Finding Meaning in Photography

[Trailblazer]

This topic is for the discussion of the Photographic Technique category article, Finding Meaning in Photography.

Having read the article, please add your thoughts and comments here.

 

[Former Member 3]

"Meaning IN a photograph is an intent which I desire to convey in communicating my photograph to a viewer."

Lots of meaning is imbued unintentionally and much meaning is created or at least interpreted by the viewer as well as the photographer. Photographic intent is a topic of its own. There are immediate intents, there's overall intent, and there's plenty of accident, luck, happenstance, or serendipity. Very often, a particular photo is taken without specific intent at the time and relies more on the overall approach of the photographer and built-up tendencies of vision rather than particular outpourings of intent.

the essence of that contextual moment

I'm not big on essences so I don't relate them to meaning. Essences are more like souls, fabrications humans like to make to distill what's harder to understand. A scene doesn't have an essence for a photographer to find. The photographer finds a perspective with which to portray the scene.

Very often, meaning comes in with the presentation of the photo, with what other photos its shown, whether as part of a specific series or a particular exhibition or book. If standing alone, meaning can be affected by the context in which it's standing. Meaning is also not isolated to the time it's taken. Photos from a century ago may well take on new meanings over time and the original meaning may be now impacted by a sense of memory, nostalgia, or forgetfulness.

Feelings will also support and change and even override meanings. So the feeling with which a photo is taken and the extent to which a photographer can imbue feeling into a photo will not only affect the meaning but may make the meaning less relevant than the overall gut reaction and response.

 

[Papa Tango]

Essence is as much a weasel word as imbued. Even more confounding is the statement that something "can be imbued with an essence." When someone uses language like this at an upscale event, I usually decide it's high time to go find another glass or two of wine off to the side.

Very often, a particular photo is taken without specific intent at the time and relies more on the overall approach of the photographer and built-up tendencies of vision rather than particular outpourings of intent.

The only disagreement I have with this statement is that obviously, if I leave my home with a camera in hand--I intend to photograph something. That is when autopilot, or as you said, "built-up tendencies of vision" take over. My condensation of this comes down to "I See Things." For me, latent intent comes when it's time to interpret the image as I see the possibilities in my sketchy head. As you say, "A scene doesn't have an essence for a photographer to find. The photographer finds a perspective with which to portray the scene."

Scenes and objects do have messages attached to them--signs, symbols, and semaphores. Some are consistent, others have been removed by the passage of time. Some are replaced, and others are left to interpretation. Meaning definitely is not isolated to the time an image is taken. Now we are looking at the fork in the road between meaning and context.

Rene Algesheimer, the author of the article speaks to the essence as this:

Finding the Essence in Photography - René Algesheimer Photography

The purpose of art should not be to follow someones else's truth, but to search inside for the emergence of truth.

www.rene-algesheimer.com

There is I believe, the essence of time. In another discussion over on PN, we discussed how time affects the interpretation of an image--and how deliberate actions to force the degradation of the image imbues the presentation with the essence of time passages. Sometimes we think that we are reinterpreting an image or art form outside of its native context--but we are actually introducing the opportunity for new signs, symbols, or semaphores to be applied to the viewer's consciousness. Society makes sure that we all have roughly the same cultural collection of meanings. I would like to think otherwise, but I delude myself into being simplistic.

Jurgen Habermas stopped me cold once in a discussion by saying, "You think yourself a Functionalist. Rather, perhaps you are a Pragmatist in disguise." It was like a sledgehammer to my thinking. This has stuck with me through the decades since, and I even use the term as an internet screen identity in other forums.

Context, collection, and intended purpose can override whatever existed at the time of making the image. I always smile inwardly when in the company of others photographing something and all of their lenses are pointed at the same thing--that which has been recorded ad infinitum--while I choose something else that "I see." As my "About Me" says here and elsewhere:

“The art of photography is finding a small and unique slice of four-dimensional reality–then crystallizing it into two dimensions–thereby creating something previously unseen and meaningful for others to experience."

Even the mundane is unique, both in its very being and as an artifact of something tangible. Although it's still early here, I feel the need to find a glass of wine to rescue myself from myself.

A closing thought:

 

[Former Member 3]

The only disagreement I have with this statement is that obviously, if I leave my home with a camera in hand--I intend to photograph something.

Good points in a lot of what you said. Not sure about this, though. If I leave my house with grocery bags, someone watching might declare it obvious I’m going shopping. I might just be putting the bags in my car down the block so they’re there for another day. If I leave my home with a camera in hand, I might be going to the camera store for repair, with no intent to take a picture in mind.

Viewers often guess at or make lifelong studies to understand the intent of photographers. I do because that interests me as both viewer and photographer. I can learn from it. But I’m aware of the imprecision of imputing intent and even of fully understanding my own. I’ve heard too many photographers assume that their intention, because they were so in touch with it, expressed itself in a photo, when looking at the photo doesn’t come close to conveying it. And, likewise, many a viewer has assumed certain intentions when “interpreting” a photo, often saying more about the viewer’s mind than the photographer’s. The road between intention and observable behavior or creative output is winding and slippery when wet.

There are too many varied purposes of art for me to adopt any one other than in a given moment. Whenever I land on one explanation or purpose of art, and feel its significance and truth, I eventually realize it’s a stepping off point to another that‘s just as vital.

I think there’s value in finding something different to photograph. There is also value in finding a different way to photograph the same old thing. Maybe one of those apparent tourists seeming to photograph the same thing is actually seeing and photographing it uniquely. And, I could replace different and unique with personal, passionate, or a number of other adjectives.

 

[Papa Tango]

I and Them. Perception and Context.

Let's return this convo to the idea of what taking out a camera means to ME--not to them. That is a whole different can of worms. For them and their usual "what paper do you work for" cadre, there are other judgments far more sinister. But I feel the need to touch on the former crowd briefly. When told that no outlet of 'authority' was involved and that I do it for myself--I am usually met with a momentary blank stare of incomprehensibility. Some then say "Cool" or some derivative thereof; others never get it and quickly move on. If you are in a small-minded geography, you learn quickly what Jason Aldean meant in "Try That in a Small Town."

The place I have come to is that the meaning of my images has as much to do with my social conditioning and commensurate expectations for 'photographing' (clumsy baggage from the main social constructs of what someone does as a photographer), as it has to do with applying a supra-cognitive vision and personal attraction to the content. A fleeting opportunity to dance with Anesidora. Untangling that construct, I might simplify by saying that finding meaning in what to represent is a battle between social expectations and personal creative vision.

Good old Ansel Adams declares that every time he photographed something, everything from beginning to end was choreographed. Good on him. I consider myself lucky to get out the door...

Maybe I should start calling myself an 'itinerant visual philosopher.' Or maybe not. I have been called enough things...

PS on Post Note: We are all ME at some point in the photographic trajectory.

 

[Former Member 3]

Let's return this convo to the idea of what taking out a camera means to ME

To me, it can be meaningful in terms of my taking out a camera and in terms of someone else doing so. I wear two hats. Photographer and viewer.

What taking out a camera means, in both instances, would vary depending on the day, my mood, whether I'm just out hunting or whether I have a specific idea or purpose in mind. The meaning I attribute to it when I first leave the house often changes as I discover what's out there. I work on a lot of projects, so there is often a fair amount of cognition beforehand, which is malleable as the project progresses. Rarely do I finish where I thought I was starting, even though the general sense of the project may still remain intact.

Like you, it seems, I find meaning both internally, within my own mind's eye and expressive bent, and externally, in terms of social and cultural influences. I also find meaning in presentation of the photos. The internal and external are sometimes in battle, sometimes in harmony, sometimes in counterpoint. I like that flexibility in how my inner** relationship to the outer** world works.

**Apologies to the homunculus watchers. I prefer thinking of things as more unitary and less dichotomous but it's harder to put that into language, so I take the easy way out.

I do it for myself

I generally don't say I do photography for myself, though there's some truth to that for me. But I know I do it also to share, to express to others. Having a show in my home gallery every 5 years or so brings together about 100 or so friends and family members, and I also like the social aspect of people gathered around the photos, talking about the photos or simply catching up with each other with the photos as background. I get questioned, and I question back. I sense that I'm not just sharing the photos, but I'm sharing something significant of myself. People seem to respond that way.

If, ultimately, I had to say what photography means to me, I'd say it means expression ... expressing myself in collaboration with what the photos show or who or what the subjects of the photos may be.

Jason Aldean ... "Try That in a Small Town."

That song and the milieu in which it was written and sung reminds me of those 1960s bullies on the schoolyard who would draw a line with chalk and dare the rest of us to cross the line and see what happens. Couldn't stand it then and can't stand it now. Catchy tune, though.