Meaning in photographs - yes, it's another of 'those' threads...

elven

Are you trying to say something with your pictures? Do you think you can say something with a photograph, and have your message ‘read’ successfully by the viewer?

I recently started thinking a lot about what my pictures are about. Yes, more pointless navel gazing, you might say… but it gets a bit empty after a while, mindlessly shooting stuff that just looks pretty in a rectangle/square on the screen/paper. I know I’ve tried to discuss this before but I don’t think that I got anywhere near the real issue – but I found an example recently that made me think.

http://www.hidinginplainsight.mobi/2007/01/michael-kenna.html

For those who can’t be bothered reading, the gist of it is contained in the paragraphs:

“I don't think I have ever seen a Kenna picture with which the word "beautiful" could not reasonably be associated. Is this a good thing? It depends, I suppose, on what is done to attain beauty, and on what is neglected.

Kenna typically photographs scenes in which natural imperfection is obscured in one way or another, whether by the enveloping presence of snow or mist, by the less natural smoothing effect of long exposures on clouds and water, or by frank manipulation in the darkroom.

Nothing wrong with any of that. Or is there? I think maybe there is. Implicit in every Kenna photograph is a statement that the world as it is just isn't good enough. That it can be improved upon by stratagems such as cottony skies and weirdly smooth water (tricks that, regrettably, have spread well beyond Kenna to become ubiquitous among a certain class of "artistic" photographer.)”

I think it’s fairly safe to say that the majority of us lot are inclined to try and present this romanticised view of the beauty we find the in the world. I’m particularly guilty of straying pretty far from the real scene in front of me through the use of shallow DoF, narrow field of view (no wide angle lenses here) and yes, I freely admit to ‘gardening’ – moving a stray blade of grass or holding a branch out of the way to get that perfect scene in front of the lens. Then, in photoshop, I’m guilty of cloning out twigs or leaves that are in the wrong place, or changing colours, cropping and dodging and burning in order to present my idealistic representation of the subject. That’s because I’ve always been focused on the visual, even removed from a pure representation of the subject on screen/paper, for the sake of creating something aesthetically pleasing in itself, rather than trying to capture the inherent beauty of the subject.

I get enough stick from friends and family about photoshop being ‘cheating’ but beyond that, before that, is the inclination to edit out the (perceived) imprefections in a scene necessarily a bad thing by default? (At this point, I’m well aware of my previous ramblings on how good/bad right/wrong etc etc are completely subjective but putting that aside, for a moment) Is there any real meaning to be had, beyond pretty, in pictures that have had the imprefections – the real life – edited out of them through all the methods I talked about? And then, do we even care? Do we want our pictures to say something, or just look good on a wall? I’d rather not look at those pre-framed pictures in Dunnes/Next/Roches and think that’s the level my photography is at. But at the same time, I’ve never really been trying to ‘say’ anything about the world, my thoughts, my views, through my photographs, apart from “Here’s a nice collection of shapes/lines/textures/colours arranged pleasingly in a rectangle/square” that holds the attention for all of two seconds – if I’m lucky.

Unfortunately I see the inclusion of these elements that I would otherwise have edited out as a compromise on the graphic design, or compositional element of the picture. Most of the photographs that are held up by society (or maybe just art critics or pretentious photography geeks who like obscure photography) as examples of pictures with meaning seem, to me, to be far less visually engaging than those who have the sole purpose of being aesthetically pleasing. It makes me feel like I don’t get it, and stupid, and maybe that’s what they want. But should you really need to learn how to ‘read’ a picture to be able to appreciate it? Is the intent of the photographer important? That’s a whole other subject that I’ve got a bit of thinking about, so you can probably expect another post on that subject.

But anyway, does anyone have any thoughts on this? On editing out reality? On the meaning of pictures? On learning to read photography?

Fajitas!

I'm writing a 2000 word essay on how advertising relates to culture at the moment, so not here for a big spiel.

Check out Jeff Wall for meaning in photographs:
http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/jeffwall/

Click 'Broadband flash' and go through the gallery. You can click to see the image closer, and get some of the meanings in text...there's a hell of a lot to discuss in them.

311

Do you have to go to college to punctuate a picture ,artistically ?

DadaKopf

Jeff Wall is fantastic. And fits perfectly with that poxy 'manipulation' thread. Hehehe.

As far as meaning in photography, I think it's necessarily and eternally problematic. Similar to 'what is meaning in literature?', but much more open, in the sense that art is an open grammar whose rules shift ceaselessly. Like, "What's 'meaning in books'?"

I've been wading through the Routledge 'Critical Introduction to Photography', which is excellent. But more obtuse stuff is an amazing book called 'The Wake of Imagination' by Richard Kearney, and the 'Continental Aesthetics Reader' by Clive Cazeaux. I also intend to read Susan Sontag's 'On Photography'.

But mostly, I have to think of it in relation to imaging of the developing world. The organisation I work in is spearheading some work in the area, through assisting in drawing up codes on the use of images based on extensive analysis, and, by extension, the magazine I produce.

'Photography' has never been adequately defined, because it can't be. A definition implies a particular person's or culture's concepts around the activity, and these change radically across people, time and space. As the first cultural anthropologist said, a violin in Viennese culture is not the same object as a fiddle in the Aran islands (I'm paraphrasing).

I have loads of thoughts about this every day! But I have to get back to work. Back later!

Fajitas!

Nope.

EDIT: That nope was replying to Brian's comment... Just in case You thought I was dismissing the above!

311

I have never tried to say anything with my photos ,I've never been aware of that side of it .I'd love to give it a bash though ,rather than gawking and shooting:) ,like a bull with gun.

magicbastarder

i see no meaning in my photos, nor have i ever looked for any.
that would imply an agenda i don't have; i do best at landscape work, and i've never tried to 'say' anything with it.

irishcrazyhorse

Alot of my work has alot of back meaning(well except for the series with the hot girls,thats just for fun), Im working on a large series of work and the photographs are only a means of getting my view across

Fenster

Yes, absolutely.

Oh for sure, it's not in all of my photos, but all of my favourite ones have it.

minikin

Elven,

If you're seriously interested in exploring semiology (the study of signs and symbols) then have a read of Roland Barthes book 'Elements of Semiology'
It was required reading on our course... makes you appreciate the communication that takes place when you create or view images.

It can seem like heavy going in places but well worth it.

DadaKopf

elven wrote:

But should you really need to learn how to ‘read’ a picture to be able to appreciate it? Is the intent of the photographer important? That’s a whole other subject that I’ve got a bit of thinking about, so you can probably expect another post on that subject.

Elven, I think you've expressed your own belief in photography, and asked some really important questions. But I also think what you say underlines how subjective it all is. How personal making and receiving photographs, and photographic meaning is.

But there's a paradox at the heart of this: photographs are products of their time, so they're not entirely subjective. 'Structures' are acting on them externally all the time. And in different times and places, they can change their meaning because of those structures.

I mean, above, you say a good photo is a good photo because it hits you instantly. Maybe. Or maybe we tend to think that because we are, today, living in fast times. Graphic design is 'fast art', versus other forms that take longer to interpret. I mean, a Candida Hoefer photo, which hit you because they're huge demand inspection and time. Not only that, but their compostition, size and placing on walls trigger sentiments that connect us with post-renaissance and neo-classical painting. On the other hand, a photographic exhibition, made up of visually appealing photos, may get a message across quickly, but it's the narrative made up of the photographs displayed together that takes time to interpret.

In these fast times, people want a quick fix.

I think this is what Flickr is about. I've tried to understand how it works, or how it's affecting how we see and interpret photograps. It's a very interesting case study.

Anyway, you say photos have to be 'beautiful'. Do they? I don't know. It depends. Or maybe the question is broader: 'What is beauty?'.

DadaKopf

minikin wrote:

Elven,

If you're seriously interested in exploring semiology (the study of signs and symbols) then have a read of Roland Barthes book 'Elements of Semiology'
It was required reading on our course... makes you appreciate the communication that takes place when you create or view images.

It can seem like heavy going in places but well worth it.

Barthes is HAAAARD. And not always convincing. Elven, you should explore your questions, definitely. And I'm always happy to explore concepts here. I would recommend getting a good reader that explores photography - not just semiology (the study of symbols and meaning), but also aesthetics (the philosophy of beauty), critical theory (the philosophy of analysis and criticism) and cultural political economy (critical theory of culture).

minikin

Agree that barthes may be the deep end, but I get the impression that Elven would get something out of it though (she's asking the right questions from the get go, which is a great start).

get googling, there are a lot of introductions to visual theory out there.
maybe jean mohr / john berger would be a better start

read up on gestalt theory
apogeephoto.com has a series of articles by michael fulks, as an intro. (directly related to photography)
Equilibrium http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-6/mag2-3mf.shtml
Closure http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-6/mag2-3mf.shtml
Proximity http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-6/mag2-5mf1.shtml
Continuation http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag2-6/mag2-6continuity.shtml
Figure/ground http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag2-6/mag2-9gestalt.shtml

pokypoky

I think huge importance can be placed upon the relationship of your interpretation of the image to the original intention of the photographer and finally your own impressions of the subject material within the image.

Its a combination of these that produce personal meaning. When a photographer manipulates these three successfully within an image to hit a collective nerve among many the photograph itself become an iconic part of the canon of comparison that standardises our assignment of meaning to others. Maybe?

elven

Pokypoky (oh, how I giggle when typing that, sorry, I love it) - that first paragraph is pretty much what I said on Colin Jago's blog recently in response to the whole'communication through photography' issue, in the match - or mismatch - of photographer and viewer and their respective beliefs, experience and responses. But when you do get a picture that hits that iconic standard, I think it generally becomes a cliche and is particularly simplistic in nature to possible realise that goal.

But as for the rest:

Fajitas - Jeff Wall’s much touted and trumpeted work is one of the things that's fulled my thinking on this. I'm not sure how much I'm inclined to appreciate photos that you have to be familiar with particular paintings/artists, know about historical art movements, or be aware of the process involved in its creation, to be able to understand or enjoy. Purely as my own personal preference, I like stuff that’s accessible, and responds on a less conscious level. And yes, I suppose that means I’m talking about photography that is considered beautiful in the more conventional sense.

But that's pretty much getting to the point that Dadkopf made in his/her second post about the whole 'quick fix' thing. It's so easy to see the soulless nature of flickr, when my simplistic, graphic, strong pictures make their way fairly instantly into explore - because it's based on thumbnails, and web surfing, which deals with instantaneous impact. I think there is a huge amount of photography that looks far far better as a large print, rather than 800x600px, because there are elements that you simply can't pick up on otherwise.

But I also think that there's a huge amount of pretentiousness when it comes to the opposite - or maybe even not so opposite end of the scale with guys like Jeff Wall, and after mulling it over and reading these (thoughtful and much appreciated!!!) responses, I've come to a bit of a conclusion, I suppose. I do find the whole theory of aesthetics interesting, but I don't think it warrants a whole lot of reading - because I have some silly core belief that I don't want to have to learn how to appreciate something, if it doesn't just 'speak to me'. I also believe that I’ve spent enough time looking at pictures in that purely graphical context, to have an understanding for the basics of composition and be able to produce something that plays on those ‘rules’. That's not to say I'm only interested in the quick fix - I have found pictures that have grown more interesting to me over time and I like that too.

That leads on to the old 'what is beauty' question, again referenced by DadKopf, and I think I'm fairly conventional on that one in terms of enjoying pictures with interesting textures and colours and shapes, regardless of their content - and that's where the issue of the different kinds of photographs comes into this... some pictures, I think, are about the final product, the print, the markings on the paper - others are about the subject and content. I think in a few cases that can overlap but I haven't seen it an awful lot, in my limited experience. I find that very intriguing.

I'm not sure if I nailed my main question though - what I'm really asking is pretty much: is there any meaning in those pictures where you consider the final print as an object of purely visual pleasure, like a study of the patterns in ice, or the bark of a tree or cracks in stone? Are they just wallpaper, or can you attribute something more to them, without having to know about something external to the photograph itself? I think I’ve resigned myself to

And what about the Disney-fied world that we seem to be trying to find/create through this fascination with excluding ‘imperfections’, including power lines, roads, cars, any signs of modern life or industrialisation (unless its picturesque industrialisation, obviously) – Magic I know you said that you don’t put any thought into your landscapes, and consciously try to say something but you inevitably do, through your choice of what to shoot and what to exclude, and how you go about processing the image from the camera. The (landscape) pictures that I see which include those things, I don’t tend to look twice at because they look ordinary to me, rather than something that’s been striven for… they look thoughtless, just a frame around a slice of normal life that anyone could have wandered past and shot with a disposable camera. Is that conditioning from our constant exposure to these windows XP desktop style, postcard perfect commercial pictures? Is there (purely aesthetic, visual, graphic) beauty to be found in normal life? I think maybe you should post your essay here Al…!

magicbastarder

elven wrote:

Magic I know you said that you don’t put any thought into your landscapes, and consciously try to say something but you inevitably do, through your choice of what to shoot and what to exclude, and how you go about processing the image from the camera.

at severe risk of contradicting something you didn't mean to say, i do put a lot of thought into my photography, in the sense that i'll put a lot of groundwork into getting a good shot - what i meant was i don't intend my landscape photography to be anything other than pleasing to the eye.
i've never given myself a project, which i suppose would be the easiest way of trying to say something with what i take, and i've had the notion of a project in the back of my mind for a while, but haven't been able to think of anything which has struck me as engaging and achievable.

Dara Robinson

First off I have to say that this is one of the most interesting threads I have read in a while. Thanks Elven.


On this subject I am torn, very very torn. And have been for a while.

On one hand we have the 'pretty' pictures. I truly think that it is important to look at beautiful things in this life and that is one of the reasons I almost exclusively shoot this kind of photography. I am also very guilty of staging my photography, editing, cropping and manipulating where convenient for me and try to get the most pleasing picture that I can out what I have available pre and post taking the shot.
Due to my lack of experience and talent (something I hope will improve with time and experience) at the moment I would be extremely happy with some of my pictures being worthy of hanging on someone's wall. But I have considered from time to time taking it that step further. Problem is that I think that you need to be in that 'frame of mind' I suppose. You need to be trying to actually say something and then have the eye to capture it in a way that others can see what you were trying to say at that time. I also think that this comes with experience. I hope to go travelling at some stage for a long period (6 months +) and I would like to think that between now and then I gain enough experience so that over that time something 'inspires' me and I am able to capture some shots that speak to people. I mean, is that not what we all want? To speak to someone in some way with our photography. I know that’s what I am doing. The sun sets, the sun rises, the lonely tree and all those other shots that we all take. Are these not to impact and touch in some way the viewer? Take for example one of the sunset photos I took while in Spain. Its a great shot (I like to think ) of a very cloudy sunset in which the sun is giving a very yellow feel. I want people to go... lovely, breath taking and so on. Now, whether people do that or not is a different story.

On the other hand when we start to speak of artistic photography, even though (as I touched on above) I would like to produce some of these photography, one has to take into account that a huge amount of the political and social photography over the years that has impacted on nations (or large amounts of people) has been staged and openly (eventually) admitted by the photographers in question.

So where do we go from where? If beautiful photography is staged (to some degree or another) and so is artistic, social and or political photography staged (to some degree or another) what is the difference if not a level of experience and a different project in mind at the time.


Hmmm…. Sitting here with a blank mind. Me thinks I just got lost in my own post. If I get back to what was in my mind 30 mins ago I’ll post some more. And I am sorry if this is disjointed, actually very tired today.

DadaKopf

elven wrote:

I'm not sure if I nailed my main question though - what I'm really asking is pretty much: is there any meaning in those pictures where you consider the final print as an object of purely visual pleasure, like a study of the patterns in ice, or the bark of a tree or cracks in stone? Are they just wallpaper, or can you attribute something more to them, without having to know about something external to the photograph itself?

My answer, which is more of a restatement of the problem, is that there is no 'photograph in itself'. All photographs are in communion with somethings else.

Your comment highlights the need for being absolutely specific in discussing things of this nature.

Take your photograph of sand dunes. What does the viewer respond to? The sand dunes? The photograph? The photographic rendering of the sand dunes? The light captured by the photosensitive film/CCD (which is all photography is)? Or the printing/post-processing? The room/website it's displayed in/on? The process?

I mean, what's the object in a photograph? The photograph? Or the thing photographed? But isn't that the 'subject'? And what when the 'subject', or 'object', isn't physical? But isn't the 'subject' actually the person viewing the photograph? Uh oh.

Only when you weight up these and infinite other variables can you reach an answer. And, guess what, when you see another image, you'll have to do it all over again!

For the record, I don't have a problem with 'fast' vs. 'slow' photography or anything like that. Firstly, they're just different in the way that the above, and more, are weighed up. Secondly, the human mind thinks pre-cognitively, too, so, actually, 'fast' and 'slow' are always actually in tension - unconscious habit versus discovery.

I wouldn't worry too much on finding a final answer. There is none. But meaning... that's vital. And we're all free to create our own.

sineadw

I'm chuckling to myself here - I read this yesterday and came back to it tonight, and I've been sitting here for almost an hour typing and deleting and typing and deleting. I feel strongly about it, just not sure I can vocalise it, or even figure out what it is that I feel! :rolleyes:

Basically, yes I think aesthetics for aesthetics' sake is worthwhile, and I don't see image or scene manipulation as taking away any inherent meaning (obviously you can take it to extremes though...). So 'gardening' as you put it - separating beauty from the banal has its place. Besides, I see a great deal of meaning in patterns in nature. I love the interplay between art, mathematics, science.. those photos of patterns in ice, cracks in stone etc say a lot about our psyche IMHO.

I do like realism though. Or rather I don't like romanticism. It bugs me in general that imperfections are being filtered from our view, but I mean that in a much broader social context than I'm assuming you mean here.

Oh I could rant for hours and go around in circles with myself quite happily:) Thats enough for now. Great topic though!

nilhg

First off I would like to agree with the people who have said that this is an interesting and thought provoking thread.
This is the third time I have started to reply and both times before I have only managed to confuse myself rather than make any vaguely coherent point, then reading some of the replies really made my head spin.

My reaction to a lot of the comment above is that most of us take photographs for our own pleasure and that really most of the time the only opinion we need to consider is our own (not true if you are a pro or in college), and if you are happy with a photo then thats all that counts. If you like to use photoshop or tie branches out of view so what, if somebody else doesn't like it they can go and do it their own way. If you have no confidence in your own way of doing things then I feel it will be hard to keep any real enthusiasm going long term.

To be honest I wonder does it do any good to worry about the meaning of your pictures, in my experience people bring their own preconceptions and ideas to any given situation, and no matter what you intend one it is in the public arena it is out of your control.

I hope some of this makes sense, I suppose really what I am trying to say is that there are few enough areas in life today where any of us has complete control over what we do, and we should guard those tightly.

DadaKopf

To be honest I wonder does it do any good to worry about the meaning of your pictures, in my experience people bring their own preconceptions and ideas to any given situation, and no matter what you intend one it is in the public arena it is out of your control.

But meaning isn't one-way! You don't sit down and say "This is who I am, this is what I like" and then start taking photos that says that. It's a constant back and forth in the flux of life.

Saying it's pointless bringing meaning to pictures is like saying it's pointless bringing meaning to words. Photography is an activity, yes, but also a form of communication. Most of the time, people don't think about the photos they take, but that's not to say paying close attention to words and finding new ways to express oneself is pointless to think about. And it's also not to say that meaningless photos taken today won't be 'art' tomorrow. You think?

Valentia

Well I'm not going to say too much now, but I will come back later. My initial instinct is, and for some reason this type of discussion always draws these feelings out of me, directly related to directing or acting in a play. Do you do your "homework" first? On the text, on the interpretations, on the history.

I'm inclined to do none of that. I think that by doing that, that that (3 that's, oops 4) in itself restrains creativity. We cannot but be influenced by other peoples views, thereby stifling our own creativity. Creativity is at the kernel of this discussion in my view. I genuinely believe that a piece of art, whatever the form, loses something if it has to be explained. Analysis is ok, but please don't try and explain it. Explanation is someone else's interpretation. This is true even if it is the artists' interpretation.

That being said, studying styles and techniques broadens creative scope.

I am going to post a photo now that would mean so much to so many people I know but, obviously, because nobody here knows the context or the person the photo will have a completely different perspective. For example on a forum like this the technical aspect will play a part whereas the audience that it is aimed at will not even notice that aspect.

Every photo I take means something to me no matter how horrendously bad technically it may be. But as Elven, kind of, invites, from me anyway, the question: do I just post publicly what I think others want to see. I wouldn't ever leave a stray branch or telegraph pole in what was meant to be a picturesque landscape. But I would leave them in if the shot was intended to be a gritty urban type thingy.

Jazus you are some woman for starting this off, feck ya Here's the picture: