"meaning" in a photograph ?

[nmp]

....a cidarette butt on the ground some sort of abstract art piece.

As opposed yo what?

 

[removed account4]

Here’s some shite for you. Penn and The Met seemed to find some meaning in the butts elevated to art.

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/714839

Irving Penn was like Midas!
I saw some of his PT work a few years ago in a gallery near Boston .. all I gotta say is wow...

 

[Wallendo]

"Nothing matters and what if it did?" - John Cougar Mellencamp

This thread apparently lost its meaning in 2018, only to be reborn as artistic criticism.

 

[warden]

Irving Penn was like Midas!
I saw some of his PT work a few years ago in a gallery near Boston .. all I gotta say is wow...

I agree John. I saw his Centennial retrospective at the Met in '17 and it was a showstopper. Amazing.

 

[Don_ih]

Photographs never have "meaning."

Meaning is the notion of a viewer.

Photographers cannot put "meaning" into photographs, but they sometimes imagine that's what they're doing, especially when their photos involve words, flags, crosses etc..

Looking for "meaning" in photographs is a technique some folks use to avoid viewing it with silent mind.

Concur? Disagree? Your thoughts?

Photographs are like everything else that has the appearance of being made-on-purpose: they present themselves as being capable of being meaningful. What that meaning can be is going to be variable. It will also be dependent on the context in which the photo is found/placed/viewed. It will also be dependent on the basic knowledge of the person viewing or experiencing the photograph. Does any of that imply that meaning is infused by the person who had the camera? No. Does it follow that meaning is supplied by the viewer? No. Meaning is something that can be said about the relation of those involved. Meaning isn't something that's floating around all on its own.

I don't find the vast majority of photos meaningful. Those that I do - I imagine it has more to do with me than with the photographer.

 

[guangong]

Terribly incorrect. I paint and have sold many paintings in various galleries and exhibitions. I’ve only recently come to photography. Photography, for me, is much more difficult than painting. In a painting, you can control everything. In a photograph, most things are beyond your control. This is why you rarely see a photographer who transcends beyond the realm of mediocrity. Photography isn’t generally as highly regarded in art circles as painting not because it’s easier to do, but because it’s harder to do well.

Painting and drawing are skills. Virtually anyone can learn them. But for some reason, there are a ton of people out there who spend an afternoon trying to draw something, give up in frustration, and then proclaim that they don’t possess the natural talent to ever be able to do it. The truth is they can learn just like everyone else who can draw well learned to draw, but they lack the discipline to put forth the effort.

Very well said. After the initial excitement of 70 yrs ago when a usable print appeared, I found that rarely do any of my photographs measure up. The strength of photography is documentation. I also find sculpting harder than painting, though I enjoy both, because composition must be judged from every point of view. Every art form has its strengths and weaknesses. The main thing is to do what one enjoys.

 

[Matthew K]

I don't know if I will succeed in verbalizing this, but while we're all here I might as well give it a shot. I believe I fall into more or less the same category of thinking as dose the OP. As I get older, I have come to believe that nothing has meaning the way I imagined it did when I was younger. There is little to none of it to be found intrinsically within the universe. Even in science, those great truths may well be the closest we will all get to intrinsic, universal meaning. And yet, our understanding is and always will be imperfect. Science looks to remedy that, and I imagine never will truly. That said, meaning exists where you place it. It's a human undertaking, and personal to each of us as there are so many things that differentiate all of us from one another, even those who live together for a long time. For example: There are two photographs I think of that apparently are quite meaningful to some that mean absolutely nothing to me. I don't remember the photographers because I dislike the photos that much One is of grass alongside a German river (I believe, I get exact river locations wrong all the time though). It's a large print believe, though I have only seen digital versions of it. It is bland and void of any interest for me, but it sold for ridiculous money.

The other photo that I think of is also quite a large print, I think, though again I have only seen it in digital. It is of a market of some sort -- tons of color and prices. That's about all I could say about it, but people seem to enjoy that photo a lot as well. What it speaks to for them I couldn't say.

You may well disagree with me on these photos if my poor description of them is enough to bring them to mind and you happen to know which I mean. And that's fine really; for me the point isn't that my opinion that they are meaningless has any value for you or anyone else. All of it is a personal assessment.

I imagine that having some connection to the photograph you are taking / making / et cetera, and seeing some meaning in it, helps in making it a stronger image. You may well spend more time on the composition of it, and the editing needed afterwards. It may be that this image reminds you of a time that is critically important in your life, that it exists is what gives it meaning. There are likely functionally and endless number of reasons that we could give meaning to anything. Wittgenstein was correct in my view, we do not intrinsically speak the same language.

 

[removed account4]

One is of grass alongside a German river

https://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1999/rhein-2

The other photo that I think of is also quite a large print, I think, though again I have only seen it in digital. It is of a market of some sort -- tons of color and prices.

https://www.andreasgursky.com/en/works/1999/99-cent

 

[Matthew K]

Haha, I had forgotten it was the same person Jnantz

But I suppose my descriptions were sufficient to point you to the right images. Time spent not looking at the images does not appear to have changed my opinion...*shrug*

 

[removed account4]

IDK. seems often times these days meaning is wrapped up in the cloak of concept. once you solve the riddle of understanding where the person was coming from you have the meaning of the photographs/artworks. are things supposed to have meaning to be worthy of being liked or can they just be liked for what they are?
the internet does a pretty lousy job at showing "context" ... from what I understand some of the things about those photographs I linked to Matthew k is the size of the photographs from what I understand they are gigantic and overwhelming. not sure if it is true or it matters but I think ( from what I remember someone telling me about the images ) they have to do with everything and nothing at the same time.. I haven't solved the riddle yet but I don't dislike them enough that I am not interested in trying to figure out what the meaning of the word is is...

 

[Don_ih]

Look at Warhol and his soup cans

Warhol's soup cans were all paintings, originally.

 

[David Polanski]

"Meaning", in any sort of aesthetic discourse, is always a dirty word... but clearly with photography, as a mode of representation, there is a semiotic process at work with both signified/signifier and receiver having their roles to play. to that end, photography is certainly no different from any other medium, and if we're to engage in regarding it qua "art" then it must have a certain "dimensionality" to it... ie the consideration of a photo should always question to what degree does it (the photo) brings forth from the viewer a sense of either the narrative/historical, the tropological, the allegorical, or the anagogical.
of course, this is all somewhat "aesthetics 101" and, while undoubtedly fascinating, can end up being a real suck on one's time & patience. however, that being said (and if i can get on the soapbox a little), i do think that it's always good to exercise the brain muscle, especially the older we get, with challenging notions and discourse, and to not just give-in to the easy lure of bromides and "anti-elitist anti-intellectualism". plain speaking and plain thinking is great, but a want of the ability to ask questions of the world or oneself, coupled with a wider educational malaise and depreciation of learning, seems to me at least a piss poor way of getting on...

 

[Don_ih]

"Meaning", in any sort of aesthetic discourse, is always a dirty word... but clearly with photography, as a mode of representation, there is a semiotic process at work with both signified/signifier and receiver having their roles to play. to that end, photography is certainly no different from any other medium, and if we're to engage in regarding it qua "art" then it must have a certain "dimensionality" to it... ie the consideration of a photo should always question to what degree does it (the photo) brings forth from the viewer a sense of either the narrative/historical, the tropological, the allegorical, or the anagogical.
of course, this is all somewhat "aesthetics 101" and, while undoubtedly fascinating, can end up being a real suck on one's time & patience. however, that being said (and if i can get on the soapbox a little), i do think that it's always good to exercise the brain muscle, especially the older we get, with challenging notions and discourse, and to not just give-in to the easy lure of bromides and "anti-elitist anti-intellectualism". plain speaking and plain thinking is great, but a want of the ability to ask questions of the world or oneself, coupled with a wider educational malaise and depreciation of learning, seems to me at least a piss poor way of getting on...

The problem with meaning discussed in this way - and the problem with using the term "meaning" with art in general - is the specifically linguistic flavour the term usually has. Whenever anyone wants to bring about a sophisticated notion of meaning, they step into this abstraction that comes almost entirely from the way language can be thought to be meaningful. But an art object is not necessarily a communication - not necessarily some encoded message from the artist to the world. Artistic meaning does not leave the artistic object, or the experience of it, behind. That said, photographs are not simple objects, existing on a single dimension. A photo can act as a communication - any art object can - and a photo can fail at being meaningful in an existential way. A photo can be significant in any number of ways, but not ever thought to be particularly meaningful in any aesthetic sense.

 

[removed account4]

Look at Warhol and his soup cans,,, complete garbage in any terms beyond the simple "yep he knew how to do a color photo, and then a photo of each particlar RGB.."

not so sure about that, if they were garbage I don't think they would be in museums and selling for 11 million dollars + .
It always makes me laugh when people make such broad statements about how bad something is and how it is "garbage" yet when said item/items change hands they change hands for millions because they aren't garbage &c.
one person's trash is obviously another person's treasure

I met someone who was ascribing all sorts of meaning to someone's photographs and I asked him, well he's still alive have you asked him if that is what his work is really about ? I kind of got the stink eye after that ...

 

[Don_ih]

I met someone who was ascribing all sorts of meaning to someone's photographs and I asked him, well he's still alive have you asked him if that is what his work is really about ?

Once something is out in the world, the influence of its author/maker becomes reduced. That maker may not have meant X by the made, doesn't imply the made won't come to mean X.

 

[removed account4]

Once something is out in the world, the influence of its author/maker becomes reduced. That maker may not have meant X by the made, doesn't imply the made won't come to mean X.

totally understood but to specifically say this is why s/he made this suggesting it was the reason the maker had / said
is totally different. for example if I photographed my goldfish, and someone makes a statement that I photograph my goldfish because as a child I was moved by the don knots film the incredible mr limpet and I want to be a fish because life is so much easier as a fish .. and tells people that, well the reason I photograph my goldfish is because I photograph my food before I eat it... the 2 things don't equate...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Photographs never have "meaning."

Meaning is the notion of a viewer.

Photographers cannot put "meaning" into photographs, but they sometimes imagine that's what they're doing, especially when their photos involve words, flags, crosses etc..

Looking for "meaning" in photographs is a technique some folks use to avoid viewing it with silent mind.

Concur? Disagree? Your thoughts?

Photographers fail with the whole meaning thing if they either insist that there is only one meaning to their image, or they try so hard to make it mean only one thing that it is impossible to read it any other way. If they insist their image can mean only one thing, then they become boring as an artist, and if they force a single meaning into an image, then the image is boring because there's nothing to see - ten seconds and you know what it is all about already, next, move on...

But to say that there is no authorial meaning in the image is to deny any possibility of agency on the part of the photographer. If you can't put meaning in an image, why even take the photograph in the first place? You took the photograph for a reason- to say something. That something could be as simple as "I was there" or "look at the big fish I caught". Or it could be a complex commentary on social issues. When I look at the photograph as a viewer, not as the artist, then it is my responsibility to interrogate the image, and interpret not only what the photographer was saying, but also how I feel about it. I can agree or disagree with the photographer's message, and I can agree or disagree with whether or not the photographer conveyed that message. And I might disagree with both the message intended and the successful conveyance of that message in the image, but still enjoy it because it means something to me and it triggers an emotional response in me.

 

[Don_ih]

but to specifically say this is why s/he made this suggesting it was the reason the maker had / said
is totally different.

The reason for making something is not necessarily the meaning of the thing once made. In fact, it very likely is not the meaning of the thing once made, even for the person who made it.

 

[Don_ih]

Who says it has to have any meaning.

Not me. But almost every object that suggests by its existence that someone made it is seen as meaningful, at least in some way, probably banal, probably not worth mentioning.

But to say that there is no authorial meaning in the image is to deny any possibility of agency on the part of the photographer

That's just not true. You can make something and someone else can find it meaningful in a way completely unrelated to your original intention. An alternate meaning can be contradictory to your intent without being incompatible with the thing made. If there is a failure on the part of all others to understand your intention in making the piece, you can consider it a failure to make the piece meaningful in that way but it does not negate the meaning a piece can attain within the context of the world.

 

[removed account4]

The reason for making something is not necessarily the meaning of the thing once made. In fact, it very likely is not the meaning of the thing once made, even for the person who made it.

true, but I guess what I'm saying is people love to put meaning to things claiming that was why the person did it. in my case I photograph my lunch, it had nothing to do with mr limpet, although I think barney fife was a total goofball...

 

[Don_ih]

but I guess what I'm saying is people love to put meaning to things claiming that was why the person did it.

It's common to equate acting and existence and meaning and intention, to one degree or other. That leads to people blaming designers for what their objects do. But that the dog fits in the microwave shouldn't imply that the microwave designer intended you to use it to dry your wet dog. Someone taking what they consider to be artistic nudes, someone else considering those photos pornographic. Some guy claims The Catcher in the Rye is why he shot someone. Gene Smith takes a photo of a disfigured girl in a bathtub, is it to draw attention to an atrocity or to shame the family of that girl? That constitutes two contexts in which a purpose or intention can be surmised. The family denies all publication rights of that photo. The photo was part of a much larger group of photos that document the community that had been poisoned by industrial pollution. What is the photo? Well, it is primarily exactly what you see when you look at it - these aforementioned aspects are incidental to the existence of the photo itself, no matter how much impact they have on what one considered the significance of that photo. The photo in itself includes the possibility of an experience that does not include incidental aspects. You may see the photo and never be informed of the who, what, when, etc. That's part of something having an independent existence.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

That's just not true. You can make something and someone else can find it meaningful in a way completely unrelated to your original intention. An alternate meaning can be contradictory to your intent without being incompatible with the thing made. If there is a failure on the part of all others to understand your intention in making the piece, you can consider it a failure to make the piece meaningful in that way but it does not negate the meaning a piece can attain within the context of the world.

You completely misunderstood what I was saying. I went on to address your comment in the very next couple sentences. The sentence you quoted was saying that if you deny the photographer the ability to put meaning into the image, then why should anyone make photographs? Every photograph taken has a meaning. And I quote (myself):

I can agree or disagree with the photographer's message, and I can agree or disagree with whether or not the photographer conveyed that message. And I might disagree with both the message intended and the successful conveyance of that message in the image, but still enjoy it because it means something to me and it triggers an emotional response in me.

In other words, possible outcomes:

• Photograph conveys meaning intended. I agree with the message conveyed. I enjoy the image.
• Photograph conveys meaning intended. I agree with the message conveyed. I do not enjoy the image.
• Photograph conveys meaning intended. I disagree with the message conveyed. I enjoy the image.
• Photograph conveys meaning intended. I disagree with the message conveyed. I do not enjoy the image.
  
• Photograph does not convey the meaning intended. I agree with the message that I perceive. I enjoy the image.
• Photograph does not convey the meaning intended. I agree with the message that I perceive. I do not enjoy the image.
• Photograph does not convey the meaning intended. I disagree with the message that I perceive. I enjoy the image.
• Photograph does not convey the meaning intended. I disagree with the message that I perceive. I do not enjoy the image.

The only case out of the above that really qualifies as a failure on the part of the photographer is the last one. And then, it is only a singular failure for the viewer in question, unless the vast majority of viewers of the image have a similar experience of the image.

In other words, you claimed what I said was not true, then went on to violently agree with me.

 

[Don_ih]

In other words, you claimed what I said was not true, then went on to violently agree with me.

No. I don't equate meaning an intent, because they are not the same thing, nor does one depend upon the other.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

This is about the point where we all wish Umberto Eco would drop in on the conversation...

While not Eco, I will nevertheless echo (ha!) his thought.

Meaning is a subtle conversation between three elements:

• There is the intent of the creator of the work - the meaning it had for him or that he intended his audience to see and understand.
• There is the intent of the viewer, that is, of me, which is conditioned not only by who I am (my past and present experience, my education, my ethic background, my psychology, etc.) but also by where I am and when I am.
• And there is the intent of the work itself, which lies elsewhere.

This last one is more difficult to understand because so abstract, and we can't easily accept that an artwork can have it's own truth, but I find fascinating and enlightening the idea that meaning comes not only from "what I feel about the work" - how uninteresting! - but from the dialogue between what I understand about it, what the artist intended it to mean and what it has to say about itself.

Wish I would have time to expand on this, but work calls.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

someone takes a photo of a bottle laying on a sidewalk. its just a photo the person felt was interesting. Who knows, perhaps the way the light was reflecting in the glass...

But EVERYONE seems to have the desire to give the photograph some sort of meaning, or purpose, that the person taking the photo never had nor intended.

As an artist, of course you have no control whatever over what interpretations people apply to your work. You can only hope that people see what you saw when you created it, what motivated you to make it in the first place. I guess the only true failure is if nobody is motivated to look at and interpret your work. After a point, so what if someone looking at the photo of the bottle with its reflections and refractions sees a metaphor for the nature of the existence of man - at least they're looking at it and seeing something that means something to them.