This story about synesthesia seems apropos to at least some of the discussion here: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6788838
'Universal' is kind of a big scope. But surely, if you listen to the opening of Bach's St. John's Passion, the feeling it gives most (motivated) listeners has much more breadth and depth as well as a considerable degree of commonality between individuals than "that's interesting" or "I like that". If you're not into Bach - plug in whatever music you're into; the principle is the same.
We may struggle to put those experiences/feelings/impressions into words - sure. But they're still there, and they do have some degree of universality that at least to an extent rises beyond a strict cultural scope. Mozart's Requiem and Monteverdi's Vesper's easily fill concert halls around the world today, centuries after the pieces were composed, and the audience really aren't there just for the bragging rights, either. These people are as deeply moved by the music as our forefathers would have been.
I take music as an example because I feel it's perhaps the most universally appreciated art form and therefore an example that probably most of us can relate to. The general principle is still the same for photography, I think. Perhaps @cliveh is close with his "you get it or you don't" - I'm sure I'm not the only one to experience an almost physical response (it's somewhere around the midriff and generally feels like a gentle punch) to some images (although not necessarily very many). Whether that is about the 'concept' - I couldn't say; hence the question for clarification. But that it's about something that sets one artwork apart from many others, that much is clear to me.
When it comes to photography, at least some of this must have to do with the visual language that communicates the content of the work to the viewer. Still, this language and the content are distinct aspects of the work; just like in a poem, the choice of words, rythm and other aesthetic aspects of the text as such is conceptually distinct from the message, feeling, emotion or whatever 'punch in the midriff' it's trying to convey.
And no, I don't think experiencing any of this is restricted to dusty academic circles where degree-holders are actively gatekeeping to keep the plebs out. Heck, they'd be the first to ridicule the idea to begin with.
'Universal' is kind of a big scope. But surely, if you listen to the opening of Bach's St. John's Passion, the feeling it gives most (motivated) listeners has much more breadth and depth as well as a considerable degree of commonality between individuals than "that's interesting" or "I like that". If you're not into Bach - plug in whatever music you're into; the principle is the same.
We may struggle to put those experiences/feelings/impressions into words - sure. But they're still there, and they do have some degree of universality that at least to an extent rises beyond a strict cultural scope. Mozart's Requiem and Monteverdi's Vesper's easily fill concert halls around the world today, centuries after the pieces were composed, and the audience really aren't there just for the bragging rights, either. These people are as deeply moved by the music as our forefathers would have been.
I take music as an example because I feel it's perhaps the most universally appreciated art form and therefore an example that probably most of us can relate to. The general principle is still the same for photography, I think. Perhaps @cliveh is close with his "you get it or you don't" - I'm sure I'm not the only one to experience an almost physical response (it's somewhere around the midriff and generally feels like a gentle punch) to some images (although not necessarily very many). Whether that is about the 'concept' - I couldn't say; hence the question for clarification. But that it's about something that sets one artwork apart from many others, that much is clear to me.
When it comes to photography, at least some of this must have to do with the visual language that communicates the content of the work to the viewer. Still, this language and the content are distinct aspects of the work; just like in a poem, the choice of words, rythm and other aesthetic aspects of the text as such is conceptually distinct from the message, feeling, emotion or whatever 'punch in the midriff' it's trying to convey.
And no, I don't think experiencing any of this is restricted to dusty academic circles where degree-holders are actively gatekeeping to keep the plebs out. Heck, they'd be the first to ridicule the idea to begin with.
(I'd also rate Chostakovich very highly in that matter).
True, in music, chaos is organized linearily, i.e., in time, while in photography it is done instantaneously, in space. But the basic principles are the same: oppositions/conflicts, relationships, formal coherence.
I concur with your analogy to music, but when i said "universal meaning" i meant something like an "unmistakable meaning" - this picture has this meaning and nothing else. No room for interpretation etc. and every "true" artist does get and understand this. As runwithscizzers said:
" There are far more people who can look at a photo and say, "That's interesting," or "I like that," than there are who can say, "Oh look at the way the photographer has captured the divine nature of the human spirit!" "
I am not a fan of classical music, but i listen to it from time to because... there is no singing (on a lot of pieces). Then there is more room for interpretation because nobody is telling me what this piece is about (ok, reading the title usually does). That`s also why i like some swing music (not all of it) because it often has no singing and therefore more room for interpretation of what the piece *could* describe - as it musn`t describe anything.
If there is a (pop-)song you (nearly) always know what this song is about. This ain`t bad, but your mind is bound to the topic of the song - unless you cannot speak the language the song is sung - so there is less room for interpretation.
With (a lot of) classical music or swing music it`s different. And to stay in the analogy of music, most pictures are pieces without singing for me - but pretty often someone comes along and says "i definitely know what he/she is singing about! Because this or that is the meaning of this picture" . This is when i wonder about an "universal meaning" only "true" artist can understand - because the song has no singing but quite some can hear the text very clearly.
very insightfulFunny, I had to think of him as I started reading your comments on Mahler's work.
I think there's a deeper distinction, which is kind of clear: music isn't capture the way a photograph is - it's deliberately composed. A photograph can be, too, but all too often is a direct capture of a scene that already exists in reality. As a result, the process of keeping the chaos out of music is almost automatic as long as we don't put it deliberately into it (which sometimes is done of course, although not by Mahler or Shostakovitch). This is different for photography, where if we're not careful, chaotic reality results in a chaotic photo. I think this is what makes @Daniela's question so interesting, because in a way, it boils down to the question how and to what extent we can compose without actually rearranging.
Since we're talking about music, and to get back to @Daniela and her original post, I'd suggest listening to Mahler's symphonies. A true master at organizing chaos. Or, to put it slightly differently, to give the illusion that chaos can be organized (I'd also rate Chostakovich very highly in that matter).
True, in music, chaos is organized linearily, i.e., in time, while in photography it is done instantaneously, in space. But the basic principles are the same: oppositions/conflicts, relationships, formal coherence.
Yes but a small correction, space and time, time can also be encapsulated in a photo.
I'm not talking about "encapsulating" time. Whatever you're "encapsulating" on a photograph, you're always organizing space — a flat plane with borders of a certain dimension, you can't get around that.
I don't know. I went to a country fair on Sunday and couldn't rouse myself to take a single photo.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: ![]() |