Intimacy Vs. Closeness

[Bob Michaels]

When you edit, etc, are you making choices based on your own disposition, reactions, etc, or are you inferring what the reactions will be of the third parties who will view them? If the latter, who are the third parties?
............................
............................... To communicate an idea by means of a photograph presupposes that the photographer knows how the viewer will interpret the image.
..............................
How does interaction, or conceptual transfer or exchange, in a 'language of images' work? Is it anything like as precise or reliable as the written word? If you show me a picture, and I 'respond' with a picture, can you tell from my picture that I understood, or correctly interpreted the meaning of, yours?

I believe I understand how my audience interprets and responds to my photos. I target them specifically. The purpose of my photography is to inform and influence. The degree that I achieve that goal is the measure of my success as a photographer.

If I felt no one bothered looking at my photos or were not impacted by them, I would stop photographing. I don't photograph for myself.

Certainly one can debate how successful I am. But I do have a clear understanding of my motivations.

 

[Bob Michaels]

But his photos show one image of a crying woman that seems to be taken with a long tele lens from quite a bit away (which makes me doubt that she knew he was there), a photo of someone's back and in the last photo, where the subject is aware of the photographer, he seems to be giving him quite a hesitant if not mistrustful look. .............................. So I really think we're not talking about intimacy here.

I will let Damaso respond about his thoughts regarding intimacy and symmetric relationship. I have my thoughts, which differ from yours, but I was not there.

 

[Neare]

But the problem with your reasoning is that, one the one hand you claim that the meaning of pictures is completely subjective and on the other hand you seem to take it as some universal truth that pictures have meaning. Both claims are highly flawed in my opinion.

No, not at all. I never said anything like that. 😉

 

[Bob Michaels]

Last Sunday's photo of a woman receiving the Holy Ghost at a local Pentecostal church. Was this relationship "intimate" or "just close"? Intimate may be too strong a word but I was more than just close. It was that symmetric relationship I had with the woman / minister / congregation that resulted in devout followers stepping aside so I could move forward and photograph (40mm lens) as this was happening.

 

[jsrockit]

Though catching the holy ghost seems to be BS to me (IMO), that is a wonderful photograph Bob.

 

[dave lackey]

Last Sunday's photo of a woman receiving the Holy Ghost at a local Pentecostal church. Was this relationship "intimate" or "just close"? Intimate may be too strong a word but I was more than just close. It was that symmetric relationship I had with the woman / minister / congregation that resulted in devout followers stepping aside so I could move forward and photograph (40mm lens) as this was happening.

Nice image, Bob. It shows that you know your audience and that they know you as well. BTW, I don't think the Holy Ghost (or any religious belief) is BS. 🙂 But let's not delve into a discussion on religion. Here is a great example of the intimate relationship between the photographer and the church members.

 

[peterm1]

There is a kind of intimacy here as we watch a tender moment between mother and child


DSC_1481a by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

 

[gho]

Damaso, I find you are brining an interesting subject to the foreground that got me rethinking my own approach to photography.

In my opinion, physical closeness to the subject is just an compository technique to make an element more dominant in a composition. In combination with a moderately wide angle lens, it may faciliate an emotional response of the viewer and give the viewer the impression of standing right there.

Intimacy has something to do with the relationship of the photographer towards the subject. For example, one may take a candid close up with a wide angle lens of a person in an unguarded moment but actually there is no relationship between the photographer and the person except for that the photographer found the scene in some way interesting or witty. So there is no intimacy involved here and in my opinion, these photographs show more about the photographer than about the subject. I have tried it and feel less and less compelled by that approach. Photography of intimate situations without the awareness of the photographed may fall into the same category.

Intimacy on the other hand has something to do with establishing a relationship and a situation of mutual trust. For example, if one wants to document a group activity, such as a religious ceremony, it is absolutely crucial to make your presence and your intentions known. If you are accepted and invited into participating you may have the chance to get intimate photographs that may describe the situation much better than the telephoto approach through the window.

Responsibility is also a word that comes into mind. We all know that images are sometimes mistaken for the subjet. It does not matter, if one as a photographer argues that point on a theoretical basis, in practice, images are used to establish a certain 'image'. The odd looks we see on so many snaps taken on the street may be the result of the subjects being aware of that situation and being worried about loosing control of their 'image'. This is all the more important in the age of the internet, social networking and automated face recognition. In conclusion, good practice would involve asking and showing the final image before publication in mutual consent. And maybe the Capa saying should be complemented by: "Get close and intimate." I disgressed a bit. What that all means for 'street photography' and the current trend towards it is a topic, that deserves its own discussion.

To get back to intimacy, I would like to stress, that an intimate photograph does not necessarily involve the literal depiction of a person. For example, I saw some of André Kertész polaroids recently and found them incredibly intimate. Damaso, thank you for bringing that topic up.

 

[Damaso]

Damaso, I find you are brining an interesting subject to the foreground that got me rethinking my own approach to photography.

In my opinion, physical closeness to the subject is just an compository technique to make an element more dominant in a composition. In combination with a moderately wide angle lens, it may faciliate an emotional response of the viewer and give the viewer the impression of standing right there.

Intimacy has something to do with the relationship of the photographer towards the subject. For example, one may take a candid close up with a wide angle lens of a person in an unguarded moment but actually there is no relationship between the photographer and the person except for that the photographer found the scene in some way interesting or witty. So there is no intimacy involved here and in my opinion, these photographs show more about the photographer than about the subject. I have tried it and feel less and less compelled by that approach. Photography of intimate situations without the awareness of the photographed may fall into the same category.

Intimacy on the other hand has something to do with establishing a relationship and a situation of mutual trust. For example, if one wants to document a group activity, such as a religious ceremony, it is absolutely crucial to make your presence and your intentions known. If you are accepted and invited into participating you may have the chance to get intimate photographs that may describe the situation much better than the telephoto approach through the window.

Responsibility is also a word that comes into mind. We all know that images are sometimes mistaken for the subjet. It does not matter, if one as a photographer argues that point on a theoretical basis, in practice, images are used to establish a certain 'image'. The odd looks we see on so many snaps taken on the street may be the result of the subjects being aware of that situation and being worried about loosing control of their 'image'. This is all the more important in the age of the internet, social networking and automated face recognition. In conclusion, good practice would involve asking and showing the final image before publication in mutual consent. And maybe the Capa saying should be complemented by: "Get close and intimate." I disgressed a bit. What that all means for 'street photography' and the current trend towards it is a topic, that deserves its own discussion.

To get back to intimacy, I would like to stress, that an intimate photograph does not necessarily involve the literal depiction of a person. For example, I saw some of André Kertész polaroids recently and found them incredibly intimate. Damaso, thank you for bringing that topic up.

Some very interesting points, thanks for sharing...

 

[borrel]

Apropos the intimacy of the Kertesz polaroids, there is something about that way of taking pictures
(specifically the SX-70 and integral film) that lends itself to the rendering of an emotionally
intimacy between photographer and subject. On a purely technical level, both camera and film invite
closer focus. In spite of its ingenious construction as a folding SLR, the combination of camera and
film is not particularly optically successful. Having the light pass through a 4 element f.8, bounce off a
dusty mirror and pass though a thick layer of tough protective plastic before it reaches the emulsion,
is more of a service to convenience than to photographic quality. However, it's characteristics of
that very convenience that make photography with the SX-70 so inviting of intimacy. Everything from its
sleek shape, the spindly - seemingly vulnerable construction, the clunky way it opens and closes, and
superbly long-lasting quality, to the unique character of "instantaneousness" of the
integral film, dictates a way of picture taking so completely different from both roll film and digital.

SX-70 pictures were never cheap. Each picture is taken after much consideration. Color was
always unpredictable, though mostly warm in some way, and now invariably faded. With no
way of duplication, each photograph is absolutely unique. And with the rather dismal sharpness
and resolution, only the most well lit and clear-skied landscapes work. The rest is close focus, inviting
attention to framing, lighting and a closer relationship to the subject.

It still is, with a very keep consciousness of the character of that whole process that one picks up
the SX-70 when an emotionally evocative scene presents itself:

This is but a poor representation of my earliest friend. (He was born in the late 1930's, spent the first
lonely months of his life at a fairground until won by my older cousins who gave him to me more than 60
years ago.) The master of Polaroid intimacy was of course Andrei Tarkovsky:
http://tinyurl.com/yel96hw It is said that he always carried an integral film camera, much as
we have some form of digital camera upon our persons at all times.

As an aside, the SX-70 (along with Polaroid) is one of the icons of US design, like the DC-3, Eliot Noyes'
IBM Selectric and the NeXT Cube computer. Charles and Ray Eames made this wonderful film to introduce the
SX-70 in 1972: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Wzv-vgfsk In itself a remarkanle piece of design that
enhances the unfortunate cult status of the camera.

 

[gho]

In my humble opinion, the Polaroid aesthetic lends itself very well to express another emotional quality: nostalgia. Why I found Kertesz Polaroids so touching was that I had the impression that I could feel how much he was longing for his deceased wife. I found that very intimate, as I had the impression that the viewer had the chance to partake in a very personal emotional experience.

 

[jaredangle]

Close to the subject... trying for an intimate documentary feel

 

[Damaso]

Close to the subject... trying for an intimate documentary feel

Keep on shooting!

 

[jaredangle]

Keep on shooting!

Thanks for the support!

I spoke with Ryan Spencer Reed the other day on the phone regarding his documentary work in Sudan, and have also been following Eros Hoagland's work for quite some time. I'm hoping my local documentary efforts might have a chance at garnering enough interest to let me tag along with an NGO for photos eventually.

 

[Maik]

I think this is one of photography's main attractive qualities.

Perhaps the best statement I've come across so far on the paradox of intimacy in the photograph (in terms of being illuminating) is from Bill Henson:

One thing that I’m very much aware of and have always found of critical importance is sensing the distance between oneself and the subject. I think that creating something which is intensely intimate without being at all familiar is sort of central to how photography works. When you’re lying on the floor at night with the lights out, listening to Mozart, it is an intensely intimate experience, but it is not in any way familiar.

Photography to me is about finding that intensely intimate element without any presumption of familiarity. That really is about distance or, if you like, the gap between yourself and the subject; and how you charge and electrify that gap. I suppose it has to be at once an unbridgeable gulf and, at the same time, something which has such a tender, proximate breathing presence, that it almost feels as though it’s not separate from oneself.

(http://www.egothemag.com/?p=96)

 

[jaredangle]