Symbolism, and critique
Oct 24, 2014 00:27:39 #
In the thread titled "Response to positive critiques and comments...." user St3v3M pointed out that there are multiple "types" of critiques. He split them into technical and feelings. I followed that with amplification,
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-254416-2.html#4283254
User mcveed requested something more to explain the meaning of it all,
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-254416-2.html#4285510
and suggested a starting point would be if I explained what this statement is about:
"An image is divided into compositional parts as symbols, much the same as a written paragraph has sentences and words that are symbols. The order they are in, which symbols are more dominant and which are subordinate in relation to the symbol that is the subject as well as to each other, can all be described in scientific terms and by the technologies that are used to order them."
I felt that it would be better served by a separate thread.
For a little background, to get the right mind set, imagine a person who is born deaf and never hears a spoken word. Rather than learn to speak, and as a result "hear" themselves think by emulating sounds in their mind, they learn to see like everyone else, but more than others they learn to "see" themselves thinking, by emulating vision in their mind.
People who can hear sounds use different sounds as symbols to mean things. People who cannot hear cannot do that, but instead they use visual symbols much more than others. Both will learn to read and write using letters and words, which are visual symbols, but of course the hearing person relates them to the sounds of speech and the non-hearing person relates them to other visual symbols.
Photography is communications using visual symbols. Just as with written text, where letters and other marks are used, sometimes alone and more often grouped into words, then phrases, sentences, paragraphs, etc, visual symbols also start with base elements and grow as they are combined. Hence any visually distinct component of an image, starting with a single pixel, is a unique symbol, and collected groups are like words (a gradient, an outline, and so on). Each component that is distinct, even if made up of other distinct components, is a symbol.
In a visual communications we often want some parts to be the most dominant: the symbol a viewers eyes focus on most often. Other symbols are less dominant, and might be used either to provide context for the more dominant symbol, or to lead the viewers eyes to the dominant symbol. We make symbols that are too distractive less so by making them subordinate (darker, more blurred, etc) to other symbols.
Each symbol affects the viewer, and the emotion it invokes compared to that of other symbols, is what makes composition an art that photographers use to communicate. Consider the difference in symbols as used by a "straight photographer" as opposed to one who likes abstractions. One is an effort at reproducing detail in a symbol, the other at producing an emotion with the relationship between symbols rather than the detail.
And a wild example is a Cubist painting! Symbols are usually not subject specific, but "universal". A coffee cup doesn't necessarily look exactly like any one coffee cup, but is painted to remind the viewer of every possible type of coffee cup. And Picasso once put an eye on a woman's shoulder rather than on her head, which lead to the question of why do that? He said that eye was important, and nobody was going to notice it next to her nose and the other eye; so because it was an important symbol he placed it where it would be noticed!
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-254416-2.html#4283254
User mcveed requested something more to explain the meaning of it all,
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-254416-2.html#4285510
and suggested a starting point would be if I explained what this statement is about:
"An image is divided into compositional parts as symbols, much the same as a written paragraph has sentences and words that are symbols. The order they are in, which symbols are more dominant and which are subordinate in relation to the symbol that is the subject as well as to each other, can all be described in scientific terms and by the technologies that are used to order them."
I felt that it would be better served by a separate thread.
For a little background, to get the right mind set, imagine a person who is born deaf and never hears a spoken word. Rather than learn to speak, and as a result "hear" themselves think by emulating sounds in their mind, they learn to see like everyone else, but more than others they learn to "see" themselves thinking, by emulating vision in their mind.
People who can hear sounds use different sounds as symbols to mean things. People who cannot hear cannot do that, but instead they use visual symbols much more than others. Both will learn to read and write using letters and words, which are visual symbols, but of course the hearing person relates them to the sounds of speech and the non-hearing person relates them to other visual symbols.
Photography is communications using visual symbols. Just as with written text, where letters and other marks are used, sometimes alone and more often grouped into words, then phrases, sentences, paragraphs, etc, visual symbols also start with base elements and grow as they are combined. Hence any visually distinct component of an image, starting with a single pixel, is a unique symbol, and collected groups are like words (a gradient, an outline, and so on). Each component that is distinct, even if made up of other distinct components, is a symbol.
In a visual communications we often want some parts to be the most dominant: the symbol a viewers eyes focus on most often. Other symbols are less dominant, and might be used either to provide context for the more dominant symbol, or to lead the viewers eyes to the dominant symbol. We make symbols that are too distractive less so by making them subordinate (darker, more blurred, etc) to other symbols.
Each symbol affects the viewer, and the emotion it invokes compared to that of other symbols, is what makes composition an art that photographers use to communicate. Consider the difference in symbols as used by a "straight photographer" as opposed to one who likes abstractions. One is an effort at reproducing detail in a symbol, the other at producing an emotion with the relationship between symbols rather than the detail.
And a wild example is a Cubist painting! Symbols are usually not subject specific, but "universal". A coffee cup doesn't necessarily look exactly like any one coffee cup, but is painted to remind the viewer of every possible type of coffee cup. And Picasso once put an eye on a woman's shoulder rather than on her head, which lead to the question of why do that? He said that eye was important, and nobody was going to notice it next to her nose and the other eye; so because it was an important symbol he placed it where it would be noticed!
Oct 24, 2014 01:18:05 #
I think you're WAY over thinking this subject, but to put it more simply, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
Oct 24, 2014 01:35:58 #
Oct 24, 2014 01:55:11 #
OddJobber wrote:
I think you're WAY over thinking this subject, but to put it more simply, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
About what makes one photograph different from another, and why humans respond differently.
Trust that I'm not over thinking it, but rather barely scratching the surface. That does not mean everyone will find this easy. If you'd asked me about it 20 or 30 years ago I wouldn't have known what it was then either!
But there are some folks that have been studying this, or just using it, for decades.
Rudolf Arnheim. Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A., 1974. New version; expanded and revised edition of the 1954 original. 508 pages.
http://monoskop.org/images/e/e7/Arnheim_Rudolf_Art_and_Visual_Perception_1974.pdf
1971: Entropy and Art. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520026179.
www.kenb.ca/z-aakkozzll/pdf/arnheim.pdf
And there is an interesting wikipeda page on Arnheim that is worth reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Arnheim
But of course Arnheim is just one example of the research and the philosophy involved. Go to Google and do a search on '"the science of art" symbol' (keep the double quotes) and that will provide about 300,000 hits of interest!
It's the difference between just knowing that you like a particular photograph, and knowing why you like a particular photograph.
If you know exactly why, it's a lot easier to make photographs you like.
Oct 24, 2014 02:16:10 #
St3v3M wrote:
how to critique art http://www.google.com/#q=how+to+critique+art
Heh heh, that search comes up with 133,000,000 hits.
If the "how to critique" is searched as a quoted phrase, the number of hits is reduced to 5,000.
If the word "symbol" is added outside the quoted phrase there are 1900 hits that pretty much do relate to this thread!
Oct 24, 2014 11:12:06 #
Apaflo .. I don't think you over thought this subject .. I think you over wrote it. I think I get what you are saying. Here is what I think you are saying in my own simple way of interpreting it.
When a photographer views an image that he shot, he not only views the visual image, but he also brings forth all the memories (sounds, smells, feelings, and maybe even tastes(e.g. salty ocean spray) to what he sees. It's hard to separated the two. That is why when other people view the photo, the opinion they have of the image is much more objective. They do not have all the other things to bring to the photo. It is important therefore, if you want the viewer to taste the salty spray of the wave, and the moist wind, and the gritty sand beneath your feet, and the awesome, wonderful feeling you have standing there .. so small .. near the great ocean .. you need to have visual symbols so that the viewer can feel those same things. You need to have a main visual symbol and supporting symbols .. you have to decide what the main idea is that you want to communicate, else the viewer will become confused.
When a photographer views an image that he shot, he not only views the visual image, but he also brings forth all the memories (sounds, smells, feelings, and maybe even tastes(e.g. salty ocean spray) to what he sees. It's hard to separated the two. That is why when other people view the photo, the opinion they have of the image is much more objective. They do not have all the other things to bring to the photo. It is important therefore, if you want the viewer to taste the salty spray of the wave, and the moist wind, and the gritty sand beneath your feet, and the awesome, wonderful feeling you have standing there .. so small .. near the great ocean .. you need to have visual symbols so that the viewer can feel those same things. You need to have a main visual symbol and supporting symbols .. you have to decide what the main idea is that you want to communicate, else the viewer will become confused.
Oct 24, 2014 11:26:25 #
There is a variable that I think you left out, though. While some symbols will press most everybody's buttons, there others that touch the hearts and minds of a certain section of society or maybe just a few people who have similar experiences.
Who is the better photographer or artist ... the one that presses everybody's buttons .. or the one that presses the buttons of a select few?
Who is the better photographer or artist ... the one that presses everybody's buttons .. or the one that presses the buttons of a select few?
Oct 24, 2014 11:36:17 #
Nightski wrote:
...some symbols will press most everybody's buttons, there others that touch the hearts and minds of a certain section of society or maybe just a few people who have similar experiences....
And it's cultural as well.
Oct 24, 2014 12:01:14 #
Nightski wrote:
There is a variable that I think you left out, though. While some symbols will press most everybody's buttons, there others that touch the hearts and minds of a certain section of society or maybe just a few people who have similar experiences.
Who is the better photographer or artist ... the one that presses everybody's buttons .. or the one that presses the buttons of a select few?
Who is the better photographer or artist ... the one that presses everybody's buttons .. or the one that presses the buttons of a select few?
I don't think you can say one is better than the other, because for the few that photographer has done his job.
Oct 24, 2014 12:05:36 #
Country's Mama wrote:
I don't think you can say one is better than the other, because for the few that photographer has done his job.
My thoughts exactly ... which is why critique is such a dangerous thing. I constantly remind myself not to be too absolute when critiquing the impact and composition parts of a photo as those are very subjective components.
Technical attributes are much less subjective, but they too are not absolute. It is sometimes hard to say how much OOF is too much for example.
A photographer should listen, consider, try, experiment, but in the end, he/she has to be the one that is satisfied with his or her own work.
Oct 24, 2014 12:20:30 #
Nightski wrote:
you have to decide what the main idea is that you want to communicate, else the viewer will become confused.
The last sentence, as quoted, is the purpose that this all comes down to. You've given a specific example that is good, but it is too specific to define the general idea.
It really would be impossible to over write this in one or several posts here! It's a huge topic that reaches into every aspect of image composition and image editing. This is just exactly what Arnheim studied for virtually his entire life (1904-2007), and his book "Art and Visual Perception: A psychology of the creative eye" is 500 plus pages long!
Even just the simple essay "Entropy and Art" is many page and that is basically restricted to only removing disorder from image composition.
We are just scratching the surface, and cannot really attempt to go into specifics that apply to any given style or genre of photography. Just getting the basic overall concept across (so that individuals can seek their own sources of specific information) is nearly a hopeless task in this type of environment.
Oct 24, 2014 13:32:29 #
Why can't we go into specifics?
Why can't individuals here understand the overall concept?
What is the overall concept that we are failing to grasp?
Could you pick one genre of photography in a certain style and lay out the overall concept for that genre in that style, so that those of us that are hopeless can begin to see the light .. or perhaps we just aren't intelligent enough to grasp it.
Why can't individuals here understand the overall concept?
What is the overall concept that we are failing to grasp?
Could you pick one genre of photography in a certain style and lay out the overall concept for that genre in that style, so that those of us that are hopeless can begin to see the light .. or perhaps we just aren't intelligent enough to grasp it.
Oct 24, 2014 13:39:18 #
Nightski wrote:
My thoughts exactly ... which is why critique is s... (show quote)
And what you like concerning DOF is very subjective. I have loved some macro images where just the edge of a petal have been in focus. I was going to post and example but do you think I can find the artist now that I need her, or even remember her name.
:hunf:
Oct 24, 2014 13:45:09 #
Apaflo wrote:
It really would be impossible to over write this in one or several posts here! It's a huge topic that reaches into every aspect of image composition and image editing. This is just exactly what Arnheim studied for virtually his entire life (1904-2007), and his book "Art and Visual Perception: A psychology of the creative eye" is 500 plus pages long!
It really would be impossible to over write this in one or several posts here! It's a huge topic that reaches into every aspect of image composition and image editing. This is just exactly what Arnheim studied for virtually his entire life (1904-2007), and his book "Art and Visual Perception: A psychology of the creative eye" is 500 plus pages long!
And WHY would you start a thread on a subject that you think none of us can grasp?? What is your purpose in doing so?
Oct 24, 2014 14:00:48 #
Nightski wrote:
Why can't we go into specifics?
If you have that much time, you certainly can!
Nightski wrote:
Why can't individuals here understand the overall concept?
I see no reason individuals here can't. Do you? My whole point has been to try to generate discussion and learning about the overall concept.
Nightski wrote:
What is the overall concept that we are failing to grasp?
You'll have to read what they write and decide that for yourself. I don't think there is an answer about "we". Everyone is different.
Nightski wrote:
Could you pick one genre of photography in a certain style and lay out the overall concept for that genre in that style, so that those of us that are hopeless can begin to see the light .. or perhaps we just aren't intelligent enough to grasp it.
I don't have a degree in Fine Arts. I frankly am not intelligent enough to teach what you are asking for. Nor can I determine who is or is not smart enough to grasp it. And I doubt that anyone is going to teach it in a forum!
But the concept is something that certainly can be discussed by those willing to spend time understanding whatever part of it they can. I'm still just scratching the surface and yet have found this to a very helpful line of thought. I apply it to analysis and editing, but where I learn the most is from research and discussion.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.