Tones vs. Aesthetics + Abstracts

[Dan Pavel]

'I said "Whether or not there is any "aesthetic" to the image is tied up in the subject, the composition, the rendition, the viewer, etc. - all of which is conceptually well past perception of tones." which is way more than what you quoted, both in words and concept. Also, the subject of a photo is not the actual object of the photo but that as seen in the photo. The subject is inextricable from the photo - even if you can't identify it."

Yes, that's what you said, and I didn't quoted the rest of your phrase because I only disagree with the part quoted. We should, of course, make a distinction between "the object' and "the subject" of an image. But I disagree with your definition of "subject".
Let's take this photo posted by Alex Benjamin:

The "object" here is "a window with its' curtain and some shadows".
The "subject" is something like "the shadows through my window can witness for the outside world".
Both are concepts (can be expressed in words), and therefore they have no visual aesthetic value. The visual aesthetic value comes from composition and the pondered fine gradation of tones.
The "artistic" value, which is different from the "aesthetic" value, comes from how powerful is the image in expressing the feelings and intentions of the photographer regarding the "subject".

The definition of the "subject" in an artistic work is more obvious in the opera music, where the "subject" is actually the "musical libretto", which has no musical aesthetic value "per se".

 

[Pieter12]

In many ways, the choice of tones helps establish a hoped for aesthetic in the artifact we call a "print". And that choice of tones is often greatly determined by the photographer at the time of exposure, even if the contribution of the printer is necessary at the time of printing as well.
Yousuf Karsh's portrait of Pablo Casals comes to mind:

View attachment 377601

Granted. Karsh most often borrows his aesthetic from classic, painted portraiture. Interesting in this case if I did not know by the title that this was a portrait of Pablo Casals, it could be Mstislav Rostropovich or maybe any cellist for that matter.

 

[MattKing]

Granted. Karsh most often borrows his aesthetic from classic, painted portraiture. Interesting in this case if I did not know by the title that this was a portrait of Pablo Casals, it could be Mstislav Rostropovich or maybe any cellist for that matter.

While the aesthetic is partially borrowed from that source, the fact that the subject is seen from behind certainly isn't!
There are probably cello experts out there who could, by looking at the bald head and how the bow and cello is held, determine that the cellist is Casals, and not someone else .

 

[Pieter12]

While the aesthetic is partially borrowed from that source, the fact that the subject is seen from behind certainly isn't!
There are probably cello experts out there who could, by looking at the bald head and how the bow and cello is held, determine that the cellist is Casals, and not someone else .

Well, they were both bald.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Also, a photo of a fork is not itself a fork. It's a photo.

...as a painting of a pipe is not actually a pipe, right?

Magritte would like a word .

 

[Pieter12]

...as a painting of a pipe is not actually a pipe, right?

Magritte would like a word .

What would he say beyond "I agree"?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The "object" here is "a window with its' curtain and some shadows".
The "subject" is something like "the shadows through my window can witness for the outside world".

You're on slippery linguistic grounds here. In English as in French, "subject" and "object" are often interchangeable in this context, and it would be easy to argue the exact opposite of what you wrote. Not to mention that what you call "subject" others would call "meaning," while others still would point that it's metaphor.

The meaning of a word is its usage, as Wittgenstein famously said, so best we use words whose usage is the same, or close to, for everyone if we want to avoid endless semantic debate.

 

[Pieter12]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." Humpty Dumpty replies, “The question is, which is to be master—that's all”.
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass.

 

[cliveh]

Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

'I said "Whether or not there is any "aesthetic" to the image is tied up in the subject, the composition, the rendition, the viewer, etc. - all of which is conceptually well past perception of tones." which is way more than what you quoted, both in words and concept. Also, the subject of a photo is not the actual object of the photo but that as seen in the photo. The subject is inextricable from the photo - even if you can't identify it."

Yes, that's what you said, and I didn't quoted the rest of your phrase because I only disagree with the part quoted. We should, of course, make a distinction between "the object' and "the subject" of an image. But I disagree with your definition of "subject".
Let's take this photo posted by Alex Benjamin:
View attachment 377598
The "object" here is "a window with its' curtain and some shadows".
The "subject" is something like "the shadows through my window can witness for the outside world".
Both are concepts (can be expressed in words), and therefore they have no visual aesthetic value. The visual aesthetic value comes from composition and the pondered fine gradation of tones.
The "artistic" value, which is different from the "aesthetic" value, comes from how powerful is the image in expressing the feelings and intentions of the photographer regarding the "subject".

The definition of the "subject" in an artistic work is more obvious in the opera music, where the "subject" is actually the "musical libretto", which has no musical aesthetic value "per se".

Beyond semantics, the question is, do you find it [beautiful, moving, captivating, interesting, compelling, etc.] because of the variety/harmony/combination/perfection of its tones, because it represents a window (albeit somewhat ambiguously), because it's a metaphor, or because something that is a mix of all of these?

 

[awty]

Tones are ubiquitous, its all about the light and how you compose it and what story you have to tell.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Tones are ubiquitous, its all about the light and how you compose it and what story you have to tell.

But isn't the tone the medium through which light, composition and story can be received, and maybe understood ?

I can take a Beethoven trio and say it's about sound, composition and the story he has to tell, but all this is nothing without the specific tones of the piano, the violin and the cello, and how they interact with each other.

 

[Dan Pavel]

"Beyond semantics, the question is, do you find it [beautiful, moving, captivating, interesting, compelling, etc.] because of the variety/harmony/combination/perfection of its tones, because it represents a window (albeit somewhat ambiguously), because it's a metaphor, or because something that is a mix of all of these"

Obvious, not because it represents a window. And not because it represent a metaphor because, at least for me, a visual metaphor is only the visual representation of a linguistic one. But that's me, others may think different.
After all, values like "beautiful, moving, captivating, interesting, compelling, etc " are the result of a combination of education and personal experience. Different cultures and different people within the same culture may value things different. But there is a common human experience that leads, in the end, to a somehow convergent evaluation of such values.

If your question is personal then I find the photo, let's say, appealing because it manages to express at least some of the peace, security and tranquility of a moment when the outer world is only present in some moving shadows coming through the window, like in Plato's cave. How does it do that? By using a quiet composition and pondered tonalities.

 

[Pieter12]

"Beyond semantics, the question is, do you find it [beautiful, moving, captivating, interesting, compelling, etc.] because of the variety/harmony/combination/perfection of its tones, because it represents a window (albeit somewhat ambiguously), because it's a metaphor, or because something that is a mix of all of these"

Obvious, not because it represents a window. And not because it represent a metaphor because, at least for me, a visual metaphor is only the visual representation of a linguistic one. But that's me, others may think different.
After all, values like "beautiful, moving, captivating, interesting, compelling, etc " are the result of a combination of education and personal experience. Different cultures and different people within the same culture may value things different. But there is a common human experience that leads, in the end, to a somehow convergent evaluation of such values.

If your question is personal then I find the photo, let's say, appealing because it manages to express at least some of the peace, security and tranquility of a moment when the outer world is only present in some moving shadows coming through the window, like in Plato's cave. How does it do that? By using a quiet composition and pondered tonalities.

Stories are up for interpretation. One could see the open window as a security risk, an apt invitation for intruders or maybe letting insects or animals in. The leafless branch shadows could be cast by a dying tree, about to crash through the window. Or maybe someone has left through the window, leaving it partially open. Or it could be left open so a clandestine lover could climb in later. Maybe a smoker has opened the window to air out the room. And on and on. So many stories.

 

[eli griggs]

IMO, the aesthetics of any image made by tones, rest squarely upon the basics of colour or shades and what is beside each other.

Just a red is best placed beside a green for contrast, the particular hues of a red and a green can be pleasing or discordant, dependent of each others bias, so too can a tone/shade of the darkest black be let down with a medium black tone vs. the visually shocking, and brightest white contrast.

Composition aside, it's the harmonious arrangement of tones or colours, cold vs. hot, heavy vs. weightlessness, etc that will allow an image to sing out or fall to the side because it's ubiquitous failure to bring out the best of both values, together.

 

[Don_ih]

In discussing the aesthetics of Alex's photo, no one is doing a good job of ignoring the subject of the photo.

Even in the instance where you can't identify a subject, whatever tones are in the print are the tones of the subject. There's nothing ethereal here. It's an actual experience - you can't divorce your aesthetic appreciation from what you are actually appreciating.

 

[runswithsizzers]

'I said "Whether or not there is any "aesthetic" to the image is tied up in the subject, the composition, the rendition, the viewer, etc. - all of which is conceptually well past perception of tones." which is way more than what you quoted, both in words and concept. Also, the subject of a photo is not the actual object of the photo but that as seen in the photo. The subject is inextricable from the photo - even if you can't identify it."

Yes, that's what you said, and I didn't quoted the rest of your phrase because I only disagree with the part quoted. We should, of course, make a distinction between "the object' and "the subject" of an image. But I disagree with your definition of "subject".
Let's take this photo posted by Alex Benjamin:
View attachment 377598
The "object" here is "a window with its' curtain and some shadows".
The "subject" is something like "the shadows through my window can witness for the outside world".
Both are concepts (can be expressed in words), and therefore they have no visual aesthetic value. The visual aesthetic value comes from composition and the pondered fine gradation of tones.
The "artistic" value, which is different from the "aesthetic" value, comes from how powerful is the image in expressing the feelings and intentions of the photographer regarding the "subject".

The definition of the "subject" in an artistic work is more obvious in the opera music, where the "subject" is actually the "musical libretto", which has no musical aesthetic value "per se".

Whether one wants to call it the "object" or the "subject," I am having trouble reading what "it" is. I can identify the window framing and the curtains, but I cannot identify the large circular pattern with mysterious black tendrils that seems to be coming in the open window. My mind cannot come up with a plausable set of naturally occurring phenomenon that would produce such a design or effect.

At first it is intriguing, but when the answer fails to reveal itself, it becomes annoying. If not a natural phenomenon, then perhaps some kind of artifact? A double exposure? A soap bubble on the negative?

I tend to really like window light in photos and paintings. Normally, my eyes would very much enjoy seeing the fine gradation of tones in the backlit curtains in contrast with the deep black shadows. But it's harder for me to enjoy the photo when there is a nagging suspicion in the back of my mind that I am somehow being tricked.

Its funny how I can enjoy pure abstractions, where there is no promise or hope of identifying the actual object(s) in the photo -- tho I usually find such abstractions to be less interesting than representational photos. I think my irritation with this photo is because, at first glance, it promises to be representational, but it turns out to be undecipherable, at least for me.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I think my irritation with this photo is because, at first glance, it promises to be representational, but it turns out to be undecipherable, at least for me.

But what if being undecipherable — or at least translating into photography the undecipherable — was precisely the point, the intent? The two photos I posted are from Minor White's ten-photo series called Sound of one hand. They were made in a four-year period (1957-1962, sequenced in 1965) during which White was immersed in Zen Bouddhism, and resulted from a reflection — spiritual and artistic — on the Zen koan "What is the sound of one hand clapping?". The title of this particular photograph, made in Rochester in 1958, is Windowsill Daydreaming.

The title makes it clear that Minor White wanted the viewer to recognize the object represented—a window. But "daydreaming" introduces ambiguity—on the level of meaning and on the level of form ("...the hard, angular forms created by the window frame are in tension with the softness of the ciruclar light that appears to be hovering magically at the base of the sill," as Paul Martineau noted). So it is representational. We're just not sure what it represents.

Of course, there is a long distance to travel between intent and reception. But this only makes clear that reading a photograph is a more complicated matter than just making it a question of "tones", "object" or "subject".

 

[runswithsizzers]

But what if being undecipherable — or at least translating into photography the undecipherable — was precisely the point, the intent? The two photos I posted are from Minor White's ten-photo series called Sound of one hand. They were made in a four-year period (1957-1962, sequenced in 1965) during which White was immersed in Zen Bouddhism, and resulted from a reflection — spiritual and artistic — on the Zen koan "What is the sound of one hand clapping?". The title of this particular photograph, made in Rochester in 1958, is Windowsill Daydreaming.

The title makes it clear that Minor White wanted the viewer to recognize the object represented—a window. But "daydreaming" introduces ambiguity—on the level of meaning and on the level of form ("...the hard, angular forms created by the window frame are in tension with the softness of the ciruclar light that appears to be hovering magically at the base of the sill," as Paul Martineau noted). So it is representational. We're just not sure what it represents.

Of course, there is a long distance to travel between intent and reception. But this only makes clear that reading a photograph is a more complicated matter than just making it a question of "tones", "object" or "subject".

I totally agree with the idea that the photographer has no obligation to create photos which are easy to read. And not every photo should be created with the intent to please the viewer or satisfy their needs. Challenging art may be better than the other kind. ;-)

It is worth mentioning, I think, Minor White's photo was first presented in this thread without conveying his title. I am a little uncomfortable with that. Whether or not photos should be presented with text -- and if with, how much -- is a subject I've spent many hours thinking about. I believe what we see is greatly influenced by what we know, and much of what we know is communicated by the written word. I think it is up to every photographer to decide how much or how little text to attach to their photos.

If the photo was on exhibit in a museum or gallery, there would be a small card displayed adjacent to the work, providing the title and whatever other text the photographer might suggest. Often times, photo books will present at least a title with each photo, and sometimes a caption. If the photographer has decided to title a photo, then I think the title should become a part of the work, and be included whenever the photo is shown. As you suggest, the title may sometimes give the viewer hints or clues about intent -- and if not, that is fine, too. Photographer's choice.

 

[MTGseattle]

Alex's window example is clearly a window, but the part that really adds interest is the reflection from something out of the frame which allows a group of shapes and tones that wouldn't exist otherwise. The linearity of the window frame against the curve in the drapes and the curves of the reflection make for an interesting composition that would be fairly dull otherwise.

To me an "abstract" photograph cannot contain an identifiable thing. I realize that this sets me up for a further debate regarding even the base materials we photograph. "You may call it abstract but I can tell those are bricks." Etc. ad nauseum. I would call the forks example a still-life composition before I would call it an abstract composition. I myself am guilty of blurring the lines of my own "definitions." I've taken closeup images of bark and driftwood and bricks, etc. I can further muddy the waters and say that my image of bark is not an image of a tree because it was actually a piece of logging debris, but we then descend into semantics.

Can we employ a properly functional camera and make truly abstract images? I am inclined to say no. I think within the realm of light sensitive materials, @DREW WILEY is on the right track where we would take the camera away and just play with chemicals/light on film/paper and see what happens.

 

[Don_ih]

I would call the forks example a still-life composition before I would call it an abstract composition.

I would, also. I wasn't putting it forth as an abstract composition but just as a reference for the notion that photography is necessarily abstraction. Being "abstract" is not the same as "unidentifiable". Abstract is the opposite of concrete, after all. So the conceptual or the idealized are abstract, whereas a real thing (like a fork in someone's mouth) is concrete. But even with that idea in mind, I wouldn't call it an abstract photo.

 

[Saganich]

All photographs have a reductive element in their creation and perception which could be referred to as an abstraction of reality. It's not fair to compare the reductivism in photography with painting, for example, when considering Mondrians reduction of the figurative image. Even when there is complete reduction, like in a Pollock, our brains still strain hard to make something real, meaningful or just figurative (color field abstract is a bit different). Anyway, I'm in that camp where I can't honestly describe an image I make as abstract unless the reduction has obliterated all physical reality. Quick example where there is no meaningful connection between object and viewer. But since we know it is a photograph, it has to be 'of something', which undermines the existence of anything abstract in photography.

 

[MattKing]

But since we know it is a photograph, it has to be 'of something', which undermines the existence of anything abstract in photography.

It can simply be a photograph of light patterns.

 

[DREW WILEY]

An additional term which might narrow down "abstract" to its stricter parameters would be "nonobjective".

 

[Pieter12]

All photographs have a reductive element in their creation and perception which could be referred to as an abstraction of reality. It's not fair to compare the reductivism in photography with painting, for example, when considering Mondrians reduction of the figurative image. Even when there is complete reduction, like in a Pollock, our brains still strain hard to make something real, meaningful or just figurative (color field abstract is a bit different). Anyway, I'm in that camp where I can't honestly describe an image I make as abstract unless the reduction has obliterated all physical reality. Quick example where there is no meaningful connection between object and viewer. But since we know it is a photograph, it has to be 'of something', which undermines the existence of anything abstract in photography.

Abstract photography can be created through camera or subject movement, light patterns, extreme close-ups and more.