The Languages of Photography

Donald Miller said:

Maybe it's because I have lived and photographed in places similar to those that Ansel Adams, Howard Bond, John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum and others of the "found objects" genre have photographed, but I am really burned out on those images. I realize that this is mine to resolve...maybe it is time to have a massive bonfire as someone suggested.,

Click to expand...

Perhaps, you just need a bit of a break. We all do at times. Right now, I'm pretty burned out on photographing Oahu; I haven't touched my camera in about a month. I recognize this, but realize that after I get back from New Zealand, I'll probably feel different. Try going someplace new. If I remember right, British Airways used to have pretty reasonable flights from Phoenix to London - better to take a trip, then to burn everything.

I wish you the best.

roteague said:

- better to take a trip, then to burn everything.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'd rather run with something like that too. I brought up the cleansing bit as a Blanskyesque, tough love, slap in the face way to get you to see the images from your past mean too much for you to burn. They may be "pretty pictures", but if they have meaning to you, chances are they'll have meaning for someone else...making them art in their eyes.

Want to shift gears? Why not take a foundation first year at a Fine Arts school? I was accepted to one years ago with only 4x5 contact prints in my entrance portfolio. There you'll be surrounded by others asking much the same questions in a volatile atmosphere of creativity...no photography, just drawing, painting, pottery, sculpture, design and art history. I believe the experience was vital to the way I now photograph.

To question everthing means you aren't stagnant, and if you're stagnant, you're dead in the water as an artist.

Murray

(added later) Many years ago I tossed out a bunch of very lame early work. It felt great. I wouldn't do that now...I have too much invested in the images since then.

mhv said:

Well then, I'd really, really like to have a bibliographical reference to what you are claiming. What researches are you referring to?

Click to expand...

Thanks for asking. The original source of my statement is long since forgotten, but I googled "pitch intervals and universal meaning" and chose the following: www.lotpublications.nl/ publish/articles/001163/bookpart.pdf

It seems to relate well to my point, but is much more recent than what I was citing. In any case, it does seem to maintain, though with many equivocations, what I said. (I am by no means a scholar, rather, I'm a practicing cellist and teacher.)

Were such elemental 'cues' present in visual matters, then Donald's point might have some empirical validity beyond being a hoped for notion.

Donald Miller said:

Maybe it's because I have lived and photographed in places similar to those that Ansel Adams, Howard Bond, John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum and others of the "found objects" genre have photographed, but I am really burned out on those images. I realize that this is mine to resolve...maybe it is time to have a massive bonfire as someone suggested.,

Click to expand...

I used to wish I lived near enough to those iconic subjects to have a crack at them, but now I'm actually grateful that I live in the east where black and white interpretations of what's found in nature are less ubiquitous. (There's plenty of color work here, but it's not particularly interesting to me beyond its obvious 'prettiness') I feel like I can explore what's here to photograph without copying anyone's work I can recall seeing (even though I doubt it hasn't been covered anyway.) The only trouble is that I have to be rather self-validating for that very reason. Sometimes it's scary. When you take a familiar path, you know what you're doing has already been 'approved'. Carving out your own 'way' forces one to confront the very real possibility that your vision is mundane and the results are mediocre crap. I'm often frustrated, but rarely if ever bored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Miller
But how many photographers today have the recognition or the ability to express the inner being of their lives in a meaningful and original way that resonates with others? Not many I find.



Not everyone who does photography is necessarily trying to "express the inner being of their lives" and maybe that is why you don't find that many who do. While it is true that photography is a form of self expression, there are many degrees to which a person can expose themselves through their work. I think if a person has the ability to express their deepest feelings verbally to others, they may have less need to bare their soul through their work.

I am the only photographer whose work I can speak of with a deep understanding. I can tell you that I am not trying to express my inner soul through my photographs, I am merely trying to interpret scene that I found interesting or moving in a way that I also find visually interesting. I'm producing photographs for myself, I guess to some extent they are also reminders to me of having been in a place that I had an emotional response to. It is very satisfying to me that some people can elicit that same emotional response from my work never having been to that location. But that also brings up a difference between people. Some people are capable of having an emotional response to an object or place, others may only be capable of having an emotional response to other people. And still others can find an emotional response in both. Maybe that's why some people gravitate towards portrait and others towards still life or landscape. It's what they find interesting, can relate to or find moving.

Not trying to be too Blanskyesque here, but I think as I mentioned to Donald once before, if you wish to have meaning and joy and so much more, in your work you only have to do, one thing.

Start taking pictures of people.

The menu is divine, the expressions sublime and the rewards are infinite.

Donald, you're so close, but so far. You have the time, the equipment, the expertise, unfortunately, you just keep pointing your cameras at the wrong subjects.



Michael

blansky said:

Not trying to be too Blanskyesque here, but I think as I mentioned to Donald once before, if you wish to have meaning and joy and so much more, in your work you only have to do, one thing.

Start taking pictures of people.

The menu is divine, the expressions sublime and the rewards are infinite.

Donald, you're so close, but so far. You have the time, the equipment, the expertise, unfortunately, you just keep pointing your cameras at the wrong subjects.



Michael

Click to expand...

Michael, I am beginning to see the wisdom in your words...I mean this sincerely. Thanks again.

jovo said:

Thanks for asking. The original source of my statement is long since forgotten, but I googled "pitch intervals and universal meaning" and chose the following: www.lotpublications.nl/ publish/articles/001163/bookpart.pdf

It seems to relate well to my point, but is much more recent than what I was citing. In any case, it does seem to maintain, though with many equivocations, what I said. (I am by no means a scholar, rather, I'm a practicing cellist and teacher.)

Were such elemental 'cues' present in visual matters, then Donald's point might have some empirical validity beyond being a hoped for notion.

Click to expand...

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but you haven't read the thesis carefully. Take the main point:

"This thesis investigated how universal the paralinguistic signalling of
intonation is by examining the perception of meanings deriving from the biological codes."

* This thesis studies intonations, also called more specifically contours, which are much, much different from phonemes. Mark the use of the word "paralinguistic". I will use the word "contour" here because it is a more precise term than "intonation".

* A countour is the general movement of tone over a word. For example, it's like saying "Really?" versus "Really!". In the first case, you raise the tone slightly at the end of the word, in the second one you drop it. That change of tonality carries a meaningful information, here interrogation versus affirmation.

* Yet contour are not phonemes, because they do not determine whether you're saying "hat" or "hot". The definition of a phoneme is roughly: a minimal utterable sound that will alter the meaning of a word if it is changed. Because of its impact on meaning, early linguist believed that there was an essential relationship between each phonemes and the meanign of the word carrying them. It was Saussure's insight that we must not look at the relationship between a phoneme and meaning, but rather look at the system (the structure of a language) to understand the formation of meaning. Language is a "play of difference", and it is because "a" does not sound like "o" that "hat" and "hot" are distinct. Not because "a" means "stuff that goes on the head" and "o" means "things that can burn".

* What I pointed out was that modern linguistics followed the track that phonemes have no essential relationship to the meaning of the words they constitute. There used to be arguments in the 19thC that "liquid" vowels (like "l") would be related to water and words associated to it, among languages. THIS is the argument against which modern linguistics stands.

* The thesis you have brought out argues for the possibility of a universal relationship between countours and meanings, so that a rising contour is generally associated with interrogation &c. This is perfectly valid research and I think a great contribution, but in now way does it undermine the notion that phonemes and meaning of words are unrelated.

* Finally, lest this comes up, tonal languages like Mandarin have tones on each vowels, which participate in the determination of phonemes. In a language like English, it does not make a difference if I say "hAt" or "hAat" (I'm trying to imitate in writing a rising from a rise-fall tone!). But in Mandarin it does. Mandarin is pretty tough to pronounce for a non-tonal speaker because it feels like you're singing false, as the tones change from one vowel to another, just like vowels follow no predterminate order in a sentence. Yet Mandarin has also contours in addition to vowel tone, so that you can ask a question by raising the tone slightly at the end of a sentence. Pretty hard to do for a non-native speaker, but believe me, native speakers break no sweat on that.

So in conclusion, no there are no universal relationships between phonemes and meaning, while there can be patterns of meaning in contour. But even acoustically phonemes and contours are radically different beasts, so you can't jump from a conclusion about the one based on the other.

Mark posted one of Gordin's prints that he drew no meaning from and I grant you that not all of his prints impact on me immediately. However that is true of all artists/photographers.

These particular images, among others, do speak to me. Recognizing of course that the effect of a particular image is based upon life's experiences, culture, and societal influence.

http://bsimple.com/Liquid Shadow.htm

http://bsimple.com/doubt8.htm

http://bsimple.com/doubt9.htm

http://bsimple.com/doubt16.htm

I find that most of his work is best viewed on the basis of the entire body of work in any series.

Speaking for myself, there is one heck of a lot more creative input into formulating a concept and then supporting it with imagery then there is to walk into the mountains and photograph a stand of aspen trees that are already there, by way of example.

One of the things, for me, is the greater amount of creative input on the part of the photographer that I appreciate.

Donald Miller said:

Mark posted one of Gordin's prints that he drew no meaning from and I grant you that not all of his prints impact on me immediately. However that is true of all artists/photographers.

These particular images, among others, do speak to me. Recognizing of course that the effect of a particular image is based upon life's experiences, culture, and societal influence.

http://bsimple.com/Liquid Shadow.htm

http://bsimple.com/doubt8.htm

http://bsimple.com/doubt8.htm

I find that most of his work is best viewed on the basis of the entire body of work in any series.

Click to expand...

The first one says to me.....as man evolved from the oceans and took his place on land....

The doubt8 says..... man is in bondage, alone and helpless and without hope....


Just my impression.


Michael

Nothing is left to the imagination in any of these, he is telling the reader what to think instead of letting the reader interpret. I guess if a person needs to be led by the hand or hit on the head then these could be powerful images. I mean he does do a good job of interpreting the emotion. You see it and it is what it says it is.

The one I linked to was chosen because, of all his images, it was the one where I felt more than one interpretation could be given to it.

mark said:

Nothing is left to the imagination in any of these, he is telling the reader what to think instead of letting the reader interpret. I guess if a person needs to be led by the hand or hit on the head then these could be powerful images. I mean he does do a good job of interpreting the emotion. You see it and it is what it says it is.

The one I linked to was chosen because, of all his images, it was the one where I felt more than one interpretation could be given to it.

Click to expand...

Mark,
I understand that you feel that way about Gordin's work, but I would almost be willing to bet that you and I would come up with different interpertations of the images that I linked. Provided there were a way that we could write our interpertations without being aware of each others view points.

For example, I have a different interpertation then Blansky has on the two images that he commented on. Especially when one takes into consideration the entire "doubt series" rather then an isolated example from a series. It is wonderful that Blansky or you or I have different interpertations. But that does not equate with your judgement that nothing is left to discern.

The point that I wish to make is this. That while you may think that there is nothing left to individual interpertation, there is in fact quite a lot that you may not be considering as possible based on your judgement.

I have no agenda to convince you to judge Gordin's work as being good, bad or indifferent. All that I wish is that you may consider that your interpertation is not the only valid interpertation or for that matter it is the correct interpertation...it may be appropriate for you and not appropriate for anyone else. That is why photography that incorporates the aspect of symbolic reference is more effective, in my observation then that which is based solely in objective observation...that would mean photography of found objects and found scenes.

Taking the Adams image that you included in your earlier post, beyond the apparent visual representation that Adams displayed, quite well I might add, is there any symbolic value to the image? Do the foreground rocks or the distant peak have meaning beyond what they are? To me they do not...straight photography prides itself on the pure representation of objective reality...to the exclusion of unreality or reality not readily apparent...or symbolic meaning.

I realize that there are those who do not want to consider any further meaning. There are those who do not want to think or even to consider that something could be more then what is represented. There is nothing wrong if that is what they want. However, in my over twenty years of making images of found objects and scenes, I have come to personally recognize that there is more.

Good luck to you in your photography.

One of things that makes photography work the way it does it that it actually consists of a a sort of "half-language" or partial language. That is in part what gives photogoraphy its unique way of seeing through such mechanisms as ambiguity, memory, capturing appearances (as opposed to reality) and so on.

(and the problem with symbols is - everyone reads them whatever way they want and they ultimately become meaningless)

tim said:

One of things that makes photography work the way it does it that it actually consists of a a sort of "half-language" or partial language. That is in part what gives photogoraphy its unique way of seeing through such mechanisms as ambiguity, memory, capturing appearances (as opposed to reality) and so on.

(and the problem with symbols is - everyone reads them whatever way they want and they ultimately become meaningless)

Click to expand...

They remain meaningful to the individual (at the least) and to masses for the most part. An example of an object that is both capable of objective observation and symbolic reference is the American flag. I doubt that the symbolic reference of the American flag has been lost for most of us. A photograph of the flag will carry symbolic meaning just as an actual flag will.

Another example would be, for those with a Christian orientation, the cross. Or for Catholics the crucifix or rosary. These are capable of both objective observation and symbolic reference. It makes no difference, whether these are the actual items or a photographic representation, the symbolic reference is there. In fact in most cases whether the individual takes the time to sort it our for themselves or not both are involved. Beyond the actual object the symbolic reference exists. Again these are symbols that are meaningful to masses of people. In this case the symbolic meaning would transcend nations while in the case of the American flag, it's symbolic meaning would exist for primarily those who are American.

Not only do these two examples indicate that both means of appreciation exist but they do in fact transcend the individual and can influence wide groups of individuals.

In the region of music, since this was broached earlier, the opening passage of the Star Spangled Banner will have an almost immediate effect on over 100 million American adults not only insofar as the song itself but also the symbolic reference that it entails.

In my experience and observation, when a photograph relies on only objective observation, it is missing a portion of the expression that is available.

I would amplify on what you said in that photography can present ambiguity even more effectively then it can see through it.

All language is abstraction...why should visual and symbolic language be any less so?

Gordin's work reminds me of Dali's surreal paintings of the 30s & Bergman's Seventh Seal. Life often is surreal, and many photographers have successfully depicted it whether thru post visualization or capturing the reality of a surreal existence. Such works can be quite effective, though repitition of symbols, metaphors, etc. tend towards the cliche (the Greeks long ago covered the same ground as Gordin).

Photography does share a language with all two-dimensional arts. For example, we search for patterns in order to make rational a chaotic world. We are emotionally influenced by color. The one differentiating aspect of photography is its reference to an object - the portrayal of reality ( though this uniqueness is being undermined by digital manipulation).

A photograph does have the potential for mystery. Without titles or context, a photograph can act as a visual koan asking us to decipher its meaning.
Just some rambling thoughts

Someone else who does conceptual photography and I believe is a member here by the name of Emile Schildt. I attached the picture without permission and hope he doesn't mind.

Also in the vein is the work of Thomas Sauerwein, also a member.

Granted they are not as abstract as the Gordin images, but they are far more than pretty pictures.

I agree that conceptual photography would be a great avenue for someone bored with the usual images to persue.


Michael

Donald Miller said:

Speaking for myself, there is one heck of a lot more creative input into formulating a concept and then supporting it with imagery then there is to walk into the mountains and photograph a stand of aspen trees that are already there, by way of example.

One of the things, for me, is the greater amount of creative input on the part of the photographer that I appreciate.

Click to expand...

Hi Donald, Why don't you just create the pictures you would like to see or would like to have on your wall. Not pictures like his or hers but yous, even if it means your pictures are just like his or hers. (If you get what I mean)
People are usually best when they create from their own inspiration and wonder what they like themselves instead of wondering what would be concidered good.

On one of my favorite pictures I get many negative comments because it's very uncommon style and at schools they would say it's bad technique. Still It's a path I keep walking because it touches me and I know there is a lot more in it.

Best of luck and have a look in your own emotions and feelings I am sure there is a lot of inspiration there.

cheers!
Quinten

I think Quinten is on to something. Perhaps what we are railing against is a real lack of creativity, vision and soulful fulfillment in our own work? This may be the real source of the "world weariness" expressed in some of these posts. There is such a dearth of the truly creative in so much of what we see, it is an emotional drain on our beings and sucks us dry. The commercialized world of "white bread" photography and the media's insistence that we consume that which is vulgar and not life giving, is taking its toll on our souls. tim


"The average man seeks agreement in the eyes of others and calls it perfection. The man of knowledge seeks impeccabilty in acts and calls it humility." Juan Matus