Photographing chaos - Strategies?

[runswithsizzers]

@nikos79, I think you may have wrongly accused @snusmumriken of confusing "content" with "meaning or conceptualism"? That was my mistake.

 

[nikos79]

To me @nikos79 use of the word "content" in post #61 was very vague. Some discussions of "content" in art used the word "meaning" as a synonym, which to me, suggests ideas or concepts that can be expressed in words, if you have the vocabulary for it. But if you add or substitute "feeling/emotion" to the definition of the word "content," then that widens the scope considerably. Now we are getting somewhere!

I very much agree with @koraks when he suggests that we humans can experience feeling and emotions on a much more universal level (compared to ideas or concepts). At first I thought @nikos79 was trying to say every photo should have some kind of meaning or idea to be conveyed, and that I could not agree with. But the idea that a photo can convey emotion is much more acceptable to me, because I believe we humans are wired that way, no higher education required. If the word "content" includes emotion, then the discussion makes a lot more sense to me.

Yes exactly we are getting somewhere!

 

[nikos79]

@nikos79, I think you may have wrongly accused @snusmumriken of confusing "content" with "meaning or conceptualism"? That was my mistake.

Sorry yes I edited the names

 

[koraks]

Classical music is a very abstract art form and it can carry no meanings or symbolisms.

Huh? How about the thunder in Strauss' Alpensinfonie? Or the crafting of the sword in Wagner's Siegfried? The thousands of instances of birds singing, wind blowing, water rushing, leaves rustling esp. in the romantic period? That's not even counting the less direct/literal figures used to convey specific themes. A case of very, very unfortunate formulation that doesn't express what you intended to say...I hope?

If there is something in a photograph that moves you and you don't know or can define what it is then this is the content.

Huh??
No!

Oh man. Well. Maybe you'll get it some day.

 

[nikos79]

Huh? How about the thunder in Strauss' Alpensinfonie? Or the crafting of the sword in Wagner's Siegfried? The thousands of instances of birds singing, wind blowing, water rushing, leaves rustling esp. in the romantic period? That's not even counting the less direct/literal figures used to convey specific themes. A case of very, very unfortunate formulation that doesn't express what you intended to say...I hope?



Huh??
No!

Oh man. Well. Maybe you'll get it some day.

I wanted to point to the fact that I can appreciate music without the need of any explanation or hidden meanings because the music it inherently carries abstraction as it doesn't speak ideas, it doesn't show the reality it mostly connects to our hearing and emotions

Well the content.. I agreed with how you defined it before. Maybe I oversimplified and got it wrong.

 

[nikos79]

I will try to give my very own definition of the content.
The content is what makes a photograph have a reason to exist by transforming the reality to a "photographic" reality

 

[MattKing]

I wanted to point to the fact that I can appreciate music without the need of any explanation or hidden meanings because the music it inherently carries abstraction as it doesn't speak ideas, it doesn't show the reality it mostly connects to our hearing and emotions

Clearly you aren't a fan of horror movies!
And the line: "don't look in the trunk!" doesn't resonate with you.
And the first song I ever started babbling along to as a really young infant - "If you go down to the woods today" - probably wouldn't have the same effect on you as it did on me in my infancy.

 

[runswithsizzers]

If you have to come up with a text to justify a photo then the photo is weak in my opinion

I will try to give my very own definition of the content.
The content is what makes a photograph have a reason to exist by transforming the reality to a "photographic" reality

Thin ice, nikos! Thin ice! To me, the second quote comes dangerously close to contradicting the first one. ;-)

 

[nikos79]

Thin ice, nikos! Thin ice! To me, the second quote comes dangerously close to contradicting the first one. ;-)

Well it doesn't talk about a meaning or conception behind a photo. Transformation is something essential in all arts

 

[snusmumriken]

@nikos79, I think you may have wrongly accused @snusmumriken of confusing "content" with "meaning or conceptualism"? That was my mistake.

And I was blissfully unaware! I don’t feel qualified to be involved in this discussion.

 

[nikos79]

I will try to give an example of the content of a photo.

Here the content of the photo can be anything but is very strong. It can be a man looking at his death as many have said it can be a man simply looking at his life or a shadow looking at the horizon. Anything is possible and he have no clue what that meant to the photographer and we probably don't care because most probably meant nothing. The content emerged for the photographer AFTER the photo was developed and not before.

 

[nikos79]

I will try to give an example of the content of a photo.

Here the content of the photo can be anything but is very strong. It can be a man looking at his death as many have said it can be a man simply looking at his life or a shadow looking at the horizon. Anything is possible and he have no clue what that meant to the photographer and we probably don't care because most probably meant nothing. The content emerged for the photographer AFTER the photo was developed and not before.

View attachment 400447

Also the form is super strong and exaggerated in that photo

 

[snusmumriken]

I will try to give an example of the content of a photo.

Here the content of the photo can be anything but is very strong. It can be a man looking at his death as many have said it can be a man simply looking at his life or a shadow looking at the horizon. Anything is possible and he have no clue what that meant to the photographer and we probably don't care because most probably meant nothing. The content emerged for the photographer AFTER the photo was developed and not before.

View attachment 400447

It must have meant something to the photographer, otherwise he wouldn’t have shared it. Given the proportions, I think he also took the trouble to crop it to the form we see here.

Instead of taking a straightforward photo of an identifiable man gazing over a blank sea, Kertesz made a composition that is both abstract and surreal. One could suggest influences of Mondrian and of Dali. Whatever the viewer thinks of when viewing it, will reflect the viewer’s psyche. Maybe someone even knows what Kertesz thought about it, but that wouldn’t mean that another viewer’s thoughts were invalid.

So I still don’t understand what you mean by ‘content’. This photo seems to me more like a beautiful empty vessel (no pun intended).

 

[koraks]

The content emerged for the photographer AFTER the photo was developed and not before.

I don't agree with that assumption.

I also don't have much grip on what 'content' means on the basis of the example, but I feel that's a tangent to the discussion. Of course, a minimalist composition as this is only tangentially related to the discussion to begin with.

 

[nikos79]

It is a very difficult and abstract thing to discuss I agree. I also cannot define it with words. I find it very difficult to even formulate my thoughts and think if I am wrong the moment I try to grasp it it slips away. But I think content is there. And this was an easy photo to analyse. Imagine if I showed an Atget's picture...
I wouldn't even know what to say...

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The content is what makes a photograph have a reason to exist by transforming the reality to a "photographic" reality

Kind of like saying "A photograph is a photograph because it's a photograph", isn't it?

 

[Pieter12]

I will try to give an example of the content of a photo.

Here the content of the photo can be anything but is very strong. It can be a man looking at his death as many have said it can be a man simply looking at his life or a shadow looking at the horizon. Anything is possible and he have no clue what that meant to the photographer and we probably don't care because most probably meant nothing. The content emerged for the photographer AFTER the photo was developed and not before.

View attachment 400447

Your explanation is an interpretation of the content, not the content itself. The content is the shapes and tones, the subject is a view of a railing and the sea, sky and the shape of a human through a translucent panel.

 

[nikos79]

Kind of like saying "A photograph is a photograph because it's a photograph", isn't it?

Well I think that the majority of photographs (I would say 90%) fail that

 

[nikos79]

Your explanation is an interpretation of the content, not the content itself. The content is the shapes and tones, the subject is a view of a railing and the sea, sky and the shape of a human through a translucent panel.

Shapes and tones is the form not the content

 

[Pieter12]

Shapes and tones is the form not the content

Shapes and tones may describe forms in a photograph, but the form is the physical photograph itself.

 

[nikos79]

Shapes and tones may describe forms in a photograph, but the form is the physical photograph itself.

Yeah fork and content should be inseparable in good photos. God I don't even know what I am talking about thus conversation is so tough! We should have called Szarkowsky to explain!

 

[koraks]

As far as I'm concerned, the first person to post a clear set of definitions will get the honor of seeing them used in the rest of this thread and the satisfaction of getting all of us back on track with the relevant stuff.

Yeah fork and content should be inseparable in good photos.

That's not what he said.

 

[MattKing]

I will try to give an example of the content of a photo.

Here the content of the photo can be anything but is very strong. It can be a man looking at his death as many have said it can be a man simply looking at his life or a shadow looking at the horizon. Anything is possible and he have no clue what that meant to the photographer and we probably don't care because most probably meant nothing. The content emerged for the photographer AFTER the photo was developed and not before.

View attachment 400447

I look at this and immediately wonder if the person is about to expectorate.

 

[gary mulder]

View attachment 400447

Personally the is no chaos in this picture what so ever. Not even the slightest suggestion of chaos.

 

[koraks]

Personally the is no chaos in this picture what so ever. Not even the slightest suggestion of chaos.

No, but to be fair to @nikos79, I think he only posted it to try and illustrate how he views the aspect of 'concept'. I don't think it was intended to be an illustration of how to capture chaos. Evidently, it's the polar opposite of that in every way.