) - so maybe that makes it a 3 stage process - but they are linked. A question is: how does the back-story influence the way the experience is fitted into my whole-life view. </p>

<p>I think there is good evidence that we take on board <strong>stories</strong> (as all advertising designers try to create them to sell their proucts) better than isolated experiences. I find that a story that I make up myself in response to a picture is rather like a dream - it works for the moment but is rapidly forgotten (unless it resonates powerfully with a pre-existing dream/myth). A real (or at least convincingly realistic) story can become a contextual memory - as If I had lived it myself: it then becomes incorporated into my world-view and stays with me. </p>

<p>I guess this is part of what we want our artistic efforts to do for others.</p>

<p>Thanks to all who have replied so far. There seems to be a fairly even split between those who prefer the unadorned photo and those who find some "added value" from information about it but we are all initially affected mainly by the image.<br>

I guess it's "Look first, ask questions later"! ... so for those who hang around to ask the questions the appreciation takes place in 2 steps - the first lets us freely imagine a scenario which may well have more to do with our own history and mythology; the second, to an extent, nails us down to the author's concept. If this is just a pretentios title with an unconvincing relation to the photo (often the case with <em>eg</em> glamorous / sexy photos of professional models) the viewer will probably reject it - unless it accords with their own fantasy. But if the described back story is real it can allow deeper access to the interpretation of the details and emotion that is in the picture which could only be figured out with a very long view, if at all.<br>

It would be great to get some more views, especially about what, if any, kind of info is most interesting: the photog's background, the scenario at the time of taking or the intention/meaning of the final image...</p>

<p>This is related to the last question "<a href="../philosophy-of-photography-forum/00a0Le">What you don't see at first in looking at a photograph</a>?"<br>

It is often said that "a picture should stand on its own" but for me the experience can take on greater depth from knowing the background story of the photographer and the situation when photo was taken (the same applies to looking at classic paintings in a gallery). There may be a conscious message / intention in the image (apart from "this looks nice") and almost certainly a wealth of unconscious messages in the apparently random choices made in composition. Even if the picture <em>could</em> "stand on its own" it may take too long for the viewer to fully tune into it so some background info could make it much more accessable. Especially in photos of people, understanding the realtionship with the photographer can help to interpret them and engage with the emotional content.<br>

I am interested in how useful others find he information when it is provided. I usually write a few lines about the circumstances of my photos to help understand them but I hope in doesn't inhibit people from imagining other possible scenarios of their own.</p>

<p>PS If this has recently been covered in a forum that I missed please let me know...</p>

<p>Photography suffers compared with paintings and other traditional media because we have become used to limiting our view to an immediate response rather than contemplating the work for a while. Photos are regarded as good mainly on the basis that they "pop" and so dramatic over-saturated colours and extreme wide-angle perspectives are common in successful photos as are beautiful nude women and heavily "arty" post-processing. The actual content in terms of relating subjects, giving a personal insight and telling a story are generally more complex issues and take time to appreciate.</p>

<p>"Second look" features may be deliberately included by the artist as part of the visual message but often are the result of intuitive abstract composition at the moment of taking or in choice of cropping. As in your example they may also be an unintended effect of the technique or equipment used (eg the slanting wheels of moving cars because of vertical focal plane shutters in very old press cameras) and so give interesting clues about how the photographer worked.</p>

<p>The second look may also reveal the shallow and formulaic nature of the instant-favorite shot that rapidly loses its appeal. The image with depth continues to interest and becomes memorable.</p>

<p>In the end, quality counts.</p>

 

<p>I think it's important to distinguish what is art <em>by intention</em> and what is art <em>in the eye of the viewer</em>.</p>

<p>Ideally you should aim to achieve both.</p>

<p>A photo is at best only a very limited depiction of the subject so the photographer's knowledge and reaction to the subject greatly enhances the image's depth or meaning. It is therefore very difficult to be objective about your own photos. Your aim is generally to share with the viewer your reaction to the subject as completely as your photographic skills allow. You can only judge your success by their feedback - which is why sites like photo.net are so valuable.</p>

<p>Hi Frank, have a look at my stuff - hardly any of the photos are conventionally glamorous and there is a wide variety of styles and settings. There is no need to stick to a well worn formula.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Literally, and physically integrate the model (or portions of the model), into the set, set-piece, prop, or natural-environment/background.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, this the key requirement, as I hope you can see from my work. But more: a pictorial concept that includes the model in the process - a scenario which, in reality or invention, explains <em>why</em> the model is there and dressed (or not!) in the way shown.</p>

<p>Most of my photos were taken in spontaneous situations so they actually are real, but set-up photos can still be made to look quite convincing as natural scenes if you think them through carefully.</p>

<p>It's good to have a plan when starting a shoot but even better not to stick to it! The "flash with sunset" light set-up <em>is</em> a popular stereotype in fashion photography so you won't be getting any points for originality there but that's not necessarily bad if it's what you and your model want.</p>

<p>I think a useful start, rather than trying to be amazingly original straight away, is to go for variety in stereotypes: look through some quality fashion mags or photo books with your model and choose a selection of 10 or so images you both like to use as prototypes for your pics. Once your shoot is progressing nicely you can feel more comfortable to improvise - and this is where originality starts to come in naturally.</p>

<p>Best of luck with your shoot: try to make sure you both enjoy it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Why do you think it is an either/or proposition? It can be simultaneously both."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it can be both but I think Shawn is raising the question of whether the competitive aspect is the <strong>only</strong> way to gain recognition. Especially that the process of competition judgement is usually undertaken with limited time so that the kind of photos that do well are those with immediate impact rather than those that are appreciated more over time.</p>