What does your picture say?

[MrGibbage]

I've seen responses to picture posts here that ask "What is your picture trying to say?" When you take a (good/really good) picture, is that a requirement? Is it an actual sentence that you are aiming for? Or is it more nebulous and abstract?

I've never taken a photography course, and I've never taken an art course - is that where this concept comes from? I actually wanted to take an adult evening photography class, but I couldn't find any, except one that required an art class for prereq. I fully believe in the artistic connection between photograhy and art, but is it really necessary to take an art class before being good at photography?

Skip

[cmM]

it depends entirely on one's view on photography. In my world, photography is art; it is an experssion... of course, not all art is created equal: while some of it is only meant to be esthetically pleasing, other is meant to speak lowder than 1,000 words.

[cmM]

Is all photography art, and does every photographic image make an artistic statement? Do "aesthetically pleasing" images make a statement, or is the statement reserved only for those images which are deemed as not pleasing?

Interesting line of thought there.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
A photograph, just like any other art piece is subjective, it can be interpreted in an infinty of ways. So, in my opinion, every photographic image does make a statement. That statement, of course, can be trivial or can be very bold, and it is different from one image to another and from one viewer to another.

[Curtis N]

Is all photography art, and does every photographic image make an artistic statement?Not by a long shot.

I have taken pictures to document freight damage.

Pictures of a machine setup that the operator could use for future reference.

Snapshots. People at a certain place and time, just to preserve the memory.

I have a relative who takes pictures of diseased and injured people for medical references (he also does weddings).

Tonight I'm going to try to shoot the moon. It could be fun, but art? No way. It's the same damned moon that's been shot a million times. Unless I could try a different angle or maybe use some fill flash. We'll see.

[jfrancho]

I personally think that a very small percentage of photography is anywhere in the same county as art. Some comes close. But I need to know more about what the artist is trying to say. Not because I cannot come up with my own interpretation, but I want to know that the photographer had some purpose in mind for making the picture. I guess it's validation from the photographer I'm looking for: "Yes I made this this way because...." As far as beauty, most of the art I like would not be desribed using that term.

[Leorooster]

To me, photography has two phases. One is documentary; and the other one is the process in which the documentary is express. It's the 2nd phase that is personal, and it's where creativity and artistry come into play. One could choose an artistic way to express while others have every right to simplicity. Again, this is very personal and subjective. As long as the photograph convey what the photographer/creator wants to express, that's photography. Just remember photography is an "art", not "science".

[jfrancho]

Tonight I'm going to try to shoot the moon. It could be fun, but art? No way. It's the same damned moon that's been shot a million times. Unless I could try a different angle or maybe use some fill flash. We'll see.Fill flash works great for moon shots: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=80688

[jfrancho]

Just remember photography is an "art", not "science".I'd say it is both. Much is rooted on science. The process, however can be an "art".

[PhotosGuy]

"What is your picture trying to say?" Some pics have more than one point of interest & I'm wondering if it's a flower pic with a dog in a garden, or a dog pic in a garden with a distracting flower in it, or...
OTOH, maybe it's just a polite way of saying, "What the hell are you thinking?" ;-)

[jfrancho]

Some pics have more than one point of interest & I'm wondering if it's a flower pic with a dog in a garden, or a dog pic in a garden with a distracting flower in it, or...
OTOH, maybe it's just a polite way of saying, "What the hell are you thinking?" ;-)The old dual false subject trick. Gets 'em everytime.

[nosquare2003]

Tonight I'm going to try to shoot the moon. It could be fun, but art? No way. It's the same damned moon that's been shot a million times.

Why do you take photos of the moon? Why is it fun for doing so? Do you include any backgrounds for shooting the moon? Will it be a full moon or half of it? How do you position the moon in the photo?

Moon is a popular subject for many old famous Chinese poems. Poets use the same moon to represent home-sickness, separation, happiness, satisfaction... Full moon means completeness and family gathering here.

Anyway, a ruler shot may tell the audience something about the photographer -- although it may not be true.

[jfrancho]

Anyway, a ruler shot may tell the audience something about the photographer -- although it may not be true.Like a lens test.

[jfrancho]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...This is a little bit of a tangent, but... I think about this statement a lot. I think the responsibility is to put some creative energy into the picture to convey that beauty you see. I see beautiful landscapes on my way to work every day, but how would I convey that beauty? I could just frame a nice snapshot, but will the viewer truly experience the same emotions? Surely my affection for a particular scene is caused by some familiarity, or even input from other senses. In that respect, if someone's picture conveys that level of understanding, then perhaps the process is indeed art.

[Inspired Photography]

As they say, a picture is worth 1000 words, but i don't think that covers it.

How many times have you read two-pages of gibberish before or after looking at someone's photograph? I suspect zero.
And if you did, would you know exactly how the pic was going to look before you saw it?
If there was more scrolling than the start of Star Wars involved on all threads in the Critique Corner, i don't think there would be many people waiting around for the pic at the end.

I think great pics tell a story all by themselves. Some of them might require an explanation to convey an extra emotion or something that the photographer couldn't manage to capture that makes the picture say even more, but i don't think that a story should need to accompany an image. After all, isn't the story what the pic is supposed to say?

Well that is my profound (or not so) thought for the day... back to sleep...

[Moppie]

I've seen responses to picture posts here that ask "What is your picture trying to say?"


say -> speach -> comunication.

Are you trying to comunicate anything with your photograph?

You don't have to, and you might do so with out intending to.
But if you are trying to, knowing what you are trying to comunicate can help critique how succesful you have been.

[Big_B]

I've seen responses to picture posts here that ask "What is your picture trying to say?" When you take a (good/really good) picture, is that a requirement? Is it an actual sentence that you are aiming for? Or is it more nebulous and abstract?


I think I've asked a similar question a couple of times. To be honest it's usually becase I'm not taken with the picture. Rather then trashing it, I'm trying to find out a little more about the intentions of the poster so that I can provide some constructive criticism.

[aliflack]

My belief is that there are many different types of photography; sports, documentary, fine art, snapshots, portraits to name but a few

Some weddings photographs are taken to record the location of the event, or who was there. More contemporary wedding photograhy aims to record the 'feel' of the day, to capture the mood. In this latter category, you will see pics that start to tell more of a story.

For example: two couples in the pic, the newlyweds, and their parents looking on. This sort of shot invites the viewer to infer things about the people in the frame - what is their relationship, does it show the journey from getting married, through to having kinds, seeing them grow up and eventually getting married themselves.

Thens there's a whole other level where the photographer is trying to portray something - whether that be a policitical movement, a social issue (inner city deprivation), or a message such as the stupidness of war. These types of images 'say' something.

Should all photographs say something to everyone? No. Although it would be nice if they did! I think that all photos should mean something to someone.

Have a look at the absrtacts gallery of my portfolio (see link in sig), specically the photos called 'Respect' and 'Flight of the Imagination'. Both of these were specifically shot to convey a message or make a statement... hopefully that'll make some sense of my diatribe above!

[sdommin]

"What is your picture trying to say?"

I hate that question. If a picture really "says something", it will be obvious, and the question doesn't need to be asked. If the viewer is confused about what the image "says", then the image has failed, so what's the point?

[Big_B]

If the viewer is confused about what the image "says", then the image has failed, so what's the point?

Perhaps because by asking what they were trying to acheive, we can help them to succeed next time?

[Jon, The Elder]

Ah yes, another one of these philosophical, no real answer questions.

I'm convinced it truly is in the 'eye of the beholder'.

My standard opener is 'I shoot horses', so....

Example 1: horse in profile with customer slightly ahead, holding the lead line. To me (after getting the technical aspects worked out), it is just that Horse+person=photo.
To the customer: legs in perfect position- head up-ears forward-eyes ahead-tail at rest, etc. it becomes the 'perfect thing of beauty' and framed & matted occupies a place of honor in their home. Very limited appeal to a very select audience.

Example 2: horse in motion racing around a barrel, mane and tail flowing, muscles bunched, ears back, eyes and nostrils flared, rider with deep concentration on their face.
To me: the dynamic tension, frozen in time, each detail tells a facet of the occasion. there are compelling reasons to spend more than a few seconds viewing the photo.
The customer relives the technical aspects, angles and positions of the horse and rider, distance to the obstacle, and uses it as a training aid.

To an architecture buff (for example) neither photo deserves more than a curious glance. To a landscape shooter, probably not that interesting either, and certainly of little value to Macro folks.

There is a lot more to photography than 'what lens should I buy....."

[arpi]

If the viewer is confused about what the image "says", then the image has failed, so what's the point?

the point is to confuse :D maybe the viewer needs training. maybe the picture came to be by accident-luck. maybe I make up the story of what a picture is supposed to be and then it becomes artistic. just make it whatever you want, you will always win since it is your picture :D

[Steven M. Anthony]

I've seen responses to picture posts here that ask "What is your picture trying to say?" When you take a (good/really good) picture, is that a requirement? Is it an actual sentence that you are aiming for? Or is it more nebulous and abstract?

I've never taken a photography course, and I've never taken an art course - is that where this concept comes from? I actually wanted to take an adult evening photography class, but I couldn't find any, except one that required an art class for prereq. I fully believe in the artistic connection between photograhy and art, but is it really necessary to take an art class before being good at photography?

Skip

Human beings interact with each other and with the world largely in terms of symbols. Everything is a symbol for something else. While a cigar is always a cigar, it is also something else... The words I'm using now are symbols that have specific meaning and nuance and connotation at the same time. This state of affairs is a function of how the human brain works and is not merely a matter of perspective. There is no way around it.

So, do all photos have a meaning? Yes, they do. The process of lifting the camera and composing a shot, and then making it, is a purposive action. We don't do it randomly. There is a motivation--a reason behind it. We don't always know what the reason is--most of the functioning of our brains is at the subconscious level. But that functioning occurs even if we are unaware of it--just like the tree makes a sound when it falls in the forest even if no one is there to hear it (because sound is the result of physical laws that just can't be broken).

There is also a reason behind our sharing of photos. If you weren't trying to communicate something with your photo, you wouldn't bother showing it to others.

Now, just WHAT these messages are can vary widely. They do not need to be profound. But when someone says there is no message in their photos it is just that they do not understand the message at a conscious level. Deciding to understand the message in one's own work is a personal decision--and one that need not take place to make photographs. Digging into one's subconscious is not for the faint at heart. There are a lot of surprises in there!

Images will create reactions in us that might match those the artist had in mind (consciously or otherwise!), or they might not. If the artist is aware of what they are trying to say--even at a gut level--they can use technique to support their message. But it is unlikely, with the vast number of individuals that could see a particular image, that everyone will or could be manipulated to see it the same way. (And we do manipulate with our photos.) And there are no objective measures of a succesful photo--at least in terms of whether people get the artist's intent or not. It might be enough that the artist sees in the image what was intended, or even one other person.

[nosquare2003]

I hate that question. If a picture really "says something", it will be obvious, and the question doesn't need to be asked. If the viewer is confused about what the image "says", then the image has failed, so what's the point?

Good. But I would add that the communication process involves:
- the encoding message from the transmitter;
- the medium for transmission;
- the decoding activities from the recipient.
The medium is only one part of it.

[photofinish]

Michael Reichmann at Luminous Landscape has two articles that best attempt to answer the questions raised during this thread. What do you guys think??
First One (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/telling.shtml)
Second One (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/abstracting.shtml)

[CyberPet]

The thing is: We come from different continents, from different cultures and religion. Will we see the pictures the say way as the one who photographed it? Nope. Why? Because we interpret things differently.

A picture that "speaks" to me, might hold no meaning at all to someone else. Does that mean that it's not a good picture, becasue not many get it? I don't think so.

So the old cliché about "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is pretty good. Since we all see things differently.

Then the question comes: Do we WANT to understand how the photographer saw it when he/she took the image? Maybe, maybe not.

[jeffherald]

I have a relative who takes pictures of diseased and injured people for medical references (he also does weddings).


Isn't that the same thing?!? HA HA HA HA HA! :lol:

Good discussion on this topic by the way. I never really thought about what others thought about my photos. I took them for my enjoyment and I just assumed the viewer sees the same thing. Now I'm not so sure. I will keep this topic in mind when I am photographing in the future.

Have fun!

[MrGibbage]

Well, I have really enjoyed reading everyone's responses here. I can tell that some of you must have formal art education. When I take pictures (now, before I started becoming much more critical about my photos), I **HOPE** that it come out "good enough to be called art". Does that make sense? Mostly, I take pictures of my nwe daughter. I try very hard to get everything set up perfectly. Then I take the picture (or hundreds, hoping to get one good one). Then I spend a lot of time in photoshop improving it even more. Hopefully, when it's all done, I have a very good photo on my hands that I am proud of, and want to share with others. But I still don't consider my pictures good enough to be called art. Maybe to some people, it is. Most people certainly don't even think about it. At least not consciously. "Wow. What a cute picture. Hmm... I wonder if this is art." It doesn't happen. But yet, I do use the picture to communicate--something. Don't all pictures? It's hard to imagine a scenario where a picture doesn't communicate at least something. But I don't think all pictures are art. Maybe I'm just being hard on myself.

Skip

[arpi]

to take control of what something means has been the trend in many disciplines. some people just need to justify their time spent on something :p

No so! In some forms of criticism, the artist's intent doesn't even figure into the meaning! That's called intentional fallacy!The artist isn't even part of the picture once it's captured! T.S. Eliot wrote a seminal essay titled "Talent and the Individual Artist" (I hope I've got the title right). He says that once art is created, it exists in a world separate from its author. So basically, when meaning is discussed, the author isn't even at the front of the line in the discussion.

And then, there's the belief that because everyone comes to the image with his own experiences, there can be no metatheory, no overarching theory or idea that encompasses all possible interpretations.

Can you believe that people actually sit down and formulate theories about art? The same cr@p that you had to suffer through when you read "Moby Dick" exists in the discussion of art.

Some find such discussions irritating.

I enjoy them.

[blinking8s]

im not a big artsy person, not when it comes to the blabble behind a photo, if its not conveyed in the photo then i dont bother explaining it...well, i give captions on journalism stuff, but you know what i mean

but when i used to get asked in class why i took the shot, or what it means...im pretty simple "the **** looked cool to me when in frame" hehe....used to make my teacher mad

[arpi]

Well, I think we would have to differentiate the terms 'interpretation' and 'meaning.' Interpretation does not need an creator meanwhile meaning does imply one because it spouts from the purpose of communicating something (needs a sender). When someone says something, a meaning is created, which may be different from the interpreted message received. Now, pictures can have infinite interpretations but they all come from a single source (the author) and come attached with the meaning of the creator (if the picture was used a means of some type of communication). Smarter :rolleyes: people are welcome to interpret the image and think that they know better than the creator, however, that is only interpretation. The author is the only one that can give meaning to its creation.

[jfrancho]

So, if the author is seeking others' interpretation, the question, "What does the picture say?" is irrelevant.

[arpi]

So, if the author is seeking others' interpretation, the question, "What does the picture say?" is irrelevant.

the problem is tat taking a picture as a means to convey something is a very imprecise way of communicating. there will always be arguments as to what it was originally meant. Even language itself is imprecise and the source of many problems but we live with them anyway. If the author does not know what he intended to say, then the message was void of meaning, maybe just a pretty picture. frankly, I think it is very hard to 'talk' with a camera.

[jfrancho]

I think it is very hard to 'talk' with a camera.Yes, it is. Somehow we need to funnel all the info into the picture, through the camera. The phrase should be, "A picture speaks a thousand words, but the camera is deaf-mute."

[arpi]

"A picture speaks a thousand words, but the camera is deaf-mute."

I like that. Is the camera man of a TV the author of the movie or is he/she just a camera man? He/she is just aiming the camera to the scene and maybe his/her only control is the focus and focal distance (and a couple more settings), he has no control of the scene other than the few adjustments of the camera. This case would be different from lets say a person that tries to produce art (ambiguous term), so yes, the camera man is deaf mute as well as the camera, the camera man/woman is just an extension of the camera ;)

[mdm]

I think I need another drink.:p

[Steven M. Anthony]

So if a photograph is created and the author is not alive to explain it, the image has no meaning?

Rembrandt, Caravaggio and David are dead. They aren't around to tell us what their images mean, and there are no records of their explanations. Do these works have no meaning?

J.D. Salinger (Catcher in the Rye) was notorious for refusing to give interviews. Most of his comments about his work existed in the form of invectives to critics who reviewed his work. With no word from the author, does his work have no meaning?

Not at all. When the photog makes the photo there is a meaning behind it. But a viewer's brain, when it processes the image of that photo, generates a meaning for that photo, too--in the mind of the viewer, of course. Each viewer generates their own meaning. Each are valid. But I know I feel the greatest sense of accomplishment when someone is moved to feel the same emotions I was trying to convey in my work.

That's why you get critiques of a given image that range from "it's too dark," to "it's too light." It's because each person is evaluating the image based on their own symbolic meaning of the scene captured.

Let's say Bill the photog makes a photo. The meaning behind his photo is one of "joy." I look at it, and for whatever reason, I see a meaning of "dispair." Only, for me, it's not a great photo of dispair because it's too bright--I think it would look better (more true to the meaning) if it were darker. Telling Bill to "make it darker" is not only of no help to Bill, it goes against his intended meaning.

That's why it can help to know the artist's intent when critiquing a photo (or any work of art). The techniques employed to create an image are meaningless outside the context of why the image was made in the first place.

Of course, one need not know the meaning of a work of art to look at and/or enjoy or dislike it. The meaning you have in your head is as valid a meaning as the one that motivated the artist to make it in the first place.

[arpi]

So if a photograph is created and the author is not alive to explain it, the image has no meaning?

We were talking about who was right in reference to the conveyed meaning in communicating something, the author (the sender) or a viewer (the receiver). The viewer can only interpret the message as best as he can. The creator is the one that is always right about what he/she was trying to say. That was my point and I am not trying to make it bigger than it is. If the author is dead, all you got is a bunch of people arguing who is right but now nobody can ask the author, short of like history, the person who was there is the one that really knows and everybody else has to deal with interpretations.

Cheers

[Steven M. Anthony]

We were talking about who was right in reference to the conveyed meaning in communicating something, the author (the sender) or a viewer (the receiver). The viewer can only interpret the message as best as he can.

But the viewer's interpretation is just as valid as the artist's--at least for the viewer. If the artist wants to convey X, and believes s/he has done so, and I see Y, who is right and who is wrong? It's impossible to answer that question.

Now, from the artist's POV, I'm just to stupid to see X. But from a communications theory POV, if I don't see X it's because the artist didn't do a good enough job communicating X. Like if I order lunch here in Minneapolis, but do so in Italian, it won't be the restaurant's fault for not bringing me what I want.


The creator is the one that is always right about what he/she was trying to say.

But the viewer is also always correct in seeing what s/he sees, too.

That was my point and I am not trying to make it bigger than it is. If the author is dead, all you got is a bunch of people arguing who is right but now nobody can ask the author, short of like history, the person who was there is the one that really knows and everybody else has to deal with interpretations.

Right--at that point, it would be like arguing over who is right about what each of our favorite colors is. But for some reason, it doesn't seem to stop some people! :)

[DwightMcCann]

For me, one of the great beauties and attractions of photography is its magnificently wide application: it can be so many things to so many people without being any less to each of them. I have seen the joy of a pre-schooler at pictures she has taken with a disposable; I have felt my jaw drop and my eyes open at the mastery of a Mapplethorpe [an exhibit that some perverts tried to close through force of law ... but wiser heads prevailed]; I have been amazed and disappointed at my own images, but usually not at the same time. I have seen images that simply tickled me in their cleverness; images that told sad and happy stories; images that spoke of war and images that spoke of birth and renewal. What else in all the world can be so much to so many? This is the beauty of photography ... and sometimes it needs an explanation!

[arpi]

Steven M. Anthony:

But the viewer's interpretation is just as valid as the artist's--at least for the viewer.

I don't agree. If the interpretation of the message by the viewer has a different meaning (by large) than what the author intended then the communication has somewhat failed. It just happen that nobody cares and no bridge will fall down and each personal view may have a somewhat pleasant experience, to the point that maybe a twisted perspective can be more apealing. But if your statement were correct then any drunk bum in the street is as right as any proffesional opinion or even the author himself. The reprecusions would be that the intended meaning would not be what is important, only the gayish experience of the viewer. And then, what is valid in art?

If the artist wants to convey X, and believes s/he has done so, and I see Y, who is right and who is wrong? It's impossible to answer that question.


No. That is exactly the point I don't agree with. My point is that the author is the one that created the original meaning and every other interpretation comes second hand. To argue with the author and to tell him/her what his/her picture should be is ludicrous.

But the viewer is also always correct in seeing what s/he sees, too.

Not if the interpretation of the meaning has any importance.

I think we are taking this art thingy to far, which is Ok with me. viva photography!


DwightMcCann:

I like the way you expose your view and I concur.

[Steven M. Anthony]

I don't agree. If the interpretation of the message by the viewer has a different meaning (by large) than what the author intended then the communication has somewhat failed.

True--from a communications theory perspective. But even this type of failure does not negate the validity of the viewer's interpreted message. Don't forget--the photog interpreted a scene and made a photo; the viewer starts (and ends) with the photo. I need not know what the artist had in mind in order to react to one of their images. My perception is my reality.


But if your statement were correct then any drunk bum in the street is as right as any proffesional opinion or even the author himself. The reprecusions would be that the intended meaning would not be what is important, only the gayish experience of the viewer. And then, what is valid in art?

To understand the relativistic nature of art--or at least art appreciation--one must realize that everyone who sees an image will interpret it from their perspective first. We can't help it. We all do it. So any drunk bum's opinion of an image is completely correct for them. For anyone to tell me, for example, that I don't really have the interpretation I have of a given image is pure arrogance. For someone to tell me my interpretation is wrong is equally as arrogant. If my interpretation does not match that of the artist, then, it's just that: we interpret the work differently. But different does not equate to wrong. The bum's personal opinion of the work is as valid as that of a photography master or the photog themself.

Now, if the issue is "Who knows what the artist had in mind for this image?" I would tend to agree with someone who followed the artist's work--bum or otherwise. And in this case, if the artist is dead and told no one their meaning, answering the question of what the meaning is, is complete speculation--a question with no know correct answer.



No. That is exactly the point I don't agree with. My point is that the author is the one that created the original meaning and every other interpretation comes second hand. To argue with the author and to tell him/her what his/her picture should be is ludicrous.

Okay--you have 2 thoughts in there. First, I agree that the artist creates an image with a meaning (that they either are aware of or not). But my interpretation doesn't "come second." At least not to me. The artist can no more tell me that my interpretation isn't right (for me) as his/hers is for them. There are simply no absolutes when it comes to imagery and symbolism. A red light means "stop" to some and something completely different to people in Amsterdam...

Now I agree completely that to argue with the artist what their interpretation of their photo should be is ludicrous. But that's what we do, implicitly, when we critique an image without knowledge of the artist's intent/meaning. For if we don't know their meaning, the only meaning we can base our critique on is our own.

But if the artist says "I was trying to get across X," and I don't see X, I can at least tell him/her what keeps me from seeing it that way. I think that might actually help the artist.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Well, suppose the photographer's intent was to convey the idea "coffee" but all he had was a bunch of grapes. he takes the picture. He's dead. The audience sees "grapes," but the author intended "coffee."

Then the "right" interpretation is the author's intent, even if the author missed his mark?

A perfect example of why "right" and "wrong" just don't work in this context.

[DwightMcCann]

Bloo ... that's one hell of a stretch, twist and pull on what arpi said, eh? Hey, I posted Tom Jones and Tower of Power over in the Urban forum. Go over there and enjoy some entertainment. :-)

[arpi]

True--from a communications theory perspective. But even this type of failure does not negate the validity of the viewer's interpreted message.

I though that expresing oneself was an act of communication. 'Communication' is the relevant point of view here, what other point of view do you have in mind? As I said before, there is a difference between the implied meaning (message sent) and its interpretation (message received). But if the author intents to use his/her creation as a means of expression only to find later that it didn't work as intended, then he/she should considered it as failed. It may have other unintended interpretations on viewers but they would be of secondary nature. How do you apply the word 'valid' in your point of view. Acording to you, anything is valid, which implies that anything goes, which doesn't differentiate between valid or no valid interpretations. Therefore, one person just interpretates and the mere act of interpreting is what makes it valid. It would even work with animals.
The most probable case is that the author does not even know what he/she is trying to say when taking a picture (talking with the camera is very hard), it is just a case of oportunity and luck, with the intention of creating some kind of vague feeling, all this being open to interpretation by its ambiguity. Throw the torpedo and see what happens.

But I like the way you chose your contex as a means to find your expalnations valid.

[Steven M. Anthony]

I though that expresing oneself was an act of communication. 'Communication' is the relevant point of view here, what other point of view do you have in mind?


But when considering communication here, there are at least 2 points of view to keep in mind: The artist's and the viewer's. The artist has an intended meaning to convey. The viewer has the desire to examine and interpret. What I as the viewer interpret your photos as meaning can be completely independent of what you intended to communicate.

As I said before, there is a difference between the implied meaning (message sent) and its interpretation (message received). But if the author intents to use his/her creation as a means of expression only to find later that it didn't work as intended, then he/she should considered it as failed.


Agreed. But that doesn't make the viewer's interpretation "wrong." If the elements of the image lead you to feel Z when the artist wanted you to feel X, well, too bad for the artist. The failure for interpretations to line up isn't the fault of the viewer. They do not control the associations they have to the image--they just have them.

It may have other unintended interpretations on viewers but they would be of secondary nature.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. They might be of a secondary nature to the ARTIST, but they are certainly not of a secondary nature to the VIEWER. To the viewer, their interpretation is of a primary nature--it's how the image makes them feel.

How do you apply the word 'valid' in your point of view. Acording to you, anything is valid, which implies that anything goes, which doesn't differentiate between valid or no valid interpretations.


Well, there are no non-valid interpretations of art. If I look at a photo and I interpret it in a stomach-turning way, then that's a valid interpretation of it--valid to me.


Therefore, one person just interpretates and the mere act of interpreting is what makes it valid.


Exactly. The fact that a given person has an interpretation of the image makes that interpretation valid--for them. It is valid even if you don't agree with it. It is valid even if nobody else agrees with it. Because the validity of the interpretation is not dependant on anything outside of the mind that generated it. Some people have trouble getting their head around the concept of relativism.

But consider: You can kill someone and not go to jail if you can convince the jury that you acted in self defence. Now, the courts recognize that you don't actually have to have been in a situation where your life was threated by the person you killed. You just have to convince the court/jury that you INTERPRETED the situation that way. So even courts of law recognize that a persons reality is relative to their perceptions.

It would even work with animals.


Hmmm. Interesting notion. Animals certainly interpret their surroundings and have reactions to them. Can you describe a scenario where an animal has a non-valid interpretation or reaction to its surroundings?


The most probable case is that the author does not even know what he/she is trying to say when taking a picture (talking with the camera is very hard), it is just a case of oportunity and luck, with the intention of creating some kind of vague feeling, all this being open to interpretation by its ambiguity. Throw the torpedo and see what happens.


Well, they know what they were saying at a subconscious level, at least. There's no getting around that.

[arpi]

then the adjective 'valid' has no meaning and it is useless and may as well be removed since any eyeball automatically sees and interprets what it sees, because according to you, seeing is as good as interpreting -all is left is to see if the eyeball works or not and see how many neurons are snapping. If the eyeball works and produce current then the eyeball is working. Is the mechanical action of seeing interpretation?

I have to disagree in that there are valid and invalid interpretations especially when the author intended so, intention gives validity. The intention of expressing a feeling originates automatically a valid/invalid key to check if something is valid or invalid, just look to see if it was transmitted and this would be the test for this case. The message didn't come out of the blue but it had a purpose, conveying something, maybe a feeling. it is not like looking at a stone, which nobody made and it is lying there without purpose. In this case being so ambiguous, a better term instead of 'valid' would be 'approach.' If the interpretation is close to the meaning sent, then it would be have approached the original meaning, the further away from the source, the more invalid would it be.


Cheers

[arpi]

just another question. what if you were wrecked in an island and you threw a bottle with a help message inside. Then two people would pick it up. One thinking that is a poem and the other one interpreting the mesage as a call for help. which one would you prefer, and which one is right?

Cheers

[Steven M. Anthony]

then the adjective 'valid' has no meaning and it is useless and may as well be removed since any eyeball automatically sees and interprets what it sees, because according to you, seeing is as good as interpreting -all is left is to see if the eyeball works or not and see how many neurons are snapping. If the eyeball works and produce current then the eyeball is working. Is the mechanical action of seeing interpretation?


No, but it's close. Seeing is a function of retinal input into the brain. Other systems take over and interpret the information provided by the eye. But I see your point (no pun intended). In this context "interpretation" and "valid interpretation" are the same thing. And that's exactly my point. All interprtations are valid for the individual making it. Using the word valid only serves to remind us that none of these individual interpretations are invalid or wrong.

I have to disagree in that there are valid and invalid interpretations especially when the author intended so, intention gives validity.


You seem to be having difficulty seeing the independence of the artist and everyone else on the planet. It does no good to compare interpretation with the intent to determine right or wrong. At best you can measure "same" vs. "different." When artist and viewer interpretations are the same it makes the artist feel heard. When they are different, the artist might feel misunderstood. I realize that people who buy my work buy it for what they see in it--not necessarily what I put into it (i.e., my intended message). For that reason, when I sign the work (actually the mat) I offer to title the piece in a way that is meaningful to the buyer. For example, someone bought a photo of the Capitol building. She wanted it titled 2020--the year her husband hopes to be serving in Congress--she was giving it to him as a gift. That certainly wasn't what I had in mind when I shot it. But that's what it meant to her. I certainly wasn't going to tell her she was wrong about it... :)


The intention of expressing a feeling originates automatically a valid/invalid key to check if something is valid or invalid, just look to see if it was transmitted and this would be the test for this case. The message didn't come out of the blue but it had a purpose, conveying something, maybe a feeling.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I can see how an artist can look to see if people get the intended message--but it has nothing to do with being valid or invalid.

It is not like looking at a stone, which nobody made and it is lying there without purpose.

Okay. I get that--but what we are dealing with are just matching or non-matching interpretations. There is no issue of validity.

[QUOTE=arpi]In this case being so ambiguous, a better term instead of 'valid' would be 'approach.' If the interpretation is close to the meaning sent, then it would be have approached the original meaning, the further away from the source, the more invalid would it be.


No. Not invalid. Just different. Maybe you are just using the word "valid" in a non-standard way. Because to me, if the interpretation is to be deemed invalid, it is to suggest that there is no consistent logic behind it. But I can tell you flat out, that all the interpretations I make have a consistent logic behind them--even if I end up with an interpretation that differs from yours. That can happen because I'm starting with a different set of experiences and understandings than you are. Even if my base assumptions are wrong in an absolute sense--my interpretations are still consistent within the context of my erroneous beliefs and, thus, are valid.

Think of it in terms of the proverbial glass--is it half empty or half full? The reality is that both are valid interpretations of a glass with half the amount of liquid in it that it could potentially hold. One interpretation isn't right and one wrong. Neither are invalid. Indeed, both are completely valid.

This can be extended to an image with an intended meaning behind it (which the glass lacks). I want to communicate Joy in a photo. Some people see joy. Some people do not--they see something else. Those others are not "wrong" in their interpretation--it truly means to them what they see in it. Their interpretation does not match the message I intended. Period. They are not stupid because they don't see what I intended. If anything, I did a poor job at communicating joy. But that doesn't change the INTENDED message--even if NO ONE got "joy" from my photo.

It comes down to A) there is an intended message; B) there is a received message; C) sometimes they match up and sometimes they don't. Period. There is no right or wrong involved.

The only way right or wrong enter in is if I were to ask "Guess what my intent was?" But then, it's just the guess that is right or wrong--not their interpretation. The interpretations are just the same or different.

[Steven M. Anthony]

just another question. what if you were wrecked in an island and you threw a bottle with a help message inside. Then two people would pick it up. One thinking that is a poem and the other one interpreting the mesage as a call for help. which one would you prefer, and which one is right?

Cheers

I would prefer anyone who picked it up to interpret it the way I had intended.

The person who interpreted it as a poem would not match my intention. But their interpretation would still be valid. I must remember not to rhyme my pleas for help!

[arpi]

I hope that you are able to read right ;) reading -looking at the paper and seeing bright dots- needs interpretation. a dog can see the paper but cannot read it. seeing is not interpreting. the difference in reading right is that you interpret the bright dots right.

All interpretations are valid


not so at all. for example, there are reading comprehension tests. the point of the tests is to see if a person can interpret the text somewhat correctly. an erroneous interpretation can be very costly. In art, things are safe and cool and there is plenty of leeway because there is nothing at stake and to top if off, art is a cloudy field to have sounded opinions. in real life things can get dangerous and using the wrong interpretation of events can get you in trouble. it happens that society is very protective.

When they are different, the artist might feel misunderstood.

yes, I do hope the author can feel misunderstood. He/she cannot ignore the obvious. The obvious is that if he/she feels misunderstood there was a mishap in communicating what he/she intended. It may be that he/she did not try to convey anything, but only give out a blurred thing where other people can find they own 'thingy,' then he cannot go wrong. you know, if you create something and you don't know what you did or why you did it, happy joy to every body. That is not what I would call a meaningful creation because it lacks any purpose, maybe it is just a good passtime. I hope he feels he has something deep and important to say and when he does, I hope he is understood, that would be really meaningful not just a thingy of happy colors.


It comes down to A) there is an intended message; B) there is a received message; C) sometimes they match up and sometimes they don't. Period. There is no right or wrong involved.


yes there is something wrong. it is called failure of communication. failure to find a means to say what he/she wanted to say. he/she is just a quiet mouth.

cheers

[Steven M. Anthony]

I hope that you are able to read right ;) reading -looking at the paper and seeing bright dots- needs interpretation. a dog can see the paper but cannot read it. seeing is not interpreting. the difference in reading right is that you interpret the bright dots right.

Actually, reading does not require seeing. It does involve some sort of stimulus, but the interpretation of the stimulus is a higher-order brain function, like I pointed out earlier (about interpreting images).




not so at all. for example, there are reading comprehension tests. the point of the tests is to see if a person can interpret the text somewhat correctly.

Or, somewhat the way the test takers had in mind--which is why so many standardized tests come under fire as being biased in favor of those like the test makers. Face it, an interpretation of a photo is like an opinion. Your opinions are right for you and mine are right for me. The information upon which our opinions are based can be right or wrong--but the opinions are neither.

an erroneous interpretation can be very costly.

Erroneous? Only to someone who can't accept the relativistic nature of interpretation. Certainly not matching the test-maker's interpretation can cost you. And, of course, if the test is a multiple choice format, it is likely that the answers are set up so that only one flows logically from the information in the passage--thus providing for only one "right answer." BTW: I have an advanced degree in test construction and measurement.

In art, things are safe and cool and there is plenty of leeway because there is nothing at stake and to top if off, art is a cloudy field to have sounded opinions. in real life things can get dangerous and using the wrong interpretation of events can get you in trouble. it happens that society is very protective.

In art, there is leeway because there are no absolutes and no real consequences for having a unique interpretation. I don't see how most of "real life" is any different.

yes, I do hope the author can feel misunderstood. He/she cannot ignore the obvious. The obvious is that if he/she feels misunderstood there was a mishap in communicating what he/she intended.

Indeed.

It may be that he/she did not try to convey anything, but only give out a blurred thing where other people can find they own 'thingy,' then he cannot go wrong.

Well, that is still an intent.

you know, if you create something and you don't know what you did or why you did it, happy joy to every body. That is not what I would call a meaningful creation because it lacks any purpose, maybe it is just a good passtime. I hope he feels he has something deep and important to say and when he does, I hope he is understood, that would be really meaningful not just a thingy of happy colors.

I try not to judge the intent others put behind there work. But that's just me...



yes there is something wrong. it is called failure of communication. failure to find a means to say what he/she wanted to say. he/she is just a quiet mouth.


Why do you consider failure to communicate "wrong?"

[arpi]

Your opinions are right for you and mine are right for me. The information upon which our opinions are based can be right or wrong--but the opinions are neither.

all along you say that it doesn't matter but at the same time you try to make yours stand up. You think that nobody is wrong but at the same time I am wrong. talking about opinions and saying a characteristics of them does not have a saying in their content or formation

Yes everybody has an opinion. To be right or wrong is human, nothing like to have a stone in the pocket and if you do you are right. We make it 'right' or 'wrong.' we judge it so.

[Steven M. Anthony]

all along you say that it doesn't matter but at the same time you try to make yours stand up. You think that nobody is wrong but at the same time I am wrong. talking about opinions and saying a characteristics of them does not have a saying in their content or formation.

I think nobody is wrong when it comes to their personal interpretation of a photo--it is to them what it is to them. That's the scope I've been talking about. I think you believe your opinions to be true. And for you they are. But the information upon which your opinions are based appears to be incomplete. I had hoped to better inform you, that's all. Nothing personal...

Yes everybody has an opinion. To be right or wrong is human, nothing like to have a stone in the pocket and if you do you are right. We make it 'right' or 'wrong.' we judge it so.

True. Many people judge lots of different things. The question is whether those judgments are based on facts of fictions.

[arpi]

Steven, you seen to be cool. After I read my comments I though my tone of conversation was getting a little serious and somehow aggressive but you seem to be OK. I am sorry if I sounded to serious and thanks for being such a sportman.


I am still holding to my horses :p To be right or wrong is also an opinion!

Cheers

[Steven M. Anthony]

I am still holding to my horses :p To be right or wrong is also an opinion!


If you view right and wrong as an opinion, then we are on the same page. :)

[arpi]

Ok, but how does a judge determines who is wrong or right in court? His/her opinion is what would matter. If something important were at stake I would rather follow the opinion of a consultant (which I would consider 'righter') to that of a street bum (which I would consider wrong). they both have opinions but one is 'righter' than the other.


but also I think in your point of view you don't consider the 'content' but only the external properties of an opinion. for example, a person can weight 150 lbs but that does not tell me anything about what he thinks. In the same token, a person can have an opinion but it does not tell me what opinion. In my point of view the content has more weight than the fact there exist an opinion. what matters is the message and no the fact that messages are carried all the same way.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Ok, but how does a judge determines who is wrong or right in court? His/her opinion is what would matter.

Judges don't determine who is right and who is wrong. They determine who is guilty of a crime and who is not (at least for a bench trial).


If something important were at stake I would rather follow the opinion of a consultant (which I would consider 'righter') to that of a street bum (which I would consider wrong). they both have opinions but one is 'righter' than the other.

The consultant might give you the answer most people would agree with--but that doesn't make it the right answer. Remember, most people, a long time ago, thought the sun revolved around the earth. In fact you could get yourself killed for saying otherwise. But as we all know now, most people were wrong.

One can be right or wrong about things related to an absolute. The sun does NOT revolve around the earth. But when there is no absolute--like with one's personal interpretation of an image--right and wrong simply do not apply.


but also I think in your point of view you don't consider the 'content' but only the external properties of an opinion. for example, a person can weight 150 lbs but that does not tell me anything about what he thinks. In the same token, a person can have an opinion but it does not tell me what opinion. In my point of view the content has more weight than the fact there exist an opinion. what matters is the message and no the fact that messages are carried all the same way.

You lost me here...

[Carzee]

Do a search on "The Family Of Man" collection. It was huge. A great book from the Cold War era. You can learn all you need to with that one. FoM came from a time of changes - it is soaked in secular humanism/utopianism (an "ism" that was a hit in the west's Colleges for a few decades and edifices such as PBS and NPR to this day) but you just cringe a bit and get past that aspect of the work. FoM is authentically "of its time".
It set new boundaries for what photography could achieve, even if it was a dubious 'collective' project... and it kept selling through the revolution that was Japanese 35mm SLR production and innovation. It sold in the millions and filled Photography classes around the first world...
I owned it for years and it has a documentary appeal seldom equalled.

http://www.elangelcaido.org/libros/029thefamily.jpg

[nosquare2003]

Ok, but how does a judge determines who is wrong or right in court? His/her opinion is what would matter. If something important were at stake I would rather follow the opinion of a consultant (which I would consider 'righter') to that of a street bum (which I would consider wrong). they both have opinions but one is 'righter' than the other.

But who originally writes the law, the legislative body, the judge or the jury? Do we have to guess the "original" meaning of the law or the "normal" meaning of it? (P.S. Some legal systems need to, and some legal systems do not.) It is the jury here to determine if someone is guilty for serious offense. And jury is made up of a group of normal citizens who are "not" legal experts.

Moreover, law and photography are very different subjects. The law to some extent is under influence of moral standard of a large crowd of citizens. Photography involves emotion and there is no general standard. (And I don't think that there is right or wrong in emotion.)

[Steven M. Anthony]

Photography involves emotion and there is no general standard. (And I don't think that there is right or wrong in emotion.)

Well said. You can't help having the emotional responses you have. You can try to keep others (and even yourself) from seeing it--but you can't stop from having it.

[arpi]

I ended up explaining with out of context examples that there exist a difference between right and wrong deviating the original topic of the corruption of the original meaning. The conversation went a little out its main route and it ended up here :( I agree with anybody that says that when one talks about emotion anything goes and really who cares?? if you got something that is 'good' then take it. I think I exposed my opinion about 'purpose and intention' and I am happy with it even though I know that each person will see what ever he/she wants -very human- and will be different from what the author intended (if he/she ever intended anything at all). I prefer a meaningful art work than one of this psychological stains on paper that only mean what you make out.

viva photography!

Cheers

[arpi]

But who originally writes the law, the legislative body, the judge or the jury? Do we have to guess the "original" meaning of the law or the "normal" meaning of it? (P.S. Some legal systems need to, and some legal systems do not.) It is the jury here to determine if someone is guilty for serious offense. And jury is made up of a group of normal citizens who are "not" legal experts.

Moreover, law and photography are very different subjects. The law to some extent is under influence of moral standard of a large crowd of citizens. Photography involves emotion and there is no general standard. (And I don't think that there is right or wrong in emotion.)

wait a minute. now someone starts applying reason. so are you saying that I am wrong and you are right, yes or no?

I love it. It looks like one of those religious organizations. they'll wait after the end of the brainwash to tell you about the UFO.

[nosquare2003]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4109664.stm

What are the original meaning?

[arpi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4109664.stm

What are the original meaning?

he he. this made me think about putting paint in the feet of a chicken and letting it walk on paper. did it consciously create art and what did the chicken mean to say? :)

[nosquare2003]

he he. this made me think about putting paint in the feet of a chicken and letting it walk on paper. did it consciously create art and what did the chicken mean to say? :)

I'm certain that someone has already done so.

The chicken may not have any artistic intention. How about you? Why do you put a chicken on the paper? What do you want to say? What does it mean to me?

Sometimes the process, instead of the end result, is art.

[nosquare2003]

wait a minute. now someone starts applying reason. so are you saying that I am wrong and you are right, yes or no?

I love it. It looks like one of those religious organizations. they'll wait after the end of the brainwash to tell you about the UFO.

I don't get you. What's the problem of "applying reason"? Everything does have reason, even if we don't know them. Isn't it the base of philosophy?

(sorry for off-topic...)

[arpi]

I don't get you. What's the problem of "applying reason"? Everything does have reason, even if we don't know them. Isn't it the base of philosophy?

(sorry for off-topic...)]


well, the conversation drifted to the topic of 'right' and 'wrong' and i was using your answer as example :). my point is that there is a 'right' or 'wrong' (closer to the truth or far away) and that is what I've been trying to say for the last 20 mesages. the mere existence of an opinion does not make it right even for the viewer (who may consider his right).The person I was talking said that the opinion of anybody is always right because he/she is experiencing an opinion but at the same time he said his opinion is right and my opinion is wrong and he was trying to convince me that his opinion is better than mine (righter). In your statement you were judging that you were right and that I was wrong, which is very natural and you are all fine. I understand that feelings are ambiguous and that there is no right or wrong judment there. But maybe the author wanted to say something (communicate something) and the picture was his form of expression, then if the message gets interpreted differently from what the author intended, somewhere along the line the interpretation came out 'wrong' because it had an intention it was not met.

Cheers

[nosquare2003]

Thanks arpi. But I think that you have quoted me in a "wrong" way...cheers