Context is vital

[desmo]

'peasant' is an insult when those it is applied to consider it so.

i agree, not every picture needs context, i said as much earlier. IMO however, this one and it's genre do

but of course opinions are like........., we all have them

And besides, since when is the word "peasants" an insult? It simply means "people of the land" as does the term "farmers".

Not every picture requires commentary and context. In fact, most times, the picture should speak for itself. You know, be "worth a thousand words"!

 

[ch1]

'peasant' is an insult when those it is applied to consider it so.

i agree, not every picture needs context, i said as much earlier. IMO however, this one and it's genre do

but of course opinions are like........., we all have them

Do Russian (or Chechen etc.) "people of the land" consider the word "peasant" to be an insult?

I don't know. I do know that back in the days of the SU, as well a China etc., a "workers and peasant paradise" was a goal, not an insult.

Perhaps we (various dialects) English speakers are getting more than a bit too much "politically correct" in our language that we have to now use "acceptable phrases" in place of simple words?

And as to your first point - yes, taken by itself, the picture says little or nothing. But perhaps it is part of a photo essay - you know - something larger than each individual part that requires no words to communicate to us?

 

[Dracotype]

I make that comment having viewd this excellent shot: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=26084&cat=5638
Without context it is merely a snapshot of some people, well composed and exposed perhaps but it has no meaning for me and offers me no understanding of the people within.

Quite often, scenics and abstracts need no context for appreciation to be complete but shots of people often do.

I totally understand your point of view. For me, this shot could have a whole fascinating story behind it, ranging from a simple village bonfire to a burned down home to something whatever. This is ultimately a fusion of word and picture to tell a compelling story. Sort of a W.E. Smith way of doing things. And please, I am agreeing with you 😉.

Drew

 

[desmo]

Yes, the western world is becoming overwhelmed by PC but that doesn't mean that a lot of it is correctly applied.
No words should be banned but context gives them extra meaning that can become abuse or racism (or some other 'ism')

For instance, a white in the USA using the word 'nigger' is almost universally lambasted but a Black American using the same word is high fived.

Hell, some would blast me for even daring to use it in this context.

I lived in China in 1997 while I studied Mandarin. I lived in Lanzhou City far from the modern East Coast cities and they used to refer to my cityfolk as peasants. My Chinese friends in Lanzhou though, would be disgusted at that, they are just city folk like city folk around the world, working in factories and offices trying to feed their families and place a roof over their heads.

Of course, when THEY went into the towns outside Lanzhou, they often referred to the townsfolk as peasants. And so the wheel turns. 'Peasant' used to be a compliment in China but now it's an insult.

Maybe you're right, maybe it is a photo essay. If so I'd like to see the whole thing so I don't screw up its context and create misperceptions in my simple mind.

Do Russian (or Chechen etc.) "people of the land" consider the word "peasant" to be an insult?

I don't know. I do know that back in the days of the SU, as well a China etc., a "workers and peasant paradise" was a goal, not an insult.

Perhaps we (various dialects) English speakers are getting more than a bit too much "politically correct" in our language that we have to now use "acceptable phrases" in place of simple words?

And as to your first point - yes, taken by itself, the picture says little or nothing. But perhaps it is part of a photo essay - you know - something larger than each individual part that requires no words to communicate to us?

 

[Dracotype]

I looked at a couple of your images and without context or titles, this is my perception:

1. Dracotype http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v699/Dzerzhinski/Towards.jpg
serious cavity inside a tooth (molar). the photographer didn't have the right equipment and the shot is way out of focus. ;-)

see what i mean?

Damn! That is the one thing everyone seems to say at once when they see it! 😀 But yes, your point is well taken. It suffers from two things, the scan didn't do it very good justice (its infrared, and it is slightly more contrasty in the print), and I know the context in which it was taken 😀. I could tell you the whole context and such, but I wouldn't want to intentionally bore you. But becuase I know who is in the picture, I have a deeper understanding and connection to it than you do. Thank you for the cold towel in the face 😉.

Drew

 

[ch1]

I totally understand your point of view. For me, this shot could have a whole fascinating story behind it, ranging from a simple village bonfire to a burned down home to something whatever. This is ultimately a fusion of word and picture to tell a compelling story. Sort of a W.E. Smith way of doing things. And please, I am agreeing with you 😉.

Drew

Drew,

I don't think any of us is actually disagreeing with desmo. I very much enjoyed his pictures of the Tibetan sky burial the other day. Which, BTW, should remind us that the Gallery offers little opportunity to put "contextual commentary" on posting.

It took me many tries just to figure out how to upload "acceptably-sized" photos and then there is that damned 24-hour clock (which is a "time stickler").*

It's' enough for some of us to get pics up w/o then having to worry about "contextual commentary". Now, as you might fathom, I'm quite verbal (some would roll their eyes on that point) but a lot of folks gravitate to photography as a creative outlet because they are not.

I just enjoy the Gallery photos for what they are - and have a great appreciation for the grief we go through just to get them uploaded!.

Oh and desmo, I did note that your skyburial commentary was posted in a thread - not with the uploads!

Regards,
George
copake_ham

* Oops, forgot to say I am scanning some new pics for upload - who knows WHEN they'll make it!!

 

[desmo]

"And please, I am agreeing with you 😉"

I know you are Draco, all I'm trying to do is use examples to explain my position. Even with those folk I disagree with, I'm not trying to force my opinion or belief on them, I'm trying to understand.

I totally understand your point of view. For me, this shot could have a whole fascinating story behind it, ranging from a simple village bonfire to a burned down home to something whatever. This is ultimately a fusion of word and picture to tell a compelling story. Sort of a W.E. Smith way of doing things. And please, I am agreeing with you 😉.

Drew

 

[kmack]

I posted this shot yesterday: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=26000&cat=500&ppuser=4278

without the context I offered, it is just pop art or eye candy and the meaning you'd get from it would be all yours and probably have no basis in reality.

Case in point: the photo you posted above, I read the outstretched arm of the figure on the rock as denial or rejection. It is a nice well composed photograph but, for me, it does not illicit the intended emotional response you supplied within the contextual explanation. Frankly, I liked my initial internal reaction more than the actual context you supplied. For me it is now less interesting and holds less impact knowing what was intended.

In a photo journalistic tradition context is vital, but imagination does not need a basis in reality, you only need belief.

 

[desmo]

"Oh and desmo, I did note that your skyburial commentary was posted in a thread - not with the uploads! "

Yes but I did offer much context with the photos themselves too. However, since the subject might have been one that some took offence at, I thought a discussion would be valuable.

I must say I'm really enjoying this forum. Interesting pictures, interesting forums and interesting people.

Thanks all for contributing and making it such a pleasure.

Here's an example of the context I offered with those images:

reference to image http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=25766&cat=500&ppuser=4278

"The beauty of the landscape is your first impression. I personally yearn for such a final resting place as this and not a cemetary in town.

On the high plateau, Tibetans have never been able to bury their dead because of the permafrost not far below ground. For them the Sky Burial perhaps started as a pragmatic excercise but now has graet cultural and religious value.
Once dead, the body is just a vessel restraining the soul. It is therefore opened so the soul can be freed to carry on in the circle of life.
Vultures circle waiting for the Monk to first open the skull which is usually wrapped in cloth. He then dismembers the corpse and renders it to nature.

As a friend of the family, I was invited to this burial and encouraged to take photos. My friends knew I'd treat the subject with respect."

 

[desmo]

Fair enough kmack, the photo was taken for the woman in it and for her boyfriend the sailor (fisherman).
I earned my commission with them by giving them something with meaning to them.
If that meaning degrades the value of the image somewhat for you; that's fine.

I have a couple more of her that I'd like to post but the 24 hour post thing is holding me back, I'll try again.

Case in point: the photo you posted above, I read the outstretched arm of the figure on the rock as denial or rejection. It is a nice well composed photograph but, for me, it does not illicit the intended emotional response you supplied within the contextual explanation. Frankly, I liked my initial internal reaction more than the actual context you supplied. For me it is now less interesting and holds less impact knowing what was intended.

In a photo journalistic tradition context is vital, but imagination does not need a basis in reality, you only need belief.

 

[ch1]

"Oh and desmo, I did note that your skyburial commentary was posted in a thread - not with the uploads! "

Yes but I did offer much context with the photos themselves too. However, since the subject might have been one that some took offence at, I thought a discussion would be valuable.

I must say I'm really enjoying this forum. Interesting pictures, interesting forums and interesting people.

Thanks all for contributing and making it such a pleasure.

Here's an example of the context I offered with those images:

reference to image http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=25766&cat=500&ppuser=4278

"The beauty of the landscape is your first impression. I personally yearn for such a final resting place as this and not a cemetary in town.

On the high plateau, Tibetans have never been able to bury their dead because of the permafrost not far below ground. For them the Sky Burial perhaps started as a pragmatic excercise but now has graet cultural and religious value.
Once dead, the body is just a vessel restraining the soul. It is therefore opened so the soul can be freed to carry on in the circle of life.
Vultures circle waiting for the Monk to first open the skull which is usually wrapped in cloth. He then dismembers the corpse and renders it to nature.

As a friend of the family, I was invited to this burial and encouraged to take photos. My friends knew I'd treat the subject with respect."

Cool - but to be a "photo critic" what are those horizontal bands in the sky on the top of the image? Shutter sleeves - scanner artifacts?

 

[desmo]

"Cool - but to be a "photo critic" what are those horizontal bands in the sky on the top of the image? Shutter sleeves - scanner artifacts?"

TRhat's what happens sometimes when you jpeg an image. The jpeg format reduces the number of 'colours' to reduce the image size and you get banding or colour separation. It's much worse at greater compressions and in GIF's.

 

[kmack]

Fair enough kmack, the photo was taken for the woman in it and for her boyfriend the sailor (fisherman).
I earned my commission with them by giving them something with meaning to them.
If that meaning degrades the value of the image somewhat for you; that's fine.

I really liked your "Sky Burial" series, the additional information provided was important and enhanced the experience of viewing the series. It is a very good journalistic series. Hence my point about the "Danielle". It was not a journalistic endeavor, rather it was a artistic endeavor. Your client has a photograph that has personal meaning, for them there is no need for contextual information. The photo will evoke memories for them that you will never be able to know. As an audience of this type of photo we do not need additional explanation. The photo is good enough that it does not require it.

You deserved the commission, you gave the client good service.

I have a couple more of her that I'd like to post but the 24 hour post thing is holding me back, I'll try again.

Looking forward to them, with or without contextual info.

 

[desmo]

Kiaora folks and thanks for this interesting discussion.

I must get on to something else now but will look in again later.

 

[Finder]

I hope I'm not boring you with this topic. I'm a traveller, a photographer and a student of human society/culture. I also hold a degree in applied human communication (BAC) and the subjects; perception and context, are vital to my understanding of my world.

And so there lies your bias. You will find political scientists see art as a political statement, philosophers see philosophy, perverts see pornography, and those without bias see a picture. Who is right? You are simply framing photography in your image trying to argue to prove your point of view. Art is subjective and so all opinions about it are equally subjective. There is no reason an image has to be didactic. In fact, the "context" on "content" of an image cannot be implied by the image itself. At least no more than there was a physical presence of certain objects and people. And in the digital age, that can be called into question.

If you enjoy thinking about art and photography, that is fine, but you cannot offer your statements as some sort of proof of an "abosolute" nature of the medium. Except for personal inspiration and the analysis of language and logic, philosophy does not have much to offer. Aesthetics has been pretty much left to a small circle of art critics and historians.

 

[desmo]

Sorry Finder, you're wrong: there is no-one without bias. We all attach our bias to everything we see and do.
When we have no context, we create our own. That's my point: I'd rather not make judgements based purely on my own bias (perceptions/culture), I like to have some explanation of the context.

I'm not trying to 'prove my point of view' I'm trying to explain it. You're welcome to yours too.

I don't need context for all photos, but I do desire it for photos like that referenced so that I can understand instead of misinterpret.

And so there lies your bias. You will find political scientists see art as a political statement, philosophers see philosophy, perverts see pornography, and those without bias see a picture. Who is right? You are simply framing photography in your image trying to argue to prove your point of view. Art is subjective and so all opinions about it are equally subjective. There is no reason an image has to be didactic. In fact, the "context" on "content" of an image cannot be implied by the image itself. At least no more than there was a physical presence of certain objects and people. And in the digital age, that can be called into question.

If you enjoy thinking about art and photography, that is fine, but you cannot offer your statements as some sort of proof of an "abosolute" nature of the medium. Except for personal inspiration and the analysis of language and logic, philosophy does not have much to offer. Aesthetics has been pretty much left to a small circle of art critics and historians.

 

[back alley]

hey!
i don't see EVERYTHING as porno!

 

[Finder]

Sorry Finder, you're wrong: there is no-one without bias. We all attach our bias to everything we see and do.

Exactly!

BTW, if we are all entitled to an opinion, how can I be wrong? But I am glad you got the point.

 

[desmo]

Here ya go kmack, I just uploaded another of the Danielle pics (just for you) ;-) Plus another 4 of course
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=4278

Case in point: the photo you posted above, I read the outstretched arm of the figure on the rock as denial or rejection. It is a nice well composed photograph but, for me, it does not illicit the intended emotional response you supplied within the contextual explanation. Frankly, I liked my initial internal reaction more than the actual context you supplied. For me it is now less interesting and holds less impact knowing what was intended.

In a photo journalistic tradition context is vital, but imagination does not need a basis in reality, you only need belief.

 

[desmo]

This is where you were wrong Finder: "and those without bias see a picture"

As I said, none of us is without bias

Exactly!

BTW, if we are all entitled to an opinion, how can I be wrong? But I am glad you got the point.