What is missing in a photograph?

[dave lackey]

The list can be extensive. And it is natural since photography is an art of exclusion IMO.

One that comes to mind is time. While a photograph can show dawn, sunset, even a period of time with fashion and relevant references, a photograph cannot answer a question about a motif when the context is time specific.

Such as: a horse trotting. It takes a series of photographs to show that the horse actually lifts all four feet off the ground.

More to the point, a picture of a street performer may look entirely sculpture-like or mechanical but a single photograph does not show the eventual movement(s) of the individual. Even a motion blur photo does not show the long or short pauses, in short, the context of the motion.

If I made a portrait of my bride in my little studio, it would be impossible to say what part of the day the photograph was made.

Anyone else have a thought about what a photograph can be missing? Such as temperature?😀 How many photographs have I made when it was 10F and, although, I was freezing, the photos of the Christmas trees on the lawn could just have well been made in 60F temps?

 

[dovi]

Taste, touch,smell sound. We refer the other senses from what we see.

It seems that photos are good for documenting reactions, and those expected reactions are often specific to a culture.

 

[dave lackey]

Excellent!!!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Dave,

In a bad photograph everything is missing except a flat representation.

In a good photograph, the only thing that is missing is distraction.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jamie123]

So should we just list all the things photography is not? Bit of a pointless exercise, isn't it? One thing I can say for sure is that photography isn't cheap 😉

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the topic doesn't deserve consideration, I'm just saying that the way the question is presented (i.e. asking for items in a list) isn't all that interesting.

But let's pick up your point about photography being an art of exclusion. I certainly agree and let me quote a (somewhat lengthy) passage from Stanley Cavell's 1971 classic "The World Viewed":

"The camera, being finite, crops a portion of an indefinitely larger field; continuous portions of that field could be included in the photograph in fact taken; in principle, it could all be taken. Hence objects in photographs that run past the edge do not feel cut; they are aimed at, shot, stopped live. When a photograph is cropped, the rest of the world is cut out. The implied presence of the rest of the world, and its explicit rejection, are as essential in the experience of a photograph as what it explicitly presents. A camera is an opening in a box: that is the best emblem of the fact that a camera holding on an object is holding the rest of the world away. The camera has been praised for extending the senses; it may, as the world goes, deserve more praise for confining them, leaving room for thought." (Cavell, S. (1971): The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film. p. 24)

Cavell refers to the difference between painting and photography, that a painting presents a world in itself, i.e. is it's own picture world, while a photograph is of the world in that very specific sense of holding the rest of the world away. But if we think about photography as an art of exclusion, then one musn't think of this exclusion as a lack of something. If the photograph itself presents an act of exclusion, the act of making a distinction of what is contained and what is not, then we can regard a photograph as a representation of both sides of this distinction.

 

[gns]

Plenty is missing.
It's what is added that's interesting.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Roger Hicks]

Surely all art is the art of exclusion, as in the famous statement about sculpture: "I take a block of marble and cut away all the bits I don't want."

In other words, Cavell is either stating the bleedin' obvious, or saying nothing at all.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

... one could argue that when starting with a blank canvas a painter must decide what to include in the picture, whereas the photographer has the whole world to view in the finder, and must decide which parts of reality to exclude from his photo

 

[dave lackey]

So should we just list all the things photography is not? Bit of a pointless exercise, isn't it? One thing I can say for sure is that photography isn't cheap 😉

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the topic doesn't deserve consideration, I'm just saying that the way the question is presented (i.e. asking for items in a list) isn't all that interesting.

But let's pick up your point about photography being an art of exclusion. I certainly agree and let me quote a (somewhat lengthy) passage from Stanley Cavell's 1971 classic "The World Viewed":

"The camera, being finite, crops a portion of an indefinitely larger field; continuous portions of that field could be included in the photograph in fact taken; in principle, it could all be taken. Hence objects in photographs that run past the edge do not feel cut; they are aimed at, shot, stopped live. When a photograph is cropped, the rest of the world is cut out. The implied presence of the rest of the world, and its explicit rejection, are as essential in the experience of a photograph as what it explicitly presents. A camera is an opening in a box: that is the best emblem of the fact that a camera holding on an object is holding the rest of the world away. The camera has been praised for extending the senses; it may, as the world goes, deserve more praise for confining them, leaving room for thought." (Cavell, S. (1971): The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film. p. 24)

Cavell refers to the difference between painting and photography, that a painting presents a world in itself, i.e. is it's own picture world, while a photograph is of the world in that very specific sense of holding the rest of the world away. But if we think about photography as an art of exclusion, then one musn't think of this exclusion as a lack of something. If the photograph itself presents an act of exclusion, the act of making a distinction of what is contained and what is not, then we can regard a photograph as a representation of both sides of this distinction.

I understand and agree with above... but, still, I am sometimes surprised to see a photograph and only later realize that it did not relay something important to me. There was nothing in the image to reference that it was damned cold. Or that the photograph of an historical place was located in a bad neighborhood that was excluded.

I just find it interesting as I run into this a lot. From a documentary standpoint, it is important to me.:angel:

 

[gb hill]

Winogrand states it best when he made these two statement "I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed." & "Photography is not about the thing photographed, It's about how that thing looks photographed".

In the frame of a photograph there can be nothing thats missing. It's all captured through the lens. To the photographer, durning the moments of composition & finally presssing the shutter, anything outside the borders of the frame no longer exhist. The object being photographed in whatever 100ths of a second (more or less) you choose is all that matters within the frame.

Photography is all about affecting emotions. We're each different. Photographs affect our emotions differently so even in how each of us see a photograph & reacts there can be nothing missing. Winogrand sums it up in this statement: "There is no special way a photograph should look."

 

[Jamie123]

Surely all art is the art of exclusion, as in the famous statement about sculpture: "I take a block of marble and cut away all the bits I don't want."

In other words, Cavell is either stating the bleedin' obvious, or saying nothing at all.

Cheers,

R.

Sorry but you clearly didn't understand the point at all. The exclusion Cavell is talking about is an ontological one not a material exclusion.

 

[jsrockit]

Winogrand states it best when he made these two statement "I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed." & "Photography is not about the thing photographed, It's about how that thing looks photographed".

I love these two quotes... and feel that is what photography is about to me. YMMV.

 

[gb hill]

I understand and agree with above... but, still, I am sometimes surprised to see a photograph and only later realize that it did not relay something important to me. There was nothing in the image to reference that it was damned cold. Or that the photograph of an historical place was located in a bad neighborhood that was excluded.

I just find it interesting as I run into this a lot. From a documentary standpoint, it is important to me.:angel:

Then they failed as a documenter. Magnum photographers excell in this. The environment in ones situation is most important in achieving such success.

 

[Jamie123]

... one could argue that when starting with a blank canvas a painter must decide what to include in the picture, whereas the photographer has the whole world to view in the finder, and must decide which parts of reality to exclude from his photo

Yes, one could say that in (figurative) painting meaning gets constructed by the accumulation of signs. Everythinng that is on the canvas is put there by the painter and as such he is creating a picture world. Whether or not he is painting from reality isn't really relevant. A painting does not imply the rest of the world in the same sense a photograph does.

Mind you, Cavell's book was published in 1971 and since then, of course, a lot about the implied ontological status of photographs has changed. Nonetheless it's still regarded as a classic and I recommend everyone to read it (it's pretty short) as it's quite a good read.

 

[dave lackey]

Then they failed as a documenter. Magnum photographers excell in this. The environment in ones situation is most important in achieving such success.

Well, even in the videos on Magnum, I can't tell if it is 90F or 30F. What time of year it was or what time of day. So, documenting does really not need to include everything.

In fact, documentaries depend on the focus of the project itself. In documenting small towns, it is impossible to include everything physical, much less sensory or emotionally related. :angel:

But, it is good to know sometimes that I may be very impressed (in this case, negatively) with visiting a location in 105F heat in a vacation resort, but when I look at my photo, or someone else's, that just doesn't come across without some kind of reference (a thermometer, or a caption or something). It is just interesting to me.

 

[gdmcclintock]

The answer is nothing is missing in a photograph.

 

[gb hill]

Well, even in the videos on Magnum, I can't tell if it is 90F or 30F. What time of year it was or what time of day. So, documenting does really not need to include everything.

In fact, documentaries depend on the focus of the project itself. In documenting small towns, it is impossible to include everything physical, much less sensory or emotionally related. :angel:

But, it is good to know sometimes that I may be very impressed (in this case, negatively) with visiting a location in 105F heat in a vacation resort, but when I look at my photo, or someone else's, that just doesn't come across without some kind of reference (a thermometer, or a caption or something). It is just interesting to me.

Sounds like to me Dave you should buy a video camera & make motion documenteries.😀 MOF top end DSLR's are doing this very well.😉

 

[gb hill]

The answer is nothing is missing in a photograph.

A+ my good man!😉

 

[gb hill]

I love these two quotes... and feel that is what photography is about to me. YMMV.

Thank you! Winogrand was great at weeding out all of the philisophical nonsense (that my feeble mind doesn't really comprehend anyhow) & getting down to just making photographs.😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry but you clearly didn't understand the point at all. The exclusion Cavell is talking about is an ontological one not a material exclusion.

Clearly. Then again, I am reminding of the Buddhist argument that the opposite of a bowl is the very same bowl, in that once you have defined and excluded everything that is not that bowl, all that is left is the bowl itself.

Cheers,

R.