Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: darr on June 28, 2012, 07:45:56 am
-
:-\
-
Alain Briot's article on the home page seems to have been repeated. Someone suggested the reason is because the responses to the original post were not particularly meaningful.
Rob C raised the interesting point in another thread: Why should pictures require to be 'meaningful'? I believe that as pictures, as distinct from propaganda, they just need to be beautiful. If anyone needs meaningful, they can buy a book. Or read here.
The current quote on the LL home page is: "A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know".
Diane Arbus
So what's going on here? I would suggest that an enduring work of art hints at numerous levels of meaning which may be intriguing but never fully resolved.
As an example, I'm going to reproduce a rather outrageous image that I've posted before, with the purpose of providing a detailed analysis, hoping that Michael or Alain Briot do not object or find it in poor taste.
The first shot, Figure 1, is the actual scene as I shot it, the Himalayan mountains at dawn, from Poon Hill, Nepal.
Figure 2 is the scene with added foreground interest.
Figure 3 is a crop of what I consider to be the central point of interest.
Figure 4 is a crop of the right-most lady who mirrors the rising sun.
What I'd like to discuss is the meaning of this 'copy & paste' job. Does it have a meaning?
Well one colleague of mine, on seeing this photo, exclaimed that it was ridiculous, totally implausible and juvenile. As a result of his comment, I began to analyse the image.
The following analysis may be taken as 'tongue in cheek' if you like, or serious if you like.
I'll enumerate and question what I see as meaningful aspects of this composite image in a critical context.
(1) The rising sun at a particular moment of 'dawn' is spectacular on the snow-bound mountain peaks. But that moment lasts for only a minute or two. I captured it.
(2) The foreground tends to lack interest, compared with the mouintains, yet the foreground does take up a large part of the composition.
(3) The introduction of other, perhaps more interesting elements, such as semi-nude ladies, would tend to redress this issue with the foreground.
(4) But how is it meaningful to have semi-nude ladies in the foreground, you might ask.
(5) There is a symbolic significance here. By inserting the ladies in the foreground, I have created a sort of 'mirror' effect; Mountains in the background, and Mountains of a different type in the foreground. This is a subtle level of meaning.
(6) There are other levels of meaning, such as: How did the photographer arrange this amazing shot? Is there an additional story of the taking of this shot? For example, I was treking with three beautiful ladies in Nepal, and I wanted to photograph them in a 'semi-nude' pose in the cold mountain air at dawn, at a height of 3200 metres. What sort of magical persuavive powers did I need?
(7) Another secret or imponderable, is the question of the true gender of these ladies. Are they true females. I won't tell you.
(8) If you suspect they are not true females, but transexuals, then there is another level of meaning. We not only have Photoshop manipulation, but Medical manipulation, all in the one shot.
To summarize; magnificent mountains in both the background and the foreground, and two types of manipulation, photoshop maniplulation and medical manipulation.
A truly magnificent and unique image in my opinion. ;D
-
"Rob C raised the interesting point in another thread:
Quote
Why should pictures require to be 'meaningful'? I believe that as pictures, as distinct from propaganda, they just need to be beautiful. If anyone needs meaningful, they can buy a book. Or read here.
The current quote on the LL home page is:
Quote
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know".
Diane Arbus " "
But there’s a problem, Ray: folks aren’t interested in anything Rob C might have to say but they are sort of interested in Diane’s words because she’s dead (and famously dead, at that) and her words can be construed, safely, to mean all things and anything to all men and all women.
The basic situation, in my view, is that nobody takes these forums seriously unless they are about to buy a new bit of equipment; then, they pore over everything and believe anything that seems to confirm and encourage their basic desire to buy whatever it is they want to buy. It’s about making one feel better about gratuitous spending.
Basically, if you separate the gear-heads from the images, it breaks down into two camps: those who want to be looked at and ‘critiqued’ and those who’d really rather not stick up anything on the public wall but do enjoy second-guessing the membership of the first camp. In the end, both deserve one another, but I think you can forget anything ‘meaningful’ to emerge as a consequence of the process.
Come to think of it, I suppose that this is perhaps the single greatest reason for the huge imbalance between posts from male and female members of LuLa: the ladies are more careful with their time and the use to which they choose to put it. They leave the school playground much earlier.
Rob C
-
Well this went off the rails quick... :)
-
To summarize; magnificent mountains in both the background and the foreground, and two types of manipulation, photoshop maniplulation and medical manipulation.
A truly magnificent and unique image in my opinion. ;D
Not to forget all those meanings. Sometimes, it's amazing what goes on inside the photographer's head.
You didn't mention the monetary aspect of those collages. I bet, that for many art lovers and true connoisseurs the value of those pieces just shot up. And that is very meaningful, too.
Now, I started to ponder about some of my images. I find it fascinating, how many of those meanings can be traced directly or indirectly to females.
Ray, what you should have done, is to post all these pictures in the Landscape and Nature category and ask the readers to critique and analyze them. Even more importantly, to invite them to envision the artist's mood and disposition, and to attempt to peek deep into the artist's psyche and try to find out the hidden meaning. It's not inconceivable that someone might come up with yet another meaning that you overlooked.
-
Well this went off the rails quick... :)
This is a quick forum - gotta stay on your toes and carpe diem, as Horace would say, had he himself been quick enough to have sidestepped the grim reaper.
It's a bonus - enjoy.
Rob C
-
Ray, what you should have done, is to post all these pictures in the Landscape and Nature category and ask the readers to critique and analyze them. Even more importantly, to invite them to envision the artist's mood and disposition, and to attempt to peek deep into the artist's psyche and try to find out the hidden meaning. It's not inconceivable that someone might come up with yet another meaning that you overlooked.
There are lots of additional meanings, Les, if one allows one's imagination free rein.
For example, the region depicted in the photo is rich in Hindu mythology. The mountain in the background of Figure 3 is Annapurna 1 at 8091 metres. I believe it is ranked as the 10th highest mountain on earth.
But what is perhaps more interesting is the meaning of Annapurna. It's a Sanskrit word which literally means "full of food", but in Hinduism means the "Goddess of Plenty". Now you'll notice that the lady in Figure 3 is tilting her head in the same direction as the cloud movement on the summit of Annapurna 1, suggesting perhaps that she is really the Goddess of Plenty and has swooped down from the mountain peak in order to be in my photo. Now we can't be certain about this, but I'm sure you'll agree that the lady certainly has plenty of something. ;)
If we consider Figure 4, we might wonder why this particular lady is there. What is the meaning of this and why is she in that precise location, looking so lovely?
Well, it so happens that the distant mountain behind her, to the left, is very dear to Lord Shiva. It's called Machapuchare. Now I admit I'm not entirely sure about His circumstances, but I think Machapuchare might be His holiday home because Mt Kailash in Tibet has the reputation of being His permanent abode. Perhaps some Hindu readers can clarify this point.
Let's assume it's His holiday home. Shiva's wife, Parvati, on seeing Annapurna, Goddess of Plenty, already posing for my photo, gets a bit envious and immediately swoops down from her mountain peak so she can also be in the photo. Directly behind her right shoulder in Figure 4 is a long stalk of grass pointing straight towards Mt Machapuchare. What more evidence do you need? ;D
-
Well this went off the rails quick... :)
Research has shown that any internet discussion will lose track of the original subject after an average of three responses..
-
Research has shown that any internet discussion will lose track of the original subject after an average of three responses..
Well this thread is clearly above average because the 7th post, which was mine, is definitely on track and directly related to the topic, Creating Meaningful Photographs.
-
Why beautiful?
Why not ugly, or for that matter any other adjective? I can understand why most glamour photographers would covet conventional beauty, but should everyone? Do photographs really only have to be decorative to succeed?
Why do so many photographers want to put constraints on their work? Is it any wonder there is continuing debate over photography as art when restrictive attitudes such as this are so prevalent?
Simply because I can't imagine why I'd wish to put anything ugly up on the wall - I already have a large mirror there, leading me to believe that anything more turns into overstatement...
Glam photographers might have a penchant for conventional beauty, as you say, but certainly not fashion snappers, where the most unlikely people now grace magazine pages. Not so much adverts, though, leading me to think that ads are designed to please large corporations whose ideas are probably slightly more traditional in order to remain in step with their imagined public.
But I think, unless you are just indulging in a little bit of devil's advocacy at the moment, you are tending to treat photographic ideas of what is or is not attractive in similar manner to those in painting, which I think is a mistake. In painting, anything does go, as recently successful (if dead) British painters have proved. Some pretty gross depictions of equally gross ladies have sold for zillions... I wouldn't expect even a couple of similar photographs would find a home in a charity sale. But you never can tell.
Remove representations of the human form from the argument, and pretty much anything already goes, whether anyone else likes it or not. I don't see personal likes or dislikes as any form of 'constraint' at all - if anything, they save the author a lot of time and effort chasing things he doesn't like; it's automatic editing.
Rob C
-
But why would I want to return again and again (one mark of a true work of art IMO) to an image that though beautiful is utterly banal (flower and puppy pictures?). It's that something extra that makes me want to return to the image that is the "meaningful" aspect of it. Whatever that might be..... Think of most flower shots on DPR vs the O'Keefe orchids, for example. What do the paintings have that the flower pics lack? Whatever it is is the "meaning" to my way of thinking.
-
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then who has a monopoly on ugliness?
-
Apologies Darr Almeda -- your comment didn't provoke the facetious responses, it was just an available excuse.
-
But why would I want to return again and again (one mark of a true work of art IMO) to an image that though beautiful is utterly banal (flower and puppy pictures?). It's that something extra that makes me want to return to the image that is the "meaningful" aspect of it. Whatever that might be..... Think of most flower shots on DPR vs the O'Keefe orchids, for example. What do the paintings have that the flower pics lack? Whatever it is is the "meaning" to my way of thinking.
Unless it's a large carnivorous plant. It really depends on the composition.
-
But why would I want to return again and again (one mark of a true work of art IMO) to an image that though beautiful is utterly banal (flower and puppy pictures?). It's that something extra that makes me want to return to the image that is the "meaningful" aspect of it. Whatever that might be..... Think of most flower shots on DPR vs the O'Keefe orchids, for example. What do the paintings have that the flower pics lack? Whatever it is is the "meaning" to my way of thinking.
I fail to understand why beautiful should imply banal. I do not say that it doesn't often apply to people, though, but on second thoughts, how many beautiful people does one see on any given day? Precious few, in my experience, making the risk of encountering banality worth while...
Regarding flowers, they have no meaning of their own. They serve a variety of purposes but that’s distinct from any intrinsic meaning per se.
But, circumstances surrounding flowers can have a helluva a lot of meaning: consider a dozen red roses lying on a lady’s coffin; think of an evening field of already dead sunflowers as you race across a country to see a relative on his way out of this world. Hold the thought of a posy lying in the road outside a little country church after an aborted wedding. It’s all about flowers, but the flowers themselves mean nothing.
Whether paintings or photographs, I see flower pictures as studies in technique and precious little else. I'd agree with you and put pooches and cats in the same category of excitement.
Rob C
-
Why beautiful?
Why not ugly, or for that matter any other adjective? I can understand why most glamour photographers would covet conventional beauty, but should everyone? Do photographs really only have to be decorative to succeed?
Why do so many photographers want to put constraints on their work? Is it any wonder there is continuing debate over photography as art when restrictive attitudes such as this are so prevalent?
I tend to agree with KLaban. I'm reminded in this context of that very famous poem by John Keats, "Ode on a Grecian Urn" which ends with the following stanza:
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou sayst,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
Here, John Keats is making no distinction between beauty and truth. That which is not truthful is not beautiful. That which is truthful, however ugly it may appear at first glance, is in fact beautiful. That's the message here.
I can't resist showing you another couple of images taken in Nepal. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether or not there is any beauty in these shots.
-
Ray, why do you place such value on the words of a guy who, like all writers, is but a wordsmith doing his bit to turn a buck or, at best, feel good about himself?
Coming from an earlier period than our own lends no more veracity to his clever writings than to those of Napoleon. He simply writes what he thinks others will perceive as clever and deeply insightful - probably much as with those of us here who take the trouble to put imaginary quill to parchment.
Could it be that you have allowed verbal beauty to dull your own sense?
;-)
Rob C
-
Ray, why do you place such value on the words of a guy who, like all writers, is but a wordsmith doing his bit to turn a buck or, at best, feel good about himself?
Coming from an earlier period than our own lends no more veracity to his clever writings than to those of Napoleon. He simply writes what he thinks others will perceive as clever and deeply insightful - probably much as with those of us here who take the trouble to put imaginary quill to parchment.
Could it be that you have allowed verbal beauty to dull your own sense?
;-)
Rob C
No, Rob. I'm not dazzled by notoriety, PhDs, or fame. I'm simply moved by what rings true. Truth is beautiful, whatever its form.
-
Truth is beautiful, whatever its form.
So I cannot create a beautiful lie? A police photograph of the remains of a head of someone shot throughout the forehead is beautiful?
Keats did not know what he was talking about. Nice sentiments, but rather meaningless.
-
nouns arguing with pronouns about adverbs
-
So I cannot create a beautiful lie? A police photograph of the remains of a head of someone shot throughout the forehead is beautiful?
Keats did not know what he was talking about. Nice sentiments, but rather meaningless.
You're right; in the end, almost all stances or beliefs turn out to be flawed, and the words of poets might be beautiful, but none the more truthful or accurate because of it.
Rob C
-
So I cannot create a beautiful lie?
Keats is attmepting to define real beauty as opposed to fake beauty. I presume what you mean by a beautiful lie is a lie which is hidden by a facade of beauty. Perhaps you could give me an example, if this is not what you mean.
I suppose Keats would argue, if one thinks a lie can be beautiful, then perhaps one is using the wrong term. Perhaps it's not a lie but an act of compassion, for example.
A police photograph of the remains of a head of someone shot throughout the forehead is beautiful?
Gosh! You are confused. The truth that Keats is referring to is not the facility of the camera to accurately capture whatever scene it's pointed at. If this were the case, one could use Keats' quote in order to claim that all photographs are beautiful without exception because the camera never lies. Now that would be silly, don't you think?
Rather, Keats is referring to the beauty or truth that may be implicit within the context and meaning of the whole scene depicted. A simple, unadorned photo of the head of a man who has been shot is unlikely to be considered beautiful because it is implicit of a whole lot of lies, deceit and skulduggery that has probably taken place in order for the shooting to occur, and that's not beautiful.
However, if the bullet-ridden head were just one element in a larger scene depicting other events, such as a grieving widow, or someone doing penance because it's apparent that the shooting was an accident (use your imagination here), then the scene as a whole could be considered beautiful because of the truth it expresses.
In case you haven't got this yet, I'll give you another example. During the lifetime of Jesus Christ it was common practice for the Romans to punish criminals by nailing them to a cross where they slowly died over a number of days. I would not consider that to be a beautiful sight. Yet in many Christian churches throughout the world, their are depictions of such a man, nailed to a cross and in the process of dying.
Such depictions, whether paintings or sculptures, are considered by many to be beautiful. How so? Well, Alain Briot gives us a hint in his article when he writes: We cannot depend only on what the subject brings us. We have to bring something to the subject in equal proportions to what it brings us. When you cannot rely on the impact of the subject alone, you have to bring more to the subject. This is the case with subjects that are less dramatic, more quiet, less impressive. In these instances how you approach the subject becomes more important than what the subject actually offers.
I'm going one step further (or maybe a few steps) and claiming that all viewers of all works of art, whether paintings, sculptures or photographs, bring to the subject their own personal experiences, knowledge, understanding and biases, from which they judge the merit of the work of art.
A Christian sees beauty in the image of a man slowly dying whilst nailed to a wooden cross, presumably because of the symbolic meaning of resurrection and His great act of taking on the suffering of mankind, whereas an atheist such as Richard Dawkins would view such an image as merely an act of barbarity. But let's not get sidetracked into religious issues here. I'm talking about art and using this analogy in the hope that it's sufficiently graphic.
Keats did not know what he was talking about. Nice sentiments, but rather meaningless.
Well, I hope I have been able to introduce to you some additional meaning. If you still don't understand, I could go over it again with different analogies, and expand upon the theme. ;D
-
Keats is attmepting to define real beauty as opposed to fake beauty. I presume what you mean by a beautiful lie is a lie which is hidden by a facade of beauty. Perhaps you could give me an example, if this is not what you mean.
I suppose Keats would argue, if one thinks a lie can be beautiful, then perhaps one is using the wrong term. Perhaps it's not a lie but an act of compassion, for example.
That sounds like a cop out to me. I don't think Keats is trying to define anything. He is simply saying this is what he believes, whether right or wrong, and he does not care what anyone else thinks about his statement.
Gosh! You are confused. The truth that Keats is referring to is not the facility of the camera to accurately capture whatever scene it's pointed at. If this were the case, one could use Keats' quote in order to claim that all photographs are beautiful without exception because the camera never lies. Now that would be silly, don't you think?
Oh, I am confused. The photograph would show the truth of an event and that result. There is nothing beautiful about result of violence. Either Keat's idea stands as he states it or it is a false statement as it requires enough qualifications until what remains is simply what can fit his definition.
Rather, Keats is referring to the beauty or truth that may be implicit within the context and meaning of the whole scene depicted. A simple, unadorned photo of the head of a man who has been shot is unlikely to be considered beautiful because it is implicit of a whole lot of lies, deceit and skulduggery that has probably taken place in order for the shooting to occur, and that's not beautiful.
The photograph would be a complete scene--the result of an impact trauma. So, I guess what you are saying is random acts that have no contaxt nor meaning cannot be beautiful nor true? Dribbling paint on a canvas for example?
However, if the bullet-ridden head were just one element in a larger scene depicting other events, such as a grieving widow, or someone doing penance because it's apparent that the shooting was an accident (use your imagination here), then the scene as a whole could be considered beautiful because of the truth it expresses.
"Could be"? Sounds like you are not sure. It also sounds like you need to justify the violence to make it beautiful.
In case you haven't got this yet, I'll give you another example. During the lifetime of Jesus Christ it was common practice for the Romans to punish criminals by nailing them to a cross where they slowly died over a number of days. I would not consider that to be a beautiful sight. Yet in many Christian churches throughout the world, their are depictions of such a man, nailed to a cross and in the process of dying.
Such depictions, whether paintings or sculptures, are considered by many to be beautiful. How so? Well, Alain Briot gives us a hint in his article when he writes:
I'm going one step further (or maybe a few steps) and claiming that all viewers of all works of art, whether paintings, sculptures or photographs, bring to the subject their own personal experiences, knowledge, understanding and biases, from which they judge the merit of the work of art.
A Christian sees beauty in the image of a man slowly dying whilst nailed to a wooden cross, presumably because of the symbolic meaning of resurrection and His great act of taking on the suffering of mankind, whereas an atheist such as Richard Dawkins would view such an image as merely an act of barbarity. But let's not get sidetracked into religious issues here. I'm talking about art and using this analogy in the hope that it's sufficiently graphic.
Well, I hope I have been able to introduce to you some additional meaning. If you still don't understand, I could go over it again with different analogies, and expand upon the theme. ;D
But it seems what you are saying is it all come down to your personal interpretation. Just as Keats made a personal statement about art that works for him. So a personal truth is beautiful personally, which is not saying very much.
-
Oh, I am confused. The photograph would show the truth of an event and that result. There is nothing beautiful about result of violence. Either Keat's idea stands as he states it or it is a false statement as it requires enough qualifications until what remains is simply what can fit his definition.
No. You are quite wrong. The image does not necessarily show the truth of the event, otherwise the job of the police invesatigation would be plain sailing. The image shows the result or consequences of an event, or series of events, which are probably very ugly and deceitful and unbeautiful in their nature.
The photograph would be a complete scene--the result of an impact trauma. So, I guess what you are saying is random acts that have no context nor meaning cannot be beautiful nor true? Dribbling paint on a canvas for example?
Not quite. Dribbling paint on a canvas can only be beautiful or true within a context of meaning that the viewer brings to the image. An example which springs to mind is Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles which was bought by the Australian Government a few decades ago and has since increased in value immensely.
For this painting to be beautiful, according to Keats, it has to be true. So, just as an exercise, let's enquire into what may be true and therefore beautiful in Pollock's Blue Poles. First, the random splashing of paint on a canvas would seem to be controlled more by the subconscious than the conscious. I think we could agree on that, yes?
So any truth or beauty in the Blue Poles painting is likely to be of a subconscious nature. Agreed?
Here one has to use one's imagination. Could it be, for example, that some of those random patterns in the Blue Pole painting recognisably resemble in some vague way, the network of neurons and synapses in the human brain? Does the image appeal at some 'undefined' subconscious level to certain very sensitive, but influential, art critics who have praised the painting and lifted it to the stratospheric heights of 'millions of dollars' value?
One can speculate forever on the true reasons for this painting's value, but truth should play an essential part.
Sounds like you are not sure. It also sounds like you need to justify the violence to make it beautiful.
Of course I'm not sure, in this example. It's hypothetical. And of course violence has to be justified to make it beautiful, as in the image of Jesus Christ on a cross.
But it seems what you are saying is it all come down to your personal interpretation. Just as Keats made a personal statement about art that works for him. So a personal truth is beautiful personally, which is not saying very much.
You seem very dismissive of personal opinion. As regards art, everything is a personal interpretaion. However, the significance of Keats' phrase "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
is in his equating truth with beauty. Beauty devoid of truth is shallow. The world of fashion is a good example of shallow beauty, a fake beauty, a lie which can appear beautiful.
Supposing Keats had written, "Beauty is a lie, a lie beauty", that's all ye know on earth and all ye need to know".
What sort of world would we be living in? Probably the same world we are now living in. Not many, it seems, have paid much attention to Keats. There exists in our world, unfortunately, a complete divorce between truth and beauty.
I prefer Keats'world, but I have the nous (hopefully) to understand that I'm probably surrounded by scoundrels, but in a general way. I'm not implying my immediate neighbours are scoundrels. ;D
-
Research has shown that any internet discussion will lose track of the original subject after an average of three responses..
Well this thread is clearly above average because the 7th post, which was mine, is definitely on track and directly related to the topic,
unquote
Ray it is above average because you keep bumping it? :)