# Heres to the snapshot (beware: long read!)



## LaFoto (Jun 2, 2007)

Just some thoughts that I have had for the past couple of weeks and which I would like to put together in writing. They are about The Moment in Time, personal and global history, and the photo as one means to capture such moments for all times (or a long time at least).

Given the fact that my father is working on a quite comprehensive presentation to be held in August of this year on 57 years of friendship between people of my hometown and people of a place in Northern-Ireland, I have been exposed to quite a bit of history, albeit only small-scale history. When he started to seriously work on his long-held idea of putting all the material collected by everyone involved in the visits to and fro into one presentation, he received lots and lots of photographs by other people of my home-town. Some have either been among a group of hosts or a group of interested citizens that went to travel to Northern-Ireland who only at a certain point in time were connected with the twinning or partnership, and some  like my family  have been involved in the activities ever since they first got in touch with them. This has been so for my family since 1960.

Not only did my father receive just about all the photographs taken by my hometowns citizens (he never asked the Irish so far, for this presentation is meant to be a surprise to them), but also travel journals, lists of participants, the visitors programmes, newspaper clippings from both the local papers of my home-town as well as those from the Northern-Irish place, provided someone got hold of them at the time and still had them stored away somewhere.

Among the photos there are a good many snapshots. In other words: the majority of the photos that were taken by group participants in the 50s are only just that: snapshots. Someone brought a camera and simply snapped away.

Since it is turning out that in the end my sister and I are working on the actual texts to speak  both in German and English  I got to look at all those photos and read all those 50-year-old travel journals, too. And I learned to appreciate the snapshot!

For while many of the photos taken at the time by those who did take them were no where near being artistic (something that had never been the plan to begin with, I should say), they are still _there_, and that gives them some kind of importance. They may have been forgotten in someones albums for decades, and still: right now, and for us, they regain a meaning. Particularly those photos taken in 1960, when the very first group came over *from* Northern-Ireland (two German groups had gone there in 1952 and 1959), in which we detected the very young faces of people who are STILL connected with the twinning  and who will be among the group to arrive in August, i.e. among those to be surprised by this presentation. 

And this is how I came to feel that a mere snapshot still has a right of its own in photography, since it captures a moment in time which would otherwise have come and gone and be forgotten in the blink of an eye.

This is not to say that I now embrace each and every snapshot with pleasure, for poor composition, poor lighting, poor exposure and a poor eye simply do not make good photos. 

And in those 10 years that my first-born son Kristian lived (between 1980 and 1990), I took an awful LOT of snapshots that today make me SHUDDER under their _photographic_ aspect. But without those  a lot less would have been left for me these days of my first-born son. Just for example.

When my father first took me into the boat and suggested I take up a major part in the making of that presentation, he e-mailed me his ideas and his first scanning results with his (at that time) brand-new scanner. For, of course, there are a good many photos taken by my dad himself that cover those visits to and fro (as of 1960, like I was saying earlier). And he set about to scan the negatives of his own photos and wanted to share some of that earliest work with me.

That is how this photo came into my possession (digitalised as it now is, but I remember to have seen it as print when I was younger), and it is, in fact, just a snapshot, but has gained quite a bit of meaning (if only to the persons shown in this very photo) in the course of time:








Who do you see?
Well, there is my mother. And myself in the pram biggrin: ), and my sister, giving the photographer a very cool wave, and Jim, 19 at the time, 66 today and one to be among the group who are coming in August, and for whom we are working on this presentation. 

And another one that my dad mailed to me and that I find endearing, taken in the same year, when my dad and uncle also made a 7 minute colour film in N8 of the Northern-Irish group's arrival to my home-town, a film that they presented on the fairwell night of that group's stay, and which was quite well received and even got mentioned in the paper at the time, and this other snapshot I want to show you is of my uncle working on that film in his room:







Knowing that my uncle is very, very sick these days, it is good to see that we all once were young in our lives, and eager, and passionate, and loving and laughing, crying ... all this. 

That's why even snapshots very much have their right of being, I think .


-----------------------------------------------------​ 
One afterthought: I put this into Photographic Discussions since I feel it is the place where this should be. But if you don't feel like you want to explicitly discuss anything with me on this, I am also happy to just share my thoughts.
(And I will still _try_ to take *PHOTOS* these days, not snapshots in the cliché meaning of the word !!!).​


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 2, 2007)

At what point does a snapshot (or a photograph) stop being just an image and become a Historical document?


----------



## Don Simon (Jun 2, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> At what point does a snapshot (or a photograph) stop being just an image and become a Historical document?


 
When you look at it and think "hmm, I don't remember that party".


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 2, 2007)

LaFoto, Thank you for sharing this.  You make a great point in that in it's most basic reality a photograph is just that, a very accurate graph.  An exact record if you prefer and one of the main reasons for all of the whiz bang toys that we have today.   I say this because the vast majority of people who have bought a camera bought one as an aid for their memories and a legacy to their descendants. In my estimation having a well grounded sense of place and reminders of the love and happiness given and received throughout a lifetime is every bit as important in absolute/personal terms as any work of art.

The messages given and received by great works of art and the enrichment they have brought are undeniable but the lives we lead are personal things.  The weight of the thing swings to the many.

There will be many whose treasure and egos are invested in their equipment and training.  They will argue and will have a point but as no one has ever felt any better or worse than anyone else, whatever an individual decides is the best is just that for themselves.

I guess you can tell that I am a populist.  

Thanks again and if anyone would care to argue the point, I'd love to hear it.

mike


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 2, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> in it's most basic reality a photograph is just that, a very accurate graph.  An exact record if you prefer



It is very important to remember that although a photograph is a record of an event, it is nothing more than that.
Photographs in themselves contain very little information above the appearance of things. The emotions and memories that they can release are only those emotions and memories present in the viewer. 
This leads to various degrees of reaction in the viewer.
If you were present at the event then the image will release those memories and emotions that you felt at the time.
If the picture is of someone you know but were not present when the picture was taken then it will only release the memories and emotions you associate with the person.
If the picture is of someone you have never met then the most you will feel is curiosity.
A photograph can then be seen, in one respect, as an aid to memory.
It is this aspect of the photograph that gives it an almost magical quality in our psyches.
We frame pictures of our loved ones and put them on tables/hang them on walls to form a shrine. As long as we have their image the person will remain fresh in our minds and/or be kept safe from harm in some way.
Because of this we have an aversion to destroying pictures of people we know. In fact the destruction can be strongly symbolic as in the ritual expunging of 'the other' from our photographs at the end of a relationship.
It is therefore important to remember that most of the power of the photograph resides within ourselves and not in the object.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 2, 2007)

To give a different view, the photograph can be the spark that lights the gunpowder, that fires the bullet that kills the tyrant. Or if you will the picture of the policeman in saigon that almost single handedly changed the course of the war.

Okay had a lot to do with it. Showed America over their evening meal what it was like to die. The image was more powerful than the image. It started as a movie so maybe that was the real power but I think it was the image even still that made americans wonder what the hell was going on over there. 

Sound familier?


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 2, 2007)

One of the weightier ones certainly!  The one of the mother and child running from the napalm is the one that stuck with me.  But were either of them crafted with care with the light properly measured and reflected.  The background set just so and the composition checked and rechecked?

Both were shot by terrific photographers (forgive me for not remembering their names) I'm sure, but are snapshots still don't you think?  Skill and training and practice show but Photo Journalism, I think, Has to fall into the snapshot category else it is untrue and nothing more than propaganda.

mike


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 2, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> Photo Journalism, I think, Has to fall into the snapshot category else it is untrue and nothing more than propaganda.



But Photojournalism _is_ propaganda. It can only ever tell one side of the story. The Photojournalist may well have integrity and honesty but he is still only giving his point of view. And then it is filtered through the media - and that is certainly biased.

As for it's place in the scheme of things: it deserves it's own niche under 'photojournalism'. It may be akin to the snapshot but it is far more than that.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Jun 2, 2007)

I couldn't agree more!


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 2, 2007)

"But Photojournalism _is_ propaganda. It can only ever tell one side of the story. The Photojournalist may well have integrity and honesty but he is still only giving his point of view. And then it is filtered through the media - and that is certainly biased"  by Hertz van Rental

This is true to the point that the PJ consciously presses the shutter button and the camera's point of view is that of the photographer.  It is only when the PJ begins to editorialize through selective views (choosing the background) or instants in time (composition checked and rechecked) that it becomes propaganda.

I do not mean to belittle Photo Journalism and may be painting with too broad a brush but am merely pointing out the similarities between snapshots and Photo Journalism.

A case in point.. the young person taking snapshots of a tornado moving through his neighborhood.  In the family album they are snapshots.  If he sells them to the paper then they become Photo Journalism.  

mike


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 2, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> At what point does a snapshot (or a photograph) stop being just an image and become a Historical document?


 
Is this a real question or a historical one?

To me, the second of my two example photos is per part something like a historical document, not because my uncle now looks and is an old man in the grips of dementia, but because of all the things you can see in this photo, the way his room was decorated, the lamps he had, the furniture, the film previewer he used, the reels, all those things. 

In your opinion now, is it something like a historical document, or is is that just for me because the person is my uncle and that room later was MY room?


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 2, 2007)

LaFoto said:


> In your opinion now, is it something like a historical document, or is is that just for me because the person is my uncle and that room later was MY room?



As I have already said, how you react to it depends on how close you are to the subject. For you it's emotive but for me it's just a historical document. There is nothing wrong with either view as long as we remember that the image can be both at once.


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 2, 2007)

Ah! :idea:

Now that explains it!
Seems like I did not get it all before.
But then don't I see it as BOTH myself: as a photo that is emotive to me since I know the person and his history AND as a historical document, too, since many of the items surrounding that person are of a time long gone?


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 2, 2007)

LaFoto said:


> Now that explains it!
> Seems like I did not get it all before.
> But then don't I see it as BOTH myself: as a photo that is emotive to me since I know the person and his history AND as a historical document, too, since many of the items surrounding that person are of a time long gone?



A photograph by it's very nature is a historical document. Once you take a picture it is of an event that has happened and is moving further into the past with every second.
Other than that, you got it


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 2, 2007)

Great thread LaFoto!!  Don't sweat the small stuff.  A beautiful rainbow when viewed from the other side is just some rain.  
    (and vice-versa)

mike


----------



## Alpha (Jun 2, 2007)

"If you sit by a creek for six hours and watch the light change and hear the crickets and see the flora and fauna, you almost begin to imagine how the rocks were carved by the water. You start to feel the abrasion and erosion. At that point, you are photographing something that has transpired over many lifetimes. You have a much keener appreciation for what it is. If, on the other hand, you stop at the top of a cliff, get out of your car, point your tiny disc camera toward the canyon, and hop back in the car, I don't know if you've seen it or not. But if you got lost in that canyon without water for two days, you would have felt it. It's a matter of how much you're willing to extend yourself into the environment." 

--Caroline Vaughan


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 2, 2007)

"They have so much potential.  Not so much because of their abilities but because of their caring."  -??

:thumbup:

mike


----------



## craig (Jun 2, 2007)

It is interesting how photos take on a completely different meaning or feeling x amount of years later. As a matter of fact one of digi's major downfalls is the ability to delete shots in camera. I mean who is to say that x amount of years down the road you would not consider that shot a keeper. I would never take that chance and keep all my shots. 

Hertz and MaxBloom (as always) have hit some very valid points. Only truth is that we exposed a piece of media to light and the media rendered it. Other then that it is the photographers perception of the frame. Snapshot or not it is taken out of context of the actual event. 

Love & Bass


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 2, 2007)

The normal perception of the photograph is to see it as just a record of something but it is far more complex than that.
Taking a photograph does indeed take the image out of it's context. The 'context' of reality is the flow of time. A photograph is a 'slice' of reality which is divorced from time - a rough analogy is a fly trapped in amber.*
If the photograph is of a specific thing and that is it's importance - a record of a person, a record of an event - it only retains any use whilst there is supporting information: who the picture is of, what was going on, when the event occured and so on.
If this information resides in the viewer's memory then the image is important to them. If the viewer has no knowledge of all of this then the image changes it's function and we look at it differently.
For example: a picture of your mother will be evaluated by you in terms of your memories and emotions. To someone who does not know your mother, the image will be evaluated purely in terms of it being a portrait photograph.
The two viewing experiences will differ considerably.
This is why there are different types of image and it is possible to take images which transcend these complex problems to become universally significant.
This can happen because the image uses the visual codes to transmit emotional content - it acts as an emotional/intellectual trigger to the viewer - independent of the context of the image.
Thus the images here give rise to a range of different reactions. The American action in Vietnam occured within living memory. Most people will know something of the event. The pictures therefore represent war ingeneral, the Vietnam conflict specifically, a key to emotion if you took part in it, a key to emotion if you lost a loved one in it. It is also important to remember that US citizens will have a different reaction to non-US citizens, who in turn will have a completely different set of reactions to the Vietnamese.
And I have yet another layer of reactions to some of them because I met Don McCullin and I knew Tim Page.
All of this explains, to some extent, why we see pictures we take differently to those taken by others. We have a different memory set surrounding our images - and sometimes this clouds our judgement and makes us wonder why others do not get the same reaction to our images that we do. We have to take all of the above into account and take our pictures differently to do that.



*My current thinking is that the process used to record the image in 2D does so by squeezing out time (time being needed to give the third Dimension). The function of the frame in Photography (to go back to another thread) is therefore not to stop the creative act overspilling but to stop time re-entering the image and destroying it.
I could go a lot deeper with that but I think I've probably lost most of you already


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 3, 2007)

isnt time the 4th dimension.  Lenth width and depth being the three....


----------



## Tyson (Jun 3, 2007)

Nice thread I did enjoy reading it. I have hit "pay dirt" before from a snapshot.  I have had a few that were just perfect.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 3, 2007)

Hertz, those were some of the very reasons why I posted that the snapshot is more important than art.  Because we do not live in a vacuum but rather within a consciousnesses filled with both facts and emotions.  These combined, like light and shadow, are what make up a memory.

In fact one could say that because of this, this binding of fact and emotion at a point in time -I say this because there is usually a trigger for a memory, a file name if you like, a photograph is such a strong medium for the conveyance of ideas.  We live one moment at a time, we tend to think in moments, and we tend to remember in moments.  (Try telling this to a [SIZE=-1]videographer[/SIZE]. )

Hertz, since we are waxing philosophic here, what do you think of the idea that art in photography is the reintroducing of movement?  An artfully laid table well photographed gives us a longing to move towards that table.  The gentle bend in the road makes us want to go around it and so forth.  I say this because a memory is the welding of an emotion and a fact (either a thing or group of things, a demonstration of the physical) and in a photo done for art there is no personal emotion involved with the exact fact shown so that the photographer has to use visual cues to trigger emotions stored in the viewer of the photo.

This would also be true for a good historical document I think.  Not that someone would look at it and think "look at the funny cloths" (OK, there is no helping some people) but would see an entire slice of life in context and how all of the pieces fit and interacted with one another.  Again the 'artful' use of cues and triggers to get the viewer emotionally involved with the subject.

Your thoughts?  Anyone?

mike


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 3, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> those were some of the very reasons why I posted that the snapshot is more important than art.



Not more important, just different. You cannot make valid comparisons because they fulfill different functions.
An 'art' photograph can trigger an emotional response just as easily as a snapshot. And whilst the snapshot will probably only trigger that response in the people connected to it the 'art' photo can be universal and transcend individual involvement.
You could say that 'art' photography* speaks to many whilst the snapshot only speaks to the few.

Any 'movement' in a photo can only be symbolic otherwise the illusion is broken.
Response to photographs is largely intellectual. We exist within the flow of time, as do the 'popular' arts (music, television, film), and so we are used to narrative. We try to make sense of a static image by constructing a narrative for it. We try to figure out what is going on in it (which leads to 'what has gone before' and 'what happens next'). Once you accept this realise just how little information a photograph actually contains (excluding information about surface appearance) and then you see why context and associated text have such a strong effect upon our interpretation.


*This is, of course, when it is done well by someone who knows what they are doing


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 3, 2007)

I like to see what my family looked like when I was a kid.  My memory is not good these days so it helps me to remember those times a little better.  Sorry not very philosophical and probably a boring response but it's what I liked about my mom's shoe box of old pictures.  I can't even remember who has them now.
But I remember pulling them out when family members who had moved away came home for a visit.  Aunts and uncles would sit about smoking cigarettes drink strong black coffee and tell stories.  Grand old times for a  child.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 3, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> Not more important, just different. You cannot make valid comparisons because they fulfill different functions.
> An 'art' photograph can trigger an emotional response just as easily as a snapshot. And whilst the snapshot will probably only trigger that response in the people connected to it the 'art' photo can be universal and transcend individual involvement.


 

I am sorry if I was not clear, I was weighting the composite emotional impact of the two forms, not one example against another.


[/quote]
Response to photographs is largely intellectual. We exist within the flow of time, as do the 'popular' arts (music, television, film), and so we are used to narrative. We try to make sense of a static image by constructing a narrative for it. We try to figure out what is going on in it (which leads to 'what has gone before' and 'what happens next'). Once you accept this realise just how little information a photograph actually contains (excluding information about surface appearance) and then you see why context and associated text have such a strong effect upon our interpretation.[/quote]


This is also true but my point-at least the one I was trying to make- is that we tend to tag a memory by an event.  For example, 'remember that time Uncle Joe laughed so hard at Christmas that he lost his denture in his eggnog?'.  Maybe the misunderstanding is that when I say a moment I am meaning a brief period in time, not a split second of time (and I can't think of any that are a single instant in time).  These tags -a metaphor is another name for it, can in fact convey a lot of information  just as a mathematical formula or a command line in a computer program.  They describe a series of emotions (to which you fill in your own events)


And a thank you to Mysteryscribe for taking my point (intentional or not )

The happiness of several billion people outweigh the happiness of a few tens of millions.  Yes, even if I'm in the minority.  (I'm used to it by now anyway. )

mike


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 3, 2007)

Ah well wasn't taking sides just saying sometimes it don't matter how intellectual the answer it comes down to just me and what I feel.  Actually it always does.


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 3, 2007)

Even though I am speaking up in favour of "the snapshot", i.e. the photo that has not been thought out in depth before it got taken, planned with attention to every detail of composition and light, and then executed with the express intent to create a piece of art, my little "article" here I does not mean that all the unplanned, uncomposed, unfocussed, badly lit snapshots are suddenly "good photographic work" in my eyes.

I just mean to point that out once again.

And when my dad and sister first started to wade through all the material they were given, they had to make choices (we cannot show ALL, indiscriminately!), and since some of the earliest photos are without any personal connection to them, as well, their choice was - of course - also driven by the _photographic craftsmanship_ displayed in the individual snapshot. 

So yes, also they - when they first set out on this mammoth task of making this presentation - sorted out by things that Hertz is mentioning: what photo is there that "speaks", even to them, across the 50 years of time, and across the "gap of not having been there". 

And it is those snapshots that now help us (in this very particular instance) put together this slice of history, though some of it happened before even my sister and I were born. (And don't expect me to remember anything that happened when the one photo of the two example pics above got taken  - I don't). 

But yes, we will NOT have these photos stand alone, uncommented, it is our doing to put them into a quite confined context, which - and this is an interesting train of thought, too, Hertz, thanks for making me think even further on this - is subject to our interpretation of all the material we got PLUS (I assume) our later experiences with the exchange visits and what the entire twinning/partnership/friendship meant to us in our lives later.

Keep philosophising over these matters, I'll come to read your thoughts with pleasure!


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 3, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> we tend to tag a memory by an event...  These tags -a metaphor is another name for it, can in fact convey a lot of information  just as a mathematical formula or a command line in a computer program.  They describe a series of emotions (to which you fill in your own events)



But the point I am making (or one of the many points) is that these 'tags' are not inherent in the photograph but are external to it - they reside within the viewer. The photograph merely acts as a trigger or an aid to memory.
In fact there is very little residing in the photograph. Virtually everything we 'see' in an image is projected onto it by us. This is why the same image can provoke a different response in each viewer.
Once you accept this fact you realise that what you are doing with a photograph is manipulating memory/emotion - and then you can start to use this to advantage.



And you're welcome, Corrina. You know that my main impetus is to try to get people to think about what they are doing.


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 3, 2007)

Oooo, don't we all know about the "manipulating" aspect of even photos that we find in the proverbial old shoebox? So that in the end we no longer can tell if our memory of "our holidays in Italy back in 1966" is a real memory or that of a photo or triggered by a photo?

I think this phenomenon is all known and accepted by everyone, isn't it?

And yes, I see what you mean about the "looking at a photo and only projecting our own meaning to it". For I am sure even about the photo of our mother, myself as a baby and my sister as a toddler my sister has different feelings than I have, although she cannot actively remember anything of those times, either.

The interesting thing is that about the photos that were GIVEN to us, and actually don't have any direct (family/friends/joint trip in a group) connection to us. In those, also some factors of PHOTOGRAPHY began to play a part, or so it now feels to me. Do you think they did?

ALTHOUGH, (and there seems to ALWAYS be an "although" in all this) we also chose out-of-focus pics when they showed a very young "Mr Allen", i.e. the person who was the primary instigator of the entire twinning/exchange/friendship, and who stayed with the exchanges for decades. So in that case the decision to add that photographically-not-so-perfect photo to the presentation was driven by the fact that we KNOW the one person featuring in it...


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 3, 2007)

LOL   Mysteryscribe, I didn't mean to say that you were taking my side-I don't really have a side here- just that you were illustrating one of my earlier points.

LaFoto, I didn't mean to say that badly done snapshots were the equal to very well done snaps or anything else really but rather was speaking about the intent with which people used photography in general.  I am afraid that I have taken your thread about an Extremely Worthy endeavor and gotten it off track a bit.  I am sorry for that.

And Hertz,  we are in agreement I think though we may say things differently.

The next step in this discussion, if we can agree to take it (with LaFoto's permission of course), is to begin to describe these triggers in such a manner that they will be easier to assemble into a language that those of us who are still in the process of becoming might use to be better photographers.

mike


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 3, 2007)

Permission given, of course  :greenpbl: --- I am really curious to see where this is going.
And my earlier remarks were spoken more in general than in direction to anyone in particular, Mike. No worries there.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 3, 2007)

OK, How about starting with grammar?  Should we describe an action trigger with say a present-tense metaphor? Or would this become too unwieldy?


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 3, 2007)

I think that misunderstandings occur because the form in which we see both snapshots and intended images is the same, emulsion congealed on paper or electrons impacting a screen. Thus the intent behind the two is concealed behind the common medium.

This common media obliterates all the intellectual differences between the two streams. 

A terribly exposed, poorly constructed intended image is, to the anonymous viewer, not obviously different than a snapshot while, to someone party to the shared memories, the snapshot is wonderful.


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 3, 2007)

:scratch: Mike ... I think I am losing you just now....

And yes, Lew, that might be the reason. 
Though I must say that even though I am happy about the photos which I have of my deceased son, I still do see all their photographical flaws very clearly! Liking to have them as something that is left to me of my son and not liking how I took them are two things that reside inside myself simultaneously. So I cannot really find them "wonderful". My son's presence in my life was wonderful! But hey, not the _photos_ I took at the time (the majority of them is really "bad" in my new personal terms). 

And still: those photos have a value.
For me. 
Only for me.
They do!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 3, 2007)

personally I think trying to decide how we see things and what we see in things is a fine way to pass a rainy sunday... It won't change anything but it's nice for people to discuss anything that might them see what they do differently and maybe even make a change or two.

To be honest the people I shot for wouldn't have recognized an inspired snapshot from a enviornmental portrait.  Most would have just said it's a purdy picture and let it go at that.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 3, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> The next step in this discussion... is to begin to describe these triggers in such a manner that they will be easier to assemble into a language



This is not as easy as it appears. This is part of what I have been working on for a long time and I soon came to realise that if this is to be done in any meaningful way (if it can be done at all) it requires a framework within which to work.
There is no suitable framework in existence for Photography. For Heaven's sake, no one has even been able to define it successfully yet. This is largely because the people involved in Photography divide roughly into two groups.
We have those who take pictures and are only interested in the pictures themselves, mainly the technical aspects, and who generally believe that any theories about Photography beyond this narrow zone is all airey fairy nonsense. And we have those who write 'meaningfully' about Photography, using big words but not saying much with them; who generally don't know much about the technical aspects and who approach the endeavour from a Linguistic viewpoint.
There is a big gap in between that is mostly _terra incognita_ and this is the zone we are entering. In essence it is the dead zone between practical and theoretical.
It is possible, however, to skirt around the edge or make small sallies (like this thread) and come back with something useful.
To avoid getting bogged down in theory I feel it would be best to take a broad view and just go through the general 'triggers'. But if anyone is to get anything out of this they have to first accept that most of Photography goes on inside their head - either in the viewing or the taking - and in most people it is a process invisible.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 3, 2007)

Hertz, I am in agreement with you!  How we interact with the physical world (photos) is totally dependent on our psyches' make up and our prior experiences.

It is my belief that we are unique, but only about 0.1% of each of us is what makes us unique.  The other 99.9% we share and can use to draw some understanding of each other.  I do not feel that we can completely understand each other due to the 0.1% wild card acting as a multiplier.

When I put out the metaphor as structure idea i was remembering an old star track episode (Wait, hear me out) where some alien race had evolved to use metaphor as a language.  It seems to me that our current system of language is too narrowly structured and focused to allow for the kind of generalities and shading needed for our purposes.  Describing the emotional impact of triggers and modifications of those triggers by others still-all within one photograph is not what our current language is designed to do.  Think of a gobo- a metaphor if you will for things used to modify light by getting in the way of it, a hindrance.

Neither am I suggesting that we try and come up with something too complex because to do so would cause the original intent to be lost in the form of the thing.

We can go on with a grammar, but first perhaps we should start with some terms.

How about:  Trigger- a set of cues  to begin a particular range of emotions - as dried vegetation or barren sand will trigger thirst. 

                  Cue:  An element of a scene within a photo given as a hint of meaning either as a beginning, an ending or a strengthening agent for the body of a trigger.  The texture of brittleness of dried vegetation and also the color of dried vegetation.

                  Foreshadow:  The area at the beginning of a line leading into a trigger or grouping of triggers.

                  Subject:  The main trigger or triggers.  Everything else within the photo is a modifier to the subject.


Anyway, what do you think?

mike


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 3, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> It is my belief that we are unique, but only about 0.1% of each of us is what makes us unique.  The other 99.9% we share and can use to draw some understanding of each other.  I do not feel that we can completely understand each other due to the 0.1% wild card acting as a multiplier.



Absolutely. It is through shared experience that Photography generally works and it is the fact that we are all so alike which gives me hope for developing at least a rudimentary framework.

The main thing that is wrong with your thinking is to consider the Photograph as containing language, or that it is capable of being structured like language.
Images work through systems much deeper and, in some respects, more rudimentary than language. All animals with vision work with visual cues and it is from this system that language developed. Language is representational and it's usefulness is what has caused it to overlay and supercede the visual.
The word 'rose' for example represents an ideal. We all have an image of a rose that the word conjures up (and for the majority it's red) - it is a metaphor.
But a photograph of a rose is something else. It represents both all roses and one specific individual (the rose in the image) at one and the same time. It is because of this that a photograph could be said to contain too much information*. Which is one of the reasons that B&W photography is considered more 'arty' than colour. That and the fact that a colour photograph is too 'real'.
All this aside, any attempt to codify the system of signs (those signals within an image that trigger our various responses) must start with defining all of the elements that can play a part.
Light and colour are two immediate ones. There are different qualities of light and these can be further modified (in colour photography) by colour temperature, and in all photography by direction.
We will have a different set of responses to an image shot in morning light (quite blue), at mid-day (yellowish), evening (orange), fog and so on. That is because they represent times of day and weather conditions that we have associations with. And we haven't even started with artificial light.
Then shadows will play a part. Shadows have a variety of functions in an image from providing surface texture to giving an air of mystery or oppresion.
Body language, facial expression, composition.... And each will modify the others. A person reclining on the grass in the evening will have one set of cues, the same pose on a bed will give another set, and a third if we position the body on a sofa.
It appears a daunting task but I think with a lot of careful thought we can analyse it down.

Ralph Gibson has done some interesting images that might help people understand where we are going.
http://www.ralphgibson.com/gallery/


*In this instance I use 'information' in the sense of telling us about the surface appearance of things.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 3, 2007)

I do believe that every thing is capable of containing a language, even if that containment merely provides an echo for the voice inside our heads (conscience if you'd rather).

I do not believe that such a limited format as a photograph may be structured so as to contain it's own language.  Rather I am seeking a language to describe the underlying dynamics which create a successful photograph.

I do concede that I put this badly in my previous post though.  

I do agree that images work on a more fundamental level than language and that level I think is emotion.  Whatever language comes of it, comes from ourselves.

I do not feel comfortable discussing the technical aspects of the 'cues' or techniques just yet.   I suppose I feel that this is getting too far ahead (as you mentioned).

Mr. Gibson's gallery was very much to the point- though very dark.  Have you any others that you would like us to view to add to our baseline of information for this discussion?

mike


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 3, 2007)

Everything is capable of being turned into a language, certainly, but it is done by getting an object/colour/whatever to represent the spoken language. And a lot of language works on concepts.
For example: red rose = love.
There you have a representational word standing in for a conceptual word. And the written word represents the spoken word.
To follow all of this you need to read Saussure and Barthes - and then read Derrida.
To try to impose a language on images is a mistake. It is better to analyse the _meanings_ within images and their relationships. That is to say, symbolism. Objects can be symbolic and stand for something else - which is what happens in a photo. A picture of a horse is a symbolic representation of all horses at the same time as it being a depiction of an individual horse.
And the context modifies the meaning of the symbol.
Ralph Gibson's image of the biker holding a rose gives us a message. A bride holding a rose gives us a different message. A rose on a grave would give another message. And so on.
I do not think that there are any straightforward rules to all of this as symbolism, like language, is plastic. But by learning as much as one can about Art (artists have been using symbolism for a long time), various other symbol systems (like the language of flowers, the language of colours, the language of gem stones, etc) and the large range of compositional techniques (there is a lot more to composition than the 'rule of thirds') it is possible to put messages into pictures. But these messages can only be read by a viewer who has been trained in the same way.

As for photographers - there are so many but try finding the work of:
Duane Michals (I understand he was the first to write on his pictures)
Joel-Peter Witkin (disturbing and not work safe)
John Blakemore (a very nice man and wonderful photographer)
Les Krims (one of the best, particularly the games he plays with titles. We disagree on Derrida and other things so we stopped communicating but I still rate him as probably my favourite photographer of all time)
Googling should pull stuff up for most of them.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 4, 2007)

I shall print this thread, run it through a shredder and sprinkle it on my lawn.


----------



## Antarctican (Jun 4, 2007)

^^^ I disagree with what you seem to be implying, Traveler. I find this a most interesting thread, with articulate responses.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 4, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> We have those who take pictures and are only interested in the pictures themselves, mainly the technical aspects, and who generally believe that any theories about Photography beyond this narrow zone is all airey fairy nonsense.



:mrgreen:


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 4, 2007)

:lmao::lmao:

I haven't forgotten this I'm merely digesting the last set of examples.

BTW   Les Krims is a HOOT! I'm guessing Sally was his wife?  She must have been a remarkable woman.

mike


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 5, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> This is largely because the people involved in Photography divide roughly into two groups.
> We have those who take pictures and are only interested in the pictures themselves, mainly the technical aspects, and who generally believe that any theories about Photography beyond this narrow zone is all airey fairy nonsense. And we have those who write 'meaningfully' about Photography, using big words but not saying much with them; who generally don't know much about the technical aspects and who approach the endeavour from a Linguistic viewpoint.



This is a false dichotomy, set up to make the argument. There aren't two groups, there is the entire continuum of people who are interested in photography as a technical exercise through people who are interested in pictures and subordinate the technical issues to people who are interested in only content-specific pictures. Those who see photography as part of continuum of communication approach photography along a completely different axis. 



> who generally believe that any theories about Photography beyond this narrow zone is all airey fairy nonsense.


This particularly is a generalization without any basis, that I challenge you to attempt to prove.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 5, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> This is a false dichotomy, set up to make the argument. There aren't two groups, there is the entire continuum of people who are interested in photography as a technical exercise through people who are interested in pictures and subordinate the technical issues to people who are interested in only content-specific pictures. Those who see photography as part of continuum of communication approach photography along a completely different axis.


If there is a 'continuum of people'  who see 'photography as a technical exercise' at one end and 'people who are interested in onl content-specific pictures' at the other then at some point on that scale there must be a cross-over point. At this point you can make a rough division into two 'groups': those who put the emphasis on the technical side and those who put the emphasis on content.
This was all I was saying and you have basically restated it in a different form.
Both views are broad generalisations made soleley for ease of argument and neither truly represent the real situation. But then, nothing ever does.



The_Traveler said:


> This particularly is a generalization without any basis, that I challenge you to attempt to prove.



You proved it yourself:
"I shall print this thread, run it through a shredder and sprinkle it on my lawn." 
In this thread we have been doing nothing more than theorising about certain aspects of Photography as some of us see it. Such exercises are merely the interchange of ideas in order to clarify our ideas and the way we see things. Nothing more. And we can be wrong just as easily as we can be right.
But rather than making an intelligent response raising questions and arguing your point in a mature way, you chose to make that comment which can only translate as that you consider all that has been written in this thread as potential lawn food.
Or, to put it simply, that statement implies you think this thread is bullsh*t.
I think that answers your challenge.
And if you disagree with a thread but make silly comments and then keep coming back to throw down juvenile challenges* then I can only draw the conclusion that you are doing it for personal reasons and are not in the least interested in moving this thread and it's ideas forward.



*No one can actually 'prove' anything - even in Science. It is just a matter of the 'best-fit' theory.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2007)

No I don't think, in general, that anything beyond technology is airy fairy nonsense, I was expressing my opinion of what you said.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 6, 2007)

Well let me jump in here and be the voice of non reason. Story from the past. As most of you know My first formal photography instruction was from a youngish woman named Barbara. You also know Barbara was a frustrated painter. Now Barbara was of the opinion that photography was all about high art. It was a medium searching for an audience. You were either a great artist (no idea the definition of that) or you were something else. She was all philosophical about art in general. All about how it was more than it was. I never really got it because I couldn't see her vision. She taught technique and managed to even teach me to love photography, but she never made me understand the higher plane stuff.

Then there was my third ex wife. Her opinion was, "Okay, you have to really do a good job for the people who pay you. If not your business will dry up. I understand that, but why do you give a darn about the things you do as gifts. Nobody knows the difference." She would have made a great soccer mom for the Nikon D40 advertisement.

Now for me Photography attitudes are like a bell curve. Heavily weighted toward the bottom. Soccer Mom with her D40 anchoring the bottom and Barbara and Hertz on the other end with me sliding up and down the curve.

As Barbara said to me, "Hon you ain't never going to be an artist so start looking for way to join the merchantile world of photography." She must have been right.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 6, 2007)

This discussion is  attempting to cast photography as a closed problem dealing with communication where all the factors can be known and we have only to name them, assign them their weights and we can understand their interaction.   

IMO, it is far from that because positing that a linguistic structure is necessary to understand interactions assumes in advance that all the methods and means of interaction are known and they must be merely named and related. A 'language' doesn't explain the motivations or behaviors of many groups; e.g. the people who seem to love photography, get very involved and yet are in actuality virtually uninvolved with the subject matter. - as long as the subject fits certain parameters, they  are concerned only with the perfect reproduction of it. This group of people lie along the continuum next to, and may intersect, with those people who absolutely love 'stuff' - lenses, cameras, every piece of exotic paraphernalia they can get. Yet each of these groups has people who fit to some degree into every other group that one can name along any 'continuum.' 

Additionally, each of these groups has their own equivalent in many other fields, small groups of adherents whose emotions resound to things that others may not understand - and even don't seem to make sense within the contxt of the field itself.  My son-in-law is a fine craftsman, but uses the cheapest tools he can find to do the job while my brother-in-law is an equally fine luthier who both uses - and loves tools to distraction. Is the loving of tools part of woodcrafting?    We all love form in sport - separately from the actual achievement. We have even made form part of the issue - as in ice skating or ballet. Can one say that the emotional impact of ballet is fundamentally different from the frisson one gets when looking at a good picture? When we see Tiger Wood swing, what part of our appreciation is based on the actual beauty of the action and what part is based on knowing that he is actually so good. What if the viewer knows nothing about golf?

There are communications going on here and in all interactions that are unnameable and undefinable in any usable sense. Why does a Nikon feel better to me than a Canon? Naming the feeling doesn't define it. 

I pick up a box of photos and the top one is of my dead brother and me when we were kids. The paper is old and musty and as I pick up the box, the print slides to one side and disappears and I feel loss. Is this language? Can you tell me which of the interactions - the sight of the picture, the content, memory, sadness, smell and its associations - are the important parts in my reaction and their relative weights?

My general point being is that there are so many interactions made between any individual and any object or activity, that trying to piece them out and label them as language or communication  - is a exercise that requires ignoring much of what one can't know.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 6, 2007)

:lmao::lmao:

Traveler, Hertz shot that one down a while back, although that was never what I intended.

What I was looking for is a more formalized way of discussing how best to trigger emotions and specific thoughts in a person viewing a photograph.  If you like, how to Best craft a photograph for the purpose of artistic impact.  The use of "The language of a photograph" was (is) to serve as a primer for learning, understanding and hopefully mastering the Art of photography.  Or at least that was my desire, it would have probably been better to have started a new thread to keep down some of this confusion.  Thanks for everyones input thus far and in future.

mike


----------

