Intimacy Vs. Closeness

[Damaso]

This is a topic I'm pretty interested in as a documentary photojournalist so I talk about it a little bit on my blog today.

"Intimacy for a photographer is about getting close enough on an emotional level that your viewer feels as though they are standing in your place instead of simply looking at an image. Sometimes that means being as close as you can to your subject, sometimes it does not."

 

[Neare]

The photographer may achieve a level of intimacy for themselves, but that does not mean the viewer will. Becoming intimate with a visual is something that occurs on a personal level. The photographer can go out and take photos intimately or with the intention to make it intimate. But by no means can a photographer take a photo and then claim that it is intimate on behalf of another. For them, it may just be a shot done at close proximity, or not.

Photos don't transfer emotion, they only have the capacity to ignite it in another.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Damaso: I believe you brought up a really key point. Closeness is a mechanical relationship you can force by using your feet. Intimacy has to come from your heart. Simply being close does not work, you have to care.

Personally, I must have the subject be my primary interest not the process of photographing.

 

[Bob Michaels]

The photographer may achieve a level of intimacy for themselves, but that does not mean the viewer will. Becoming intimate with a visual is something that occurs on a personal level. The photographer can go out and take photos intimately or with the intention to make it intimate. But by no means can a photographer take a photo and then claim that it is intimate on behalf of another. For them, it may just be a shot done at close proximity, or not.

Photos don't transfer emotion, they only have the capacity to ignite it in another.

Neare: you have essentially described the difference between a successful and unsuccessful photograph to my way of thinking.

 

[jsrockit]

Neare: you have essentially described the difference between a successful and unsuccessful photograph to my way of thinking.

Does this mean that photography isn't subjective? We all know some people will connect with an image and other will not... even when it comes to the best photos that have survived through history.

What happens when you photograph something other than people? Does that mean intimacy is no longer necessary? How do people connect to images that don't have people (which we all know they do)?

 

[Jamie123]

What you describe very much relates to questions of antitheatricality and the negation of a beholder. Read Michael Fried's excellent "Why photography matters as art", especially the chapters about Jeff Wall and absorptive motivs in 18th century French painting and art criticism.

 

[Jamie123]

The photographer may achieve a level of intimacy for themselves, but that does not mean the viewer will. Becoming intimate with a visual is something that occurs on a personal level. The photographer can go out and take photos intimately or with the intention to make it intimate. But by no means can a photographer take a photo and then claim that it is intimate on behalf of another. For them, it may just be a shot done at close proximity, or not.

Photos don't transfer emotion, they only have the capacity to ignite it in another.

I don't agree at all. The depiction of intimate moments is not necessarily subjective. There are a lot of social conventions that imply intimacy regardless of whether the viewer feels an intimate connection between him and the subject.

 

[oftheherd]

I don't agree at all. The depiction of intimate moments is not necessarily subjective. There are a lot of social conventions that imply intimacy regardless of whether the viewer feels an intimate connection between him and the subject.

I see your point, but even in the same society, not everyone agrees to the same level with all social conventions. So I think it still weighs heavily towards subjectivity on a personal level for each viewer.

 

[Jamie123]

This is a topic I'm pretty interested in as a documentary photojournalist so I talk about it a little bit on my blog today.

"Intimacy for a photographer is about getting close enough on an emotional level that your viewer feels as though they are standing in your place instead of simply looking at an image. Sometimes that means being as close as you can to your subject, sometimes it does not."

But then there's the question of voyerism. Viewing a picture that is the result of intimacy between the photographer and his subject might be more of a voyeuristic experience than an intimate one. Panayiotis Lamprou's picture of last year's Taylor Wessing Prize comes to mind but it's not necessarily about the nudity. Pictures like the one you posted seem somewhat voyeuristic to me (not in a bad sense at all) as I'm looking at someone in an unguarded moment.

 

[TennesseJones]

Really great blog observation, as ever Damaso and one which highlights an important point for other creative endeavours far removed from photography.

Thanks for the heads up....

 

[Neare]

I don't agree at all. The depiction of intimate moments is not necessarily subjective. There are a lot of social conventions that imply intimacy regardless of whether the viewer feels an intimate connection between him and the subject.

What you are referring to is cultural, not universal. Culture is still subjective.

 

[Damaso]

Really great blog observation, as ever Damaso and one which highlights an important point for other creative endeavours far removed from photography.

Thanks for the heads up....

Glad you found it interesting. I hoped it would start a discussion...

 

[Jamie123]

What you are referring to is cultural, not universal. Culture is still subjective.

Maybe intersubjective but not really subjective in the usual sense of the word. Whether or not ice cream is good is subjective but whether or not it's rude to fart in a crowded elevator is not. I cannot define the culture I live in for myself, the culture defines me. Social conventions are learned and one communicates through them. If someone flips me off I cannot but understand it as animosity towards me (given, of course, a context of seriousness and that we share the same cultural background).

 

[TennesseJones]

Glad you found it interesting. I hoped it would start a discussion...

Well that certainly seems to have happened....

 

[Neare]

Maybe intersubjective but not really subjective in the usual sense of the word. Whether or not ice cream is good is subjective but whether or not it's rude to fart in a crowded elevator is not. I cannot define the culture I live in for myself, the culture defines me. Social conventions are learned and one communicates through them. If someone flips me off I cannot but understand it as animosity towards me (given, of course, a context of seriousness and that we share the same cultural background).

'farting in an elevator is being rude' is exactly the same as 'is ice cream good'. You have to look beyond your cultural norms to see that.

For all you know, there may be a tribal people out there who believe that farting is the body passing a spirit through them and is seen as extremely good luck.

But at the same time, two men are camping next to each other, one of them farts whenever he feels like it because someone once told him that you shouldn't hold it in or you may go blind 😀 And the other man never farts in public because his mother always used to slap him over the wrist when he did so, so he believes that it is a bad thing to do.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Does this mean that photography isn't subjective? We all know some people will connect with an image and other will not... even when it comes to the best photos that have survived through history.

What happens when you photograph something other than people? Does that mean intimacy is no longer necessary? How do people connect to images that don't have people (which we all know they do)?

Photos are definitely subjective. But I see when a large part of your target audience connects with an image, it is successful. If not, the photo does not stand the test.

I believe there is a direct parallel to photos not containing people. I cannot immediately find the equivalent replacement word for "intimacy" that applies but I see the emotion being the same. Think of an Ansel Adams landscape. He was successful in creating a connection of the viewer with the subject not just making a pretty picture.

 

[jsrockit]

Photos are definitely subjective. But I see when a large part of your target audience connects with an image, it is successful. If not, the photo does not stand the test.

I believe there is a direct parallel to photos not containing people. I cannot immediately find the equivalent replacement word for "intimacy" that applies but I see the emotion being the same. Think of an Ansel Adams landscape. He was successful in creating a connection of the viewer with the subject not just making a pretty picture.

I see your point and agree.

 

[Neare]

I agree with bob as well, though I don't think you always necessarily need a large part of your target audience. One way of measuring success is indeed in numbers. But there are other forms, you know like that one person who's willing to hand over $$$ for it regardless what anyone else thinks 😀

 

[Jamie123]

'farting in an elevator is being rude' is exactly the same as 'is ice cream good'. You have to look beyond your cultural norms to see that.

For all you know, there may be a tribal people out there who believe that farting is the body passing a spirit through them and is seen as extremely good luck.

But at the same time, two men are camping next to each other, one of them farts whenever he feels like it because someone once told him that you shouldn't hold it in or you may go blind 😀 And the other man never farts in public because his mother always used to slap him over the wrist when he did so, so he believes that it is a bad thing to do.

I don't know why you have to get disgusting. But I'll disregard that.

In any case, taste in food and rudeness are not at all 'the same thing'. Rudeness is a violation of social conventions. We can argue what is and isn't rude and maybe we disagree on a few points but we cannot do the same in regards to ice cream. If I say I like ice cream and you do not that's the end of it.
Of course there are other societies and cultures whose norms and social conventions differ from ours. No one's arguing that pictures have a universal meaning but that doesn't mean that they are completely subjective. The tribal people thought experiment is an old one and I don't think it helps much. You and I are not tribal people, we're two people communication in English on a photography forum. While we probably come from different parts of the world we do share a certain cultural background.
As for 'seeing beyond your cultural norms', the problem with this is that your vantage point will always be that of your cultural framework. The very act of 'seeing beyond' marks a difference between what is yours and what is the other.

 

[daveleo]

The photographer may achieve a level of intimacy for themselves, but that does not mean the viewer will. Becoming intimate with a visual is something that occurs on a personal level. The photographer can go out and take photos intimately or with the intention to make it intimate. But by no means can a photographer take a photo and then claim that it is intimate on behalf of another. For them, it may just be a shot done at close proximity, or not.

Photos don't transfer emotion, they only have the capacity to ignite it in another.

Very insightful comments, and thanks for clearing up my own thoughts for me ! So many times, I think "this is an emotional image that I made" and the viewer flips passed it with a blink. And, as a viewer, I have flipped passed images that others find very emotional.

Emotion is not embedded in an image, as you say (in other words).