The Philosophy of Stieglitz

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you distill down all that artspeak I spewed, it actually makes quite a bit of sense, especially in light of Stieglitz' photos. He photographed those clouds, trying to capture on film some emotional response he had to seeing them. Even the titles are just suggestive symbols for what he felt, since you can't transmit an emotional response in a single word (or even a dictionary's worth). Words themselves are NOT feelings, and neither are pictures. We rely on the assumption that someone else will have a common experience with us when looking at the same subject. This is of course a false assumption, but a necessary one. If we could not rely on that assumption being logically valid a majority of the time, communication between two people would be impossible.

A case in point -the color white. In western cultures, white is the color of weddings and celebrations. It represents purity. In Asian cultures, white is the color of death and mourning. If I were to photograph someone wearing all white, most westerners would look at it and think of positive events - weddings, First Communion, christenings, cocktail parties. Someone from China would look at it and wonder where's the funeral. Abstract this out to the notion of language - since the written (or even the spoken) word is an artificial idea, entirely man-made, why does the letter "e" HAVE to have the sound we associate with it? Monty Python spoofed this in a way when in a skit, a man walks into a store and tells the clerk, "My name is Snarglevarglebingbangbong"(or something like that, I can't remember the exact name), to which the clerk replies, "how do you spell that?" and he says, "S-M-I-T-H".

All language really is is grunts,whistles and clicks coming out of our mouths, and scratches and squiggly lines on a piece of paper. It has no actual reality - it only means something because we agree that "camera" means a camera.

The same is true of photographs - we have a common acceptance of what the photograph means because we have to in order to be able to interpret it. Like looking at a cloud, though, you can see a racecar and I can see Pam Anderson in a bikini in that cloud. When we have that big of a disconnect, we can't arrive at a common meaning.

 

[copake_ham]

If you distill down all that artspeak I spewed, it actually makes quite a bit of sense, especially in light of Stieglitz' photos. He photographed those clouds, trying to capture on film some emotional response he had to seeing them. Even the titles are just suggestive symbols for what he felt, since you can't transmit an emotional response in a single word (or even a dictionary's worth). Words themselves are NOT feelings, and neither are pictures. We rely on the assumption that someone else will have a common experience with us when looking at the same subject. This is of course a false assumption, but a necessary one. If we could not rely on that assumption being logically valid a majority of the time, communication between two people would be impossible.

A case in point -the color white. In western cultures, white is the color of weddings and celebrations. It represents purity. In Asian cultures, white is the color of death and mourning. If I were to photograph someone wearing all white, most westerners would look at it and think of positive events - weddings, First Communion, christenings, cocktail parties. Someone from China would look at it and wonder where's the funeral. Abstract this out to the notion of language - since the written (or even the spoken) word is an artificial idea, entirely man-made, why does the letter "e" HAVE to have the sound we associate with it? Monty Python spoofed this in a way when in a skit, a man walks into a store and tells the clerk, "My name is Snarglevarglebingbangbong"(or something like that, I can't remember the exact name), to which the clerk replies, "how do you spell that?" and he says, "S-M-I-T-H".

All language really is is grunts,whistles and clicks coming out of our mouths, and scratches and squiggly lines on a piece of paper. It has no actual reality - it only means something because we agree that "camera" means a camera.

The same is true of photographs - we have a common acceptance of what the photograph means because we have to in order to be able to interpret it. Like looking at a cloud, though, you can see a racecar and I can see Pam Anderson in a bikini in that cloud. When we have that big of a disconnect, we can't arrive at a common meaning.

Then again, maybe pictures of things are just pictures of things?

 

[colivet]

Seems Stieglitz was a photographic artist, not a photographer.

 

[Sparky]

History of Photography 101

I start to wonder how much reading people do in this forum. Yes, Stieglitz referred to them as 'equivalents' - something I thought was kind of cool when I learned that at the tender young age of 16. Great. He's drawing an 'equivalence' between the 'placeholder' (image) and the feeling the image gives him. Probably - he was cashing in on stuff that was going on in the community at large (vis a vis Freud, etc...). But I think it made a whole lot of sense, certainly, at the time.

I would think, also, that late model Americans would be able to relate to this, as they (we) seem to use (spoken) language in a very similar fashion... i.e. - the word "exploit" = something negative, instead of taking on a contextual meaning - which it OUGHT to do.

But I think it's a pretty simple concept that isn't all that deep - I can't imagine people thinking so one-dimensionally that they can't get their heads around it. But I wonder sometimes, here on these forums, what people are thinking (i.e. - referring to themselves as 'pictorialists' - ...??????)...

who knows.

 

[Sparky]

Seems Stieglitz was a photographic artist, not a photographer.

Hey - call it what you want as long as you take responsibility for owning the differentiation.

 

[Sparky]

I certainly agree that I often attempt to convey what I saw. But I'm not as certain that a photographer can convey what he/she "felt" at the time of shooting.

Firstly, does he mean "feel" in the sense of what the photo image is meant to convey? Or does he mean "feel" as in his mood or disposition when he conceived and took the photograph?

Think for a moment of a mundane snapshot. It's easy to "see" what the shooter "saw" but one doesn't intuitively get a sense of what the shooter felt. In fact, often with such a photo the shooter "felt" intensely about his subject yet a detached viewer will feel nothing.

Monsieur Ham -

I suspect what Stieglitz was driving at - was that - in perceiving and capturing an 'image' on film, and then, on a print, that he is able to direct the viewer to an emotional state that he had at the time of exposure - that there are subtleties in using the camera (maybe simply through controls such as framing, etc..) that allow one to tap into a similar or 'equivalent' mental framework that the original viewer of said scene had...

know what I mean?

I think there's something to it. For sure.

 

[Chuck_P]

The concept of the final print somehow revealing the equivalent of what I "felt" is hard for me to grasp, but I have gotten much better at arriving at a final print that is what I "saw" in my mind's eye, tonally speaking. If that's the case, is it also what I "felt"? IDK. Isn't how you feel about your b&w print closely tied to the tonal relationships of the subject? That's what I gather anyway.

AA:
"If it were not for this element of "felt" (the emotional-aesthetic experience), the term creative photography would have no meaning."

I think that goes along with these words from AA on Stieglitz:

"Rather than say Stieglitz influenced me in my work, I would say that he revealed me to myself. Paul Strand's work showed me the potential of photography as an art form; Stieglitz gave me the confidence that I could express myself through that art form."

For me, I would like to think that if I can print my original visualization in terms of the tonal relationships that best suit the subject, then, encompassed within that achievement is also how I felt about it at the time. That's the only way I can verbalize on the "felt" aspect of Stieglitz's equivalence assertion. I have to agree with Alex in the OP.

Chuck

 

[Ole]

Now that everyone agrees on how to spell it, I've corrected "Stieglitz" in the thread title.

My apologies to those whose posts are now redundant.

 

[Jim Jones]

It's no great compliment to a photographer when the words he uses and the spelling of his name evokes more discussion than his photographs, but that's Stieglitz.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I too, agree with this aspect of Stiegltz' philosophy. That is why I am proposing a "intuitive Reaction" gallery here. DID I express an "equivalence"? DID I succeed in creating a specific "emotional state" as I had intended?; and if I did not, what did happen?

I do not intend to divert attention from Stieglitz ... he was, and remains, one of the "great lights" in photography. He championed the idea of "Photography IS Art", and earned the respect, although at times grudgingly, of the rock-solid, entrenced and isolated Art "community" and their accompaniying Critics.

We now, and will ever, owe this man a great deal.

 

[Will S]

I too, agree with this aspect of Stiegltz' philosophy. That is why I am proposing a "intuitive Reaction" gallery here. DID I express an "equivalence"? DID I succeed in creating a specific "emotional state" as I had intended?; and if I did not, what did happen?

This is probably a bit off subject, but the idea of a photograph evoking the same emotion (or any emotion) of that of the photographer in the viewer is not only highly egoistical, it is just a little bit wierd and invasive. I have this image in my head of Stieglitz springing out of his image trying to thrust his emotion into my brain. All I can say is, "Ewww..." The idea of the "great artist" somehow letting the little people in on the wonderful, exalted nature of their beautiful emotions by evoking the exact same emotional state in the viewer (thereby elevating them to a higher state somewhat below and to the left of the artist themself) seems more suited to 19th-century Germanic philosophy than to the present day. Emotions and internal thoughts are about as personal, difficult to understand, and fragile as it gets for humans; how can anyone presume to be able to "evoke" (which really means "force") their emotions on another? Aside from the obvious things like the semantical issues already pointed out, the gulf between humans is staggering. To think that you can cross it with a two-dimensional grayscale representation of 3 dimensional reality is somewhat insane, if not tragically misguided.

I know that no one really cares what I think other than me and my dog, but I hate to just leave the above hanging, so here goes... When I look at a photo I find the thing that pops to mind is always "what is it?" I suspect this question is hard-wired in us because of the nature of our brains and how we evolved to use vision. I find those photographs that have mystery in them to be the most interesting, and there are all sorts of interesting details in photographs because of the wonderful "all-inclusive" nature of the medium. Common snapshots are incredibly beautiful when they evoke this sense of wonder, and I'm certain that their makers weren't trying to capture and transmit an emotive state when they pressed the button on the Instamatic.

So, for me, a better question than those above would be "did you like (or not like) this picture? Tell me why, because I'm really interested in what you saw. Maybe we saw something similar, maybe we didn't. It is sure to be different, because we are two completely different human beings, but it is always interesting to compare notes."

Sorry for the long rant,

Will

 

[Chuck_P]

This is probably a bit off subject, but the idea of a photograph evoking the same emotion (or any emotion) of that of the photographer in the viewer is not only highly egoistical, it is just a little bit wierd and invasive. Will

If I understand you correctly and sorry If I don't, I don't think Stieglitz's equivalency statement implies that the same emotional and aesthetic impact is supposed to be transferred directly to the viewer. IMO, Stieglitz's statement implies the success of the photograph as an expressive image must be apparent to the photographer first--it must reveal (in the photographer's mind) what he/she "saw" and "felt". It's success to the viewer may not rest with those same criteria. But what an awsome success it would be if the viewer could "see" and "feel" the image in the same way.

Just my two cents for this morning.

Chuck

 

[Ed Sukach]

This is probably a bit off subject, but the idea of a photograph evoking the same emotion (or any emotion) of that of the photographer in the viewer is not only highly egoistical, it is just a little bit wierd and invasive...

What set you off so intensely?

If I was talking with you, eye-to-eye, at the local coffee shop, I would probably say something like, "Why don't you cool down a bit ... and we might be able to discuss this further."

Did I read this right? You say something like, "There is no (never?) `emotional content' in a photograph" - or that, "one has to be weird and egotisical to suppose that there is?" - or that trying to evoke(?) provoke(?) - I don't know "hypnotize" - anyone into a similar "state of mind' is ...uh ..."evil" and invasive?

That is an interesting opinion. It will take me some time to "digest" this - it is rather far from what I believe, but I'll try to envision photography - and art - as merely pictures of "things".

Seems as though I DID evoke - uh, cause to be - a definite emotional response through the use of the written word.

Maybe I am in the wrong game?

 

[Will S]

If I understand you correctly and sorry If I don't, I don't think Stieglitz's equivalency statement implies that the same emotional and aesthetic impact is supposed to be transferred directly to the viewer. IMO, Stieglitz's statement implies the success of the photograph as an expressive image must be apparent to the photographer first--it must reveal (in the photographer's mind) what he/she "saw" and "felt". It's success to the viewer may not rest with those same criteria. But what an awsome success it would be if the viewer could "see" and "feel" the image in the same way.

That makes a little more sense, though who's to say that the end goal should be a synergistic common emotional reaction? I was mostly responding to Ed's comment:
<QUOTE>
"DID I succeed in creating a specific "emotional state" as I had intended?"
</QUOTE>

which I read as meaning that he is trying to create the same "specific" emotional state in the viewer as he experiences when viewing it (or had when taking it as well I guess.)

Minor White's take (see http://www.jnevins.com/whitereading.htm) seems to be that the viewer sees something in the photograph that mirrors something in herself. The photograph is an equivalent because it has a tie to something in the viewer, not because the photographer put something specific there. Though maybe I'm misunderstanding him. He isn't that easy to understand after all.

Thanks,

Will

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have this image in my head of Stieglitz springing out of his image trying to thrust his emotion into my brain.

Dear Will,

Isn't that what any artist, in any medium, is trying to do? Communicate an emotion? And he has no emotions other than his own that he can communicate.

This is why the whole doctrine of 'equivalences' has always struck me as a (slightly pretentious) restatement of the obvious.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparky]

I agree with Roger!

 

[RobertP]

Both Stieglitz and O'Keeffe were highly influenced by Wassily Kandinsky. Kandinsky suggested a more radical approach to art than the cubist. The cubist sought to depict the real world. Kandinsky proposed the "internal" world of the artist was what determines the forms and colors of a work of art. The external appearances of nature and the material world were no longer obligatory models.The source of artistic production had shifted to the inner self. O'Keeffe hadn't produced a single piece for 4 years until Alan Bement introduced her to Kandinsky's approach. This is when she produced the charcoal sketches that Stieglitz showed at 291 without her permission. Her first show and a very succesful one at that. Kandinsky's approach to abstraction highly influenced Stieglitz's cloud series. I think he even brought Kandinsky to New York for a period of time. In his "Equivalents" the increasing tendency towards abstraction is evident .Although the dark sky and clouds are real it was not about a photographic portrayal of the sky but it was about shadow and light, dynamic motion and stasis, void and form are reflected in the images. It was a path towards the nonfigurative. Some claim that this motif depicted the idea of the photographer and image become equivalent in terms of inner truth and it was the greatest heritage Stieglitz left to creative photography. I'll let the individual be the judge of that.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Surely we're looking at the obsession with 'movements' that has disfigured art for the last 140 years or so. It wasn't enough to paint (or take pictures): you had to have a manifesto as well. Impressionists, fauves, the Linked Ring, futurists, vorticists, take your pick. Some of Kandinsky's stuff was great; some wasn't. Stieglitz was grievously given to over-intellectualism, being a spoiled rich kid in the same vein as Cartier-Bresson. Didn't stop him producing some great work (and some right rubbish as well) but equally doesn't mean that his intellectual or pseudo-intellectual analyses (he produced both) are all necessarily worth a great deal.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Chuck_P]

Dear Will,

Isn't that what any artist, in any medium, is trying to do? Communicate an emotion? And he has no emotions other than his own that he can communicate.

This is why the whole doctrine of 'equivalences' has always struck me as a (slightly pretentious) restatement of the obvious.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

A rhetorical statement, I admit, but....

Do you think Stieglitz's doctrine is a restatement of the obvious when considering his own time (in the early days of his photography when he moved from pictorialism to a more pure form of photography)? Was he re-hashing the obvious when he realized that photography had to stand on its own merits by virtue of the simple qualities of the camera and that of the lens? His doctrine of "equivalency" should be discussed here in the context of the time period in which it was spoken. Sixty years after his death and even longer since he made that statement makes it simple enough to claim that he was being, merely, pretentious. IMHO, I think it was profound.

Chuck

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

A rhetorical statement, I admit, but....

Do you think Stieglitz's doctrine is a restatement of the obvious when considering his own time (in the early days of his photography when he moved from pictorialism to a more pure form of photography)? Was he re-hashing the obvious when he realized that photography had to stand on its own merits by virtue of the simple qualities of the camera and that of the lens? His doctrine of "equivalency" should be discussed here in the context of the time period in which it was spoken. Sixty years after his death and even longer since he made that statement makes it simple enough to claim that he was being, merely, pretentious. IMHO, I think it was profound.

Chuck

Dear Chuck,

Entirely a fair comment to put it in its own time-context, but equally, that's part of the 'movement' mentality I mentioned elsewhere. I still have considerable difficulty with 'pictorialism' vs. 'pure' as a simple contrast. I am more skilled with words than with a camera, and I have serious doubts about superimposing quasi-mystical verbal comments on a non-verbal medium.

The thing is, I don't think anyone is that sure of what 'equivalency' meant when he originally said it, and now, 80 or so years on, I fear we may be trying to put ourselves in minds that are all but incomprehensible -- much as if we were trying to revive mediaeval discussions on the divine and human nature of Christ. We can use (much) the same words; we can assume we are addressing the same concepts; but to what extent can we have a meaningful discussion of what someone else meant a long time ago in a different culture? I'm not saying that the discussion is worthless; merely that there's a lot of very old smoke and cloudy mirrors involved.

Cheers,

R.

 

[RobertP]

Anything as emotive as Stieglitz's equivalents will always be open to varying interpretations. When looking at how Stieglitz evolved as an artist then you may want to keep in mind what was happening politically at the time in the art world. By working in a pictorialist style and selecting other photographers for his photo-seccessionist group that did also, he was able to elevate photography to a higher art form. Up until then photography was only considered a craft, a mechanical rendering of a lens and camera. The art world hadn't accepted it as an art form. (And in some circles they still don't.) So Stieglitz may have never been a pictorialist at heart. But a naturalist and then modernist. I think his genius was his ability to promote photography and he used pictorialism as a genre to achieve that goal. As he began to advocate "pure photography" ( I have a problem with that term) or "straight photography" ( that one too) of his modernist f 64 group, you could argue that Stieglitz didn't all of a sudden have this great awakening to what photography should be, modernism. But that he felt that way all along. Roger is correct in that, it didn't hurt having the right bloodlines and money also helped contribute to his success and influence in the art world. At one time Stieglitz just didn't have his finger on the pulse of the photographic art world. He was the pulse.

 

[Jim Jones]

Stieglitz deserves respect because he did as much to promote photography and other arts as he did to promote Stieglitz. His words can detract from his photographs. Newspapermen know that a good photo may deserve a good caption; a poor photo needs one.

A picture is often worth a thousand words. Unfortunately, the converse is not necessarly true. Therefore, I'm off to browse the gallery.

 

[Chuck_P]

I still have considerable difficulty with 'pictorialism' vs. 'pure' as a simple contrast.

I find it to be a most straight forward, unconfusing (is that even a word?:rolleyes concept. I fail to see how problematic these terms are to some. Just an observation from past discussions on the subject.

I am more skilled with words than with a camera, and I have serious doubts about superimposing quasi-mystical verbal comments on a non-verbal medium.
R.

I agree with this 100% and have felt so long before I ever started trying to understand historical figures like Adams, Stieglitz, White, etc.... You know who else would agree with you? AA himself ) , I have been around long enough to know that you just love that ). Just kidding, I feel that you may be one of those who really dislikes AA's writings and photographic approach. Perhaps I'm wrong though----anyway, these quotes seem to parallel your statement.

AA stated that he "cannot verbalize on the internal meaning in pictures whatsoever. Some of my friends can at very mystical levels. I prefer to say that if I feel something strongly that I would make a photograph that would be the equivalent of what I saw and felt." And similarly, "If something moves me, I do not question what it is or why; I am content to be moved. If I am sufficiently moved and it has aesthetic potential, I will make a picture."

Sorry for all the quoting, but your comments just seemed to strike evenly with those thoughts.

The equivalency, therefore, to get back to the OP, IMO, is the quest of the photographer and the photographer alone. Though I understand the terms "saw" and "felt" in the context of "equivalency", I really only grasp the "saw" part i.e., the visualization while practicing my own photography.

Anyway, this has been an interesting discussion.

Chuck

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Chuck,

AA was a great photographer, and a brilliant analyst, but he was trapped by both qualities. Eventually he was trapped into making nothing but faux-wilderness pics as propaganda for the Sierra Club, even though he was a brilliant advertising photographer, and he was trapped by his publishers into spinning one book out into three or more.

His genius/misfortune was precisely that he was too good at creating parallel universes of words and pictures -- and those who understand only the one or the other are fooled into assuming a higher correlation than exists between the two.

Pictorial vs. pure? Well, where do you point your camera? When do you shoot? How sharp a lens do you choose? (Soft focus is every bit as 'pure' as sharp focus, and arguably more specifically photographic.) Do you choose ortho or pan film? What about filters? What paper grade for printing? Do you use a diffuser at the printing stage? Gloss or textured paper? Do you dodge and burn, or not? Is colour more 'pure' than B+W? What about grain...?

There are so many aesthetic and technical choices that the very idea of 'pure' seems odd to me. I've lately been working on a piece for a magazine about how all is fair in love and war -- and photography. I'm not sure if they'll run it -- I'm not even sure if I'll submit it -- because it's not about 'choose this film, press this button in Photoshop', it's about thinking. In a sense, it's about equivalence, except that my own take on art history leads me, as I say, to dismiss this as a predictable and not very original response to the era in which Stieglitz was writing.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Daniel_OB]

Roger
it's not about 'choose this film, press this button in Photoshop', it's about thinking

agree here

But

When do you shoot? How sharp a lens do you choose? (Soft focus is every bit as 'pure' as sharp focus, and arguably more specifically photographic.) Do you choose ortho or pan film? What about filters? What paper grade for printing? Do you use a diffuser at the printing stage? Gloss or textured paper? Do you dodge and burn, or not? Is colour more 'pure' than B+W? What about grain...?

It smells on metaphysical defence, go as far as you wish to get defended. If it is true what you said how many adjustments you made in your head to get the text out of your soul, so and what you write is not pure, is not true.
Get down to earth with definition, in say, Webster, so just adjust to keep you and rest at the time we live in. As I read what many photogs say about truth and how they interpret the same, truth does not exist at all.

www.Leica-R.com