The "visceral" feeling

[nikos79]

And?

Do you think there's a significant difference between what you see in a scene you photograph and what you see in a photo someone else took?

Tremendous one.
Firstly, you are not emotionally attached to it

 

[Don_ih]

Firstly, you are not emotionally attached to it

Really? You think you get "that visceral feeling" looking at someone else's photo and you're not emotionally attached to it?

 

[Don_ih]

Furthermore, the amount of personal attachment you have to your own photos is likely highly variable. I'd say most photos people take don't have that much emotional value. Emotional attachment is only one potential relevant aspect - it's not always a motivation. But it is relevant if you care about the photo.

 

[nikos79]

Really? You think you get "that visceral feeling" looking at someone else's photo and you're not emotionally attached to it?

Definitely. I wasn’t there, I didn’t live the experience and the moment, yet I am moved by it.

In a very different way than the photographer did.

 

[Don_ih]

Definitely. I wasn’t there, I didn’t live the experience and the moment, yet I am moved by it.

In a very different way than the photographer did.

You don't know how the photographer was moved.

Being "moved" is an emotional response, by the way.

 

[nikos79]

You don't know how the photographer was moved.

Being "moved" is an emotional response, by the way.

Yes but it happened after looking at photographs

 

[Don_ih]

The point of what I was saying is that what makes something worth photographing is often also what makes the photo worth looking at. In that way, the photographer is putting into the photo what the viewer is getting out of it. That may or may not be completely intellectually utterable. Photos are not words yet can be a form of (at least implied or understood) communication - where the message is not anything more than viewing the photo itself.

You can examine the common characteristics of photos you like, to group them by categories, to sift them into themes or genres. But to some extent, all of that is like going through your house and sorting all your possessions by colour: items in the same group may or may not be essentially similar - if they are, it's more or less coincidental.

 

[nikos79]

The point of what I was saying is that what makes something worth photographing is often also what makes the photo worth looking at. In that way, the photographer is putting into the photo what the viewer is getting out of it. That may or may not be completely intellectually utterable. Photos are not words yet can be a form of (at least implied or understood) communication - where the message is not anything more than viewing the photo itself.

You can examine the common characteristics of photos you like, to group them by categories, to sift them into themes or genres. But to some extent, all of that is like going through your house and sorting all your possessions by colour: items in the same group may or may not be essentially similar - if they are, it's more or less coincidental.

How about the 5 keys that define photographic vision according to John Szarkowsky?

 

[Don_ih]

How about trying to think for yourself? He wasn't writing laws or rules - he was writing what he thought.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In several previous threads, people have mentioned that hard to explain visceral or gut feeling, the moment when you’re casually looking at photographs and suddenly one stops you cold, resonates deeply, and you don’t quite know why.

Have you ever tried to think about this feeling in a more systematic way? What are the qualities that for you tend to trigger it?

When I reflect on the photographs that have affected me this way, a few recurring elements seem to appear:

1. Economy of elements — a sense that less is more e.g Roy De Carava hand outside a car
2. Ambiguity — images that , even though you clearly see what they depict, somehow also depict "nothing." e.g. Andre Kertesz man carrying a boat
3. Narrative potential — a photograph that feels like the beginning of a long story, one you could imagine or write if you had the right words. e.g. August Sander the Gypsy
4. A strong but restrained form — structure that supports the image without overpowering it, a balance between form and content, e.g. Bill Brandt - Francis Bacon Portrait
5. Dynamic relationships within the frame — a dialogue between elements that creates tension or contrast. e.g. Garry Winogrand Women Walking in LA
6. Nostalgia — the feeling of stillness or a moment frozen in time, something that has passed in time and will never come back again or be the way it was. e.g. HCB behind the Gare St. Lazare
7. An unforgettable face — one that lingers in your mind long after you’ve looked away. e.g. Paul Strand Portrait of a Young Man
8. Tenderness - Beauty and compassion e.g. Eugene Smith walk in the garden

I’m curious to hear how others experience this. What makes a photograph stay with you?

When you look at a photo of a person you love, you fall in love all over again.

 

[nikos79]

I am finding this discussion a bit exhausting.

I was hoping to hear how others reflect on this as viewers, but the conversation keeps drifting toward why this kind of feeling is unexplainable or shouldn’t really be questioned, which isn’t what I was asking.

I already laid out my own thoughts in the opening post. They’re just reflections, not the 10 commandments.

I will leave it there and see if anyone wants to engage with the original question.

 

[koraks]

why this kind of feeling is unexplainable

It's a feeling. If it were something rational, it would be a thought or something like a reasoning. But as a feeling, it's inherently irrational, so it defies explanation.

see if anyone wants to engage with the original question.

The people you now seem to be disappointed with did engage with your question. You're just disappointed with the result. Why? From a rational viewpoint, you got good and useful responses. Yet, you're unhappy with them. Can you explain this feeling? Why is it valid? Or is it just...a feeling.

 

[nikos79]

It's a feeling. If it were something rational, it would be a thought or something like a reasoning. But as a feeling, it's inherently irrational, so it defies explanation.

Do you think if I asked "What do you think makes a photo good?" would have similar answers?

The people you now seem to be disappointed with did engage with your question. You're just disappointed with the result. Why? From a rational viewpoint, you got good and useful responses. Yet, you're unhappy with them. Can you explain this feeling? Why is it valid? Or is it just...a feeling.

I can explain it but in order to do that we would have to go into my whole history in the forum. Better let's do it in a private message

 

[koraks]

Do you think if I asked "What do you think makes a photo good?" would have similar answers?

I think you would have gotten answers along the lines of lists of criteria etc. It's a different question of course; not more or less interesting. Just very different.

I can explain it but in order to do that we would have to go into my whole history in the forum.

And that probably wouldn't even cut it, still. I think in a similar vein, if you want to explain someone's visceral response to an image you'd have to go through potentially the entirety of human evolution - among others. Everything comes together in that split second. How could one possibly start to understand that, let alone explain it to someone else? My visceral response to a photo might be influenced by a story I heard or read as a kid in a very specific period when the weather was such and so, and our family was going through this and that, and the scent of that particular book had something to do with it, and somehow that memory is triggered when I see that photo. And at the very same instant, there's the instinctive response that millions of years of evolution hardwired into my reptile brain, whether I had a good night's sleep and what I had for dinner last night - oh, and in there somewhere might also be something about the distance between a certain shape in the image to the edge of the frame. You tell me how to neatly separate all that out into a convenient list. You can't!

That visceral response sums up who you are at a particular moment in time and says more about you as a person, your history and perhaps by extension humanity, than about the photo as such. Why one photo does that for one person - well, who the heck knows. What's interesting is that we see some photos being liked by many people - although that still isn't the same as all those people truly having that same visceral response to it. I can like a particular wallpaper pattern so I opt to put it on the little strip of wall between the door and the closet in the spare bedroom, but that's not really what we're talking about here...so go ahead and try to find patterns in all this. Try to make sense of it.

We can calculate additional decimals of pi, but we're never really going to get to the end of it. It's the same with this. It's an onion you can keep peeling and peeling - except that on this onion, you don't even know whether you're peeling from the outside in or the inside out, or starting somewhere in the middle, until you realize it's none of those and you're not even peeling - and even the onion might not exist.

Hold a cup of water in your hand - but without the cup. That's what you're trying to do.

 

[nikos79]

I think you would have gotten answers along the lines of lists of criteria etc. It's a different question of course; not more or less interesting. Just very different.


And that probably wouldn't even cut it, still. I think in a similar vein, if you want to explain someone's visceral response to an image you'd have to go through potentially the entirety of human evolution - among others. Everything comes together in that split second. How could one possibly start to understand that, let alone explain it to someone else? My visceral response to a photo might be influenced by a story I heard or read as a kid in a very specific period when the weather was such and so, and our family was going through this and that, and the scent of that particular book had something to do with it, and somehow that memory is triggered when I see that photo. And at the very same instant, there's the instinctive response that millions of years of evolution hardwired into my reptile brain, whether I had a good night's sleep and what I had for dinner last night - oh, and in there somewhere might also be something about the distance between a certain shape in the image to the edge of the frame. You tell me how to neatly separate all that out into a convenient list. You can't!

That visceral response sums up who you are at a particular moment in time and says more about you as a person, your history and perhaps by extension humanity, than about the photo as such. Why one photo does that for one person - well, who the heck knows. What's interesting is that we see some photos being liked by many people - although that still isn't the same as all those people truly having that same visceral response to it. I can like a particular wallpaper pattern so I opt to put it on the little strip of wall between the door and the closet in the spare bedroom, but that's not really what we're talking about here...so go ahead and try to find patterns in all this. Try to make sense of it.

We can calculate additional decimals of pi, but we're never really going to get to the end of it. It's the same with this. It's an onion you can keep peeling and peeling - except that on this onion, you don't even know whether you're peeling from the outside in or the inside out, or starting somewhere in the middle, until you realize it's none of those and you're not even peeling - and even the onion might not exist.

Hold a cup of water in your hand - but without the cup. That's what you're trying to do.

Thanks for the detailed explanation I got it now.

I think what I really wanted to ask is "What do you think makes a photograph good?"

 

[Saganich]

This all reminds me of a Rolland Barthe essay I read awhile ago where he talks about his concepts of punctum and stadium...from wikki...Roland Barthes' concept of the punctum in photography describes a detail in an image that "punctures" or pierces the viewer, creating a deeply personal and emotional connection, a "wound" that goes beyond the general cultural meaning (the studium) of the photo, often involving a surprising, unintentional element like a particular expression or object that resonates with the viewer's own experience, signifying time, vulnerability, or mortality.

 

[BrianShaw]

Thanks for the detailed explanation I got it now.

I think what I really wanted to ask is "What do you think makes a photograph good?"

Then your initial list is quite good. Especially if you add #9: Evokes a visceral or gut feeling.

 

[Arthurwg]

Well known art curator Henry Geldzahler would say that he knew he was in the presence of great art when it made him feel nauseous.

 

[Arthurwg]

A good example for me is my reaction to some of the paintings by Willem de Kooning: OMG!

 

[Pieter12]

I don't know about nauseous. Dizzy, maybe.

 

[Don_ih]

"What do you think makes a photograph good?"

Not any one thing. Likely a large group of things that varies between viewers. Apart from any personal significance (such as family photos, photos of friends or familiar places and things), people judge photos first by subject, then by execution ("Looks a bit out of focus"), then maybe composition, then maybe significance. People tend to care about photos of subjects they already care about. People tend to like photos that make the subject look good. People tend to find photos important if they find the subject significant.

To my right is a book with Capa's Omaha beach photo. Lots of people think it's a good photo. I don't think much of it. His camera appears to have been gummed up. (I know he blamed the assistant for melting his film by overeager drying but that photo looks just like the result of a malfunctioning camera). Anyway, is it a good photo? I probably would have thought more of it if I was there that day. But is it even possible to have truly objective criteria for "a good photo" when almost every photo has a different subject and an unknown and unknowable viewer?

 

[Pieter12]

Not any one thing. Likely a large group of things that varies between viewers. Apart from any personal significance (such as family photos, photos of friends or familiar places and things), people judge photos first by subject, then by execution ("Looks a bit out of focus"), then maybe composition, then maybe significance. People tend to care about photos of subjects they already care about. People tend to like photos that make the subject look good. People tend to find photos important if they find the subject significant.

To my right is a book with Capa's Omaha beach photo. Lots of people think it's a good photo. I don't think much of it. His camera appears to have been gummed up. (I know he blamed the assistant for melting his film by overeager drying but that photo looks just like the result of a malfunctioning camera). Anyway, is it a good photo? I probably would have thought more of it if I was there that day. But is it even possible to have truly objective criteria for "a good photo" when almost every photo has a different subject and an unknown and unknowable viewer?

View attachment 415094

I see beyond the technical flaws in the photo. Actually I think they may add to the emotion, desperation and urgency depicted. Of course, the context cannot be ignored.

 

[Don_ih]

I see beyond the technical flaws in the photo. Actually I think they may add to the emotion, desperation and urgency depicted. Of course, the context cannot be ignored.

My disliking the photo is not really due to the technical flaws. Those flaws do, however, make it a fairly bad documentary photo - it tells you nothing on its own - everything that's happening, including what side that guy is on, needs to be told to you.

I actually just don't like how it looks. That's really all there is to it. I can see that the photo carries an atmosphere that was probably more appropriate to the event than a perfectly clear photo would be, and I can appreciate that. I wouldn't like a perfectly clear one, either. I'd probably like it whole lot less, even.

But I've also never like war photographs.

My point is, though, I may not be the proper audience to judge if such a photo counts as good, since I just can't seem to think it is, in spite of seeing its merit.

 

[Arthurwg]

But I've also never like war photographs.

Why is that?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Thanks for the detailed explanation I got it now.

I think what I really wanted to ask is "What do you think makes a photograph good?"

There's no accounting for taste.