Neare
Well-known
I'm not trying to fight you, just having a fun discussion. (But if you found that offensive to be written on this forum, then is that not a cultural norm of yours that differs from mine?
)Ones vantage point is never limited to a single cultural framework, we are human beings and were are able to learn. By thinking that way your mindset is excluding it completely whilst mine it open to learning other cultures isn't it?
Neare
Well-known
Exactly, a photo is nothing but matter. Just like a spoon or a lawnmower. Emotion comes from a person's brain as they react with it and as every person is different so each emotion must be as well.
You can predict emotional response to some degree based on the cultural norms that we are also talking about in this discussion. But although anger is essentially a universal emotion, what ignites anger and also its potency in a person is not, it is cultural/personal.
Jamie123
Veteran
I'm not trying to fight you, just having a fun discussion. (But if you found that offensive to be written on this forum, then is that not a cultural norm of yours that differs from mine?
Ones vantage point is never limited to a single cultural framework, we are human beings and were are able to learn. By thinking that way your mindset is excluding it completely whilst mine it open to learning other cultures isn't it?
I was not offended.
I think you did not get my point about vantage points. It has nothing to do with having an open mind or not. You can learn other cultures but their otherness is always defined in relation to your own culture. Even moreso, the very concepts you employ are defined by it. If I learn that in other cultures it is not rude to burp after a meal then you are firstly saying that in relation to your own culture where it is rude. But even further, the very fact that you recognize burping as an action that has meaning is itself a result of a certain social framework.
All that's way too simplistic, though, and I do not want to get into it any further as I think we're getting off topic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Damaso
Photojournalist
dave lackey
Veteran
Hmmm.... Damaso, I bet you didn't expect quite the direction this discussion is going. Not sure how a philsophical discussion about emotions and photographs turned to bodily functions....
Not sure how a philsophical discussion about emotions and photographs turned to bodily functions....Neare
Well-known
haha there isn't much discussion aside of the cultural stuff going on. Jamie it doesn't matter if you compare another culture to your own, as long as you understand the reasons behind the norms. Also much of what you said in your above post is true. But asuming that ice cream is either yummy or not to a person is again, cultural. If you think that it's not, you're eliminating the possibility of a cultural existence who are forbidden to eat cold foods completely - for to them it may be seen as filthy and disgusting (just an example).
So bringing it back on topic, a photo can never have a universal meaning, I assure you never.
There is no universal definition or way to show intimacy.
So bringing it back on topic, a photo can never have a universal meaning, I assure you never.
There is no universal definition or way to show intimacy.
Nomad Z
Well-known
Photographs say nothing. It's all down to the individual interpretation of the viewer.
Regarding the notion of one's culture being a reference by which other cultures are compared, I would argue that one's 'culture' changes with every instant that one continues to be alive. Were it otherwise, we would all be no more culturally developed than new born babies.
Regarding the notion of one's culture being a reference by which other cultures are compared, I would argue that one's 'culture' changes with every instant that one continues to be alive. Were it otherwise, we would all be no more culturally developed than new born babies.
Last edited:
Damaso
Photojournalist
As a documentary photographer I have to strongly disagree. The choice of subject, what the photographer chooses to include or edit out, point of focus all of these things are strong statements. I don't believe photographs are blank slates onto which a viewer projects their beliefs though I do strive to create images which allows the viewer to bring their own background to their interpretation of my work. But the point of my work, and that of many other photojournalists, is to raise questions and challenge preconceptions. How can we do that if "photographs say nothing?"
huntjump
Well-known
I don't think you'll get much support around here for that idea. I cannot convey just how much I just disagree with you, no offense. Just wonder why you enjoy photography if that's the mentality.
peterm1
Veteran
Damaso
Photojournalist
A perfect example of an intimate image which is not physically close Peter!
Nomad Z
Well-known
What is an image?
What is culture?
What does the attached say?
What is culture?
What does the attached say?
Jamie123
Veteran
Nothing has universal meaning. That's a moot point. 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.
But I really do not want to get into it. Philosophy is my academic field and I have the tendecy of trying to allude to complex concepts and interesting philosophical problems which no one really seems to be interested in. A more accurate title for this forum section would be "Armchair philosophy of Photography".
As for getting back on topic, I think the OP is misusing the term 'Intimacy' here. Intimacy usually refers to a symmetric relation. When I'm intimate with someone (not in the sexual sense) they are intimate with me. When you take a photo of someone from afar, then you might catch them in a moment where they let their guard down, where they stop being self-conscious. But if they don't know you're there, it's hard to call it intimacy.
Sparrow
Veteran
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I don't want to put words into Damaso's mouth, but I interpreted what he was saying and supported by his photos that their is a symmetric relationship. The subject is relating to the photographer in that they are comfortable removing all barriers and allowing the photographer to capture their true essence. This is a response to the photographer conveying the emotion that he will treat the subject with dignity and respect.
Moving away from Damaso's initial comments and photo examples, I will agree with your general supposition that it is not possible to be intimate with someone when they do not know you are there. That is just one of those basic truths.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I think you can convey empathy in a photo, but only if the viewer has the capacity for empathy. I'm not sure photos alone are up to the job of conveying real intimacy, though.
Jamie123
Veteran
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. Last but not least, all the photos posted by others in this thread that Damaso seems to deem perfect examples of intimacy without closeness are photos where the subject was most likely unaware of the photographer. So I really think we're not talking about intimacy here.
Nomad Z
Well-known
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?
Of course they are. Nothing has meaning, other than to the person regarding it, and the meaning it has for them depends entirely on their particular life experience. If I say "arfle, barfle, gloop" to you, what do I mean?
It is not case of allowing them - they will do precisely that anyway. Don't believe me? Consider the converse - you show a picture to someone and tell them that they're not allowed to bring their own background to their interpretation. What are they expected to do? Whip out their crystal ball and somehow intuit what's in your mind?
Obvious - you assume that your visual expression of ideas, manifest in a photograph, will be interpreted in the way that you seek because we are not disparate individuals with completely unrelated life experiences - there are parallels and similarities. To communicate an idea by means of a photograph presupposes that the photographer knows how the viewer will interpret the image.
We do this sort of thing with language all the time. You, I, and others, are doing it now, here in this thread. The difference is that language is far more sophisticated than the somewhat random empirical associations that each individual might have with the content of a photograph. Language is also interactive - I can tell from your posts that you understand English, and there is thus a good chance that you will understand my posts, written in English, as well.
One could argue that you're just hitting random keys on your keyboard, that I am doing the same, and, by an amazing coincidence, our random key-tappings come together to make readable, sensible English discourse. But a small dose of pragmatism leads one to infer that we probably are writing English and engaging in discourse - no infinite number of monkeys banging out the works of Shakespeare here.
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?
Nomad Z
Well-known
What makes you think I'm looking for support?
Certainly no offence taken.
Why should making photographs that 'say' something be a neccessary condition for enjoying photography?
Last edited by a moderator:
andredossantos
Well-known
Nomad: Very well said! I totally agree. Sometimes I am amazed at peoples reactions to things (say, a photo) which seem completely counterintuitive to ME. Maybe this is a bad analogy but it's kind've like when a conspiracy theorist is presented with evidence that disproves their theory yet to them that same evidence is simply more proof of conspiracy.
Last edited: