| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/01/2006 10:27:45 AM · #26 |
I haven't near enough time to say all the things I'd like to say on this topic.
I agree that music has a way of touching people and eliciting emotion more effectively than almost anything (scientists can prove smell is a stronger trigger, but sometimes I wonder). But how is that any more *real* than a photo? I'd argue that music is equally fantastic and glossy. do you really believe that every love song is written/sung by someone head over heels in love? or that every blues or country singer has had that miserable a life? No way. They sing words often written by someone else that somehow trigger our own emotions and remind us of something personal that touches us. the words themselves are meaningless...it's what emotions they conjure up that is so powerful. Sometimes it's just an ideal, not even a real situation; but it's unique to the listener nonetheless.
I entirely disagree that a photograph can't elicit emotion. A personal example I can offer is Alecia's The Cellist
This photo hangs on my wall and virtually every time I look at it, I'm transported back some 3 years to the moment it was taken. I can feel the chill and dampness from the rain, I can smell the air and the musty smell of the store we had just been in prior to finding this guy. Each time I see it I have some new memory of some inane detail that was lost in the back of my brain somewhere minutes before. Somewhat ironically the photo reminds me of the music more than the music reminds me of the photo (We bought CDs from The Cellist himself).
Certainly I'd agree that music can elicit an emotion better than photographs on the whole. But specific photographs (like 6-year old photos of my newborn son, for example) will transcend fantasy and gloss as easily and powerfully as anything I've ever experienced.
P-ness |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 10:29:12 AM · #27 |
Kraft Singles ... can't live without it :)
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
reminds me of those little plastic slices of processed cheese. Yeah, it's cheese, but barely. |
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 10:30:40 AM · #28 |
All interesting points, particularly the one about living in an age with too much information, so we have to digest it with bite-sized images.
BTW, I never said that a photo couldn't elicit an emotion. It clearly can.
My point is that people have a way of judging by appearances. Appearances can be deceptive. We photographers are dealing with the art of appearances. Everything is not always what it appears. Not many people make a habit of challenging assumptions. Not everything in life is simple, but a photograph can make it look so.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 10:41:07 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
All interesting points, particularly the one about living in an age with too much information, so we have to digest it with bite-sized images.
BTW, I never said that a photo couldn't elicit an emotion. It clearly can.
My point is that people have a way of judging by appearances. Appearances can be deceptive. We photographers are dealing with the art of appearances. Everything is not always what it appears. Not many people make a habit of challenging assumptions. Not everything in life is simple, but a photograph can make it look so. |
well why didn'tcha just say that in the first place? ;)
all I'll add is that even in photography, occasionally everything is exactly as it seems :) |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 10:59:17 AM · #30 |
Bobster, I think you are merely thinking of photography as pop art. Which IMO is the type of photography that generally scores well here at DPC with some exceptons.
Pretty much all pop art is shallow. That includes music, photography, movies, theater, dance, etc. Pop music, for exampe: how deep is a typical Britney Spears song?
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 11:33:51 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Pop music, for exampe: how deep is a typical Britney Spears song? |
Aack. Bleech. Gaaaag. |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 11:36:08 AM · #32 |
No, I'm talking about all photography. Just because it might superficially be about important and weighty subjects doesn't mean that the genre itself is sophisticated and not superficial. In fact, photography always has the danger of over-simplifying most issues.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 11:37:11 AM · #33 |
Besides... if you take a Britney Spears song, you really think people would listen to it if she looked ugly? We're back to photography.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 11:46:38 AM · #34 |
I agree with bobster, with music or poetry the artist is guiding you through the experience, with photography it is the viewer alone seeing an image, it is static. Below, Pedro remebers the day and associates memories with his pic below, but he was there and has that reference point. Without that refence point it is just a pic, no smell of rain or sounds to associate for me. It may be a good photo, but it is going to be interpreted by the viewer.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 11:48:15 AM · #35 |
it's funny to me that you accuse photography of over simplifying, yet you yourself are over simplifying your own arguement by making such a blanket generalization.
You can't say "all photography is ...." anymore than you can say "all people are ..." or "all music is ..." |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 11:48:46 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Besides... if you take a Britney Spears song, you really think people would listen to it if she looked ugly? We're back to photography. |
How about Guns-n-Roses? There wasn't any "pretty" people in that band. And, they were quite popular :-) Red Hot Chilli Peppers?
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
No, I'm talking about all photography. Just because it might superficially be about important and weighty subjects doesn't mean that the genre itself is sophisticated and not superficial. In fact, photography always has the danger of over-simplifying most issues. |
I'd have to disagree. Our senses are all tied to mental processes. And, I believe that some photos can envoke those mental processes to provide stimuli to the other senses.
I wonder, do you think this of all the visual arts? And why or why not? For instance, why would a oil painting be less artificial than a photograph of the same subject?
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 11:49:50 AM · #37 |
music and poetry aren't interpreted?
Originally posted by redmondson01:
but it is going to be interpreted by the viewer. |
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 11:58:44 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Besides... if you take a Britney Spears song, you really think people would listen to it if she looked ugly? We're back to photography. |
Full Body Project (nudity warning)
Ok, using that theory, why is there such success behind this? It can't be because theres gloss, glamour or anything within media standards of beauty here... is it just because Mr.Nemoy decided to use his fame to exploit a group of chubby women? Are we only looking because its a train-wreck?
All mediums are forms of communication - wich takes two people to be successfull. The message that is being sent, and how the reciever chooses to percieve it. No matter how Mr.Nemoys models percieve themselves, you bring your own prejudices and bias with you look at his photos - and then make a choice about how far you think about them. And yet, theres impact in just in watching the reactions of those looking. Saying that, you could argue that the photo isnt the point at all, but the reaction it causes.
If someone is seeing nothing but gloss and lack of depth in a photo - can it be implied that they arent hearing the message being sent. Or maybe the unwillingness to listen to it?
Message edited by author 2006-06-01 11:59:37. |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 12:03:36 PM · #39 |
Spock likes big butts and he can not lie. All you other Vulcans can't deny..
Sorry couldn't help it... LOL
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 12:12:27 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Sorry couldn't help it... LOL |
Man, you made me spit my soda all over my keyboard... LOL
edit: and now its stuck in my head!!
Message edited by author 2006-06-01 12:12:44. |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 12:16:22 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
How about Guns-n-Roses? There wasn't any "pretty" people in that band. And, they were quite popular :-) Red Hot Chilli Peppers? |
Okay, not pretty but very photogenic. Everybody knows what Slash looks like. And Axl had a definite style. Also, everybody knows RHCP from their sock photos!
Interesting point about oil paintings though... I'll give it some thought. I've always been partial to abstract/expressionist 20th Century art.
I'm not stating any opinions here as fact by the way, just a subject I've been pondering for a while.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 12:25:34 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by redmondson01:
I agree with bobster, with music or poetry the artist is guiding you through the experience, with photography it is the viewer alone seeing an image, it is static. Below, Pedro remebers the day and associates memories with his pic below, but he was there and has that reference point. Without that refence point it is just a pic, no smell of rain or sounds to associate for me. It may be a good photo, but it is going to be interpreted by the viewer. |
and therein lies my point. the 'depth' or emotion you feel when you listen to music is rarely about the music itself...rather it's about what you associate with that music.
**edited to add: Axl and Slash are cool. :D
Message edited by author 2006-06-01 12:26:42. |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 12:39:38 PM · #43 |
I think with the coming of age of digital photography that people are questioning the authenticity of an image more than with film. In this sense i can see how photography can be seen as fantasy. Not everything you see is how it was seen by the photographer. However that does not make the image any less powerful. We as photographers are grabbing a moment of time and trying to convey some sort of emotion. Its that one moment that we try to stir something in just one person who views it. Music does the same thing, if you listen to an artist they generally want to try and touch at least one person, and if they have achieved this they have accomplished what they set out to do. When I shoot something I'm hoping to touch somebody, for them to see the world through anothers eyes. How can that be shallow? All art is open to interpretation and you as the viewer have to open yourself to the world as the artist see's or feels it. That is the beauty of art, whether its photography, music, or any other medium. Just my random thoughts on this.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 02:26:44 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Everything is not always what it appears. |
Exactly. Because I was starting to think you thought yourself exempt from the masses who judge on appearances - it really can't be helped. It's the one subject I wouldn't bat an eye at generalizing about North America (possible the entire world) as a whole. Every culture has it's own set of rules for judging it's inhabitants...right down to native tribes in Africa who have never even seen Vogue. Maybe you have the biggest goat in town so now everyone hates you.
:-)
Message edited by author 2006-06-01 14:27:50. |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 02:38:24 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Everything is not always what it appears. |
Exactly. Because I was starting to think you thought yourself exempt from the masses who judge on appearances - it really can't be helped. It's the one subject I wouldn't bat an eye at generalizing about North America (possible the entire world) as a whole. Every culture has it's own set of rules for judging it's inhabitants...right down to native tribes in Africa who have never even seen Vogue. Maybe you have the biggest goat in town so now everyone hates you.
:-) |
Did you MEAN to say "goat"? (wink)
R.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 03:27:23 PM · #46 |
I think this touches on the reason why the expressive struggle remains fascinating. I would maintain that it is impossible to properly tell any story - the observer can never know exactly how it felt to be part of that situation. However, there is a dichotomy, because neither can the participants. Two years ago I had my eye socket shattered in a random attack - I know, from having seen the CCTV pictures, that some fundamental elements of what believe I experienced are absolutely wrong - it just didn't happen the way I remember; and it happened to me.
So which witness to a story are you going to believe? Any of them? None of them? And yet we continue to tell stories, to relate our adventures, our good and our mis-fortunes. There are always stories to be told, but one has to leave behind the idea that they may be 'true' or 'false' - in any documentary sense. Sure you can look at an image, and we can agree that the elements of that situation were as depicted in that image, seen from that point of view. (the quibble about cloning out of elements is, basically, beside the point - because if one has that committment to a depiction of the 'real' one isn't going to do that, and the only reason to do so is for sales, which is just orthodox and dull). But the stories that we tell are not of the split second interactions of certain elements, but the ongoing processes between people - and most of them are products of, influenced by, processed by, and appeal to, our imaginations.
That's why, at least, i've got the point I've got to with this lark.
Ed |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 08:44:12 PM · #47 |
Getting back to oil paintings, they are often not reality either. When I paint, I don't paint the image as it appears, but as I think it should be. For instance, I want to paint a picture of boats, but I think the picture needs a big rock in the foreground, and maybe some sea grass, and then maybe I want to put the boat on a sandbar rather than in the water. So that is how I will paint it. In photography, we are not as limited as we were with the onset of digital imaging. Now that pic of the boat can actually have all those elements, I just need to take pics of them and combine them into one image.
Anyway, as to what goes on here, I do believe that complexity is not the key if you are looking for high scores. If you want to place a deeper meaning in your photos, chances are that not many will see it. I am not necessarily here for scores, though it would be nice to get an occasional six. I am exploring more and more my artist side, and that is how I take my images. It is the art and the emotion and meaning I am trying to get. Unfortunately, it is harder to do in the photo medium and with the restrictions of only taking one image, we can't really explore fully what we may be trying to create artistically.
Does photography dull our senses with simplistic images? Maybe, but when you are trying to "speak" to many people, you need to really get down to a basic level that all your audience can recognize. It is called universality. That is my biggest fear of one people, one government, one religion. It will be simplified in order to reach the masses. That is usually not a good thing. |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 08:53:23 PM · #48 |
I recently struggled with a similar issue, a fear that still photography was simply no longer significant. This all started with the realization that some of my recent work had turned shallow and as I browsed to find some inspiration I just found more example of the same empty work. I will admit that I found some very good work created by some wonderful photographers, but nothing had the kind of impact that I believe photography should. My internet connection was down this morning, so I resorted to browsing through some old photography books and magazines, and in them I found some of the excitement that was missing. For example, much of Sam Abel's work had this amazing layering where there were stories happening in the foreground and background as well as at the center of interest. Sebastião Salgado's work carries beauty and dispare to the extreme and if it doesn't tear at your soul you must not have one. Those are probably fairly obvious examples, but I also remember coming face to face with a real photographic print of Greg Gorman's portrait of Jamie Lee Curtis. While the subject of this image is clearly in the realm of hollywood, the visual depth of this portrait is shocking. I believe the point that I am trying to get to is that when you look at the serious work of a master, there is nothing shallow about it. Great photography can feature metaphore, symbolism and foreshadowing along with a host of other artistic and literary techniques. The master's take us well beyond apperances and a single image can have an impact that will last hours, days, or maybe even a lifetime.
I think the problem is that the vast majority of the photography encountred on internet forums and discussion groups does not reach into the realm of greatness. I'm a huge fan of dpc and we have some wonderfull photographers contributing to the site, but compare even our best to that of the masters and the gap can be huge. My suggestion is that if our work feels shallow it is our failure because we have not taken the work beyond the level of apperances by incorporating all of the artistic and literary devices at our disposal.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2006 09:30:18 PM · #49 |
| Just looked at some images by Sebastio Salgado. It has made me realize that the reason why his images come out and grab you is because he is making an important contribution to turmoils in his home country. I think that with photography, what is really causing it to become oversimplified and lacking is that there is too many pictures being taken of pretty much nothing. I have been dealing with that fact for a long while. I photograph family, vacations, pets, flowers, things I want to remember. My pictures will never have a value except to me. The question is, can I live with that? Still out on that one. |
|
|
|
06/01/2006 11:05:01 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
...browsing through some old photography books and magazines... I found some of the excitement that was missing. For example, much of Sam Abel's work had this amazing layering where there were stories happening in the foreground and background as well as at the center of interest. Sebastião Salgado's work carries beauty and dispare to the extreme and if it doesn't tear at your soul you must not have one... I also remember coming face to face with a real photographic print of Greg Gorman's portrait of Jamie Lee Curtis. While the subject of this image is clearly in the realm of hollywood, the visual depth of this portrait is shocking. I believe the point that I am trying to get to is that when you look at the serious work of a master, there is nothing shallow about it. Great photography can feature metaphore, symbolism and foreshadowing along with a host of other artistic and literary techniques. The master's take us well beyond apperances and a single image can have an impact that will last hours, days, or maybe even a lifetime.
...My suggestion is that if our work feels shallow it is our failure because we have not taken the work beyond the level of apperances by incorporating all of the artistic and literary devices at our disposal. |
Well said.
It also occurs to me that the disparus between reality and illusion (the terms used to illustrate the state of mind at the root of the original hypothesis in this thread) would not occur to a child or anyone somewhat in touch with that sort of tangible simplicity, which is so conducive to the appreciation of anything.
|
|
