The High Concept Image...

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

One thing I did not say about the photography class I took. The first day the instructor said (i'm paraphrasing of course) - if you are the type whose feelings get hurt easy and you take every criticism personal - I strongly recommend you drop this course. You are going to learn a lot about photography everything from photographing the image to the print as you will develop and print your own black and white images and then we your classmates and I will provide critical commentary and praise on your images and sometimes compare with Master photographers. Sometimes what you think is great will be trashed and you - if you want to learn photography you have to learn to get over that and trust that the people criticizing your work are not criticizing your existence on earth - just as they will have to trust you when you criticize their work.

I cannot stress the importance of the above paragraph enough. Today everybody seems to have thin skin as if they never grew up or truly think they are God's gift to earth. What happened to trust and belief that the person next to you is not inherently evil? I will never succumb to this I think dismally evil yes evil view of mankind - ever - but that is just me.

Moving on...

For the mods - go here http://research.archives.gov/description/196261 and click the additional information link. You will see the use of this image is unrestricted access and unrestricted usage. So once again what is the basis for not allowing links to iconic photos like this? I chose this image very deliberately as I knew it was public domain. I'm at a loss.

Moving on again...

I want to touch on terminology. High concept - low concept I don't really care how the idea is expressed as long as what Minor White said is understood. The sensitivity to words that another uses is beyond me (see above).

Moving on again again...

My own personal disagreement with the writer (and with others) is his claim that photographs should tell a story. As I see, one of the key strengths of photography is that photographs don't tell stories. To quote Clive Scott:

"because the photograph is so weak in intentionality, in its ability to say what it means, so it must either outbid itself, make its case with the crassest obviousness, or it must fall back on language to make its case for it. More particularly, the photograph shaves context down to something wafer thin."

Well I've no problem with this as Minor White said "One should photograph objects, not only for what they are but for what else they are." In my mind the what else does not have to be additive - it can be subtractive as well. I do tend to want to try to be additive (and tell a story - but that is just me) but if you are doing minimalist work it is subtractive and can be very powerful. The point is - most importantly - you the photographer expressing how you add or subtract. If you look at your image and the criteria expressed by Minor White is met - you have succeeded - I think.

Now on to Ray. Sure photography is many things to many people but your first paragraph basically said it all. "What you see" "making an image of what one sees instead of taking a picture of" - how you add or subtract from what is in front of you. The point is the photos that successfully add (or subtract) are the ones the present and hopefully the future will truly admire. The others are nothing but day to day filler and eventually dust in the wind. Important in their own way but not in the way intended here. I too take way way too many of those - but I suppose it is part of the process of learning to see.

Migrant mother will stand for as long as humans look at photographs - why? Who here has an opinion? This is where in the class I took you step up - and trust. This should be less painful as none of us took that image - but to me this is part of the heart of why this part of this forum should even exist. What are the qualities - maybe it is only one quality - what do you zero in on - what do you see - why is this image great or even not?

Olli may have an inside track as he has apparently some knowledge of the FSA photographers. What do you see Olli?

On a side note I will say that in my opinion the FSA photographers are the greatest group of photographers ever assembled. As Olli has suggested they did have a mission and with and perhaps in spite of their boss Roy Stryker achieved it. I personally think this "mission" needs revival today but that is a different discussion. Anyway in working toward their "mission" they learned to see - or enhanced their already existing considerable ability. I personally turn to this group of photographers more than any other when I tire of "pretty" which generally runs rampant today. I'm also a fan of new topographics. Others may turn elsewhere.

i think the image of napalm girl is also worthy of discussion as high concept or call it what you like photography. My opinion of it differs from mine of Migrant Mother.

-Ed-

 

[pdh]

You know Ed, it just seems like you want carte blanche to be as rude you like without having to accept responsibility for what you say, and that it is all the fault of the subject of your rudeness for being "over sensitive".

 

[Boid]

Also heads up, Boid - you labeled the links backwards (cropped vs uncropped).

And really interesting, I'd never seen the uncropped.

Thanks, I corrected it.

 

[m.davidtaub]

Hey All,

Latest Outdoor Photographer article by Ian Plant. Here: Click High Concept

MODERATOR NOTE: Long quote removed. Please follow link provided.

To me this is what photography is all about.

It is why I own a relatively expensive (to many of you cheap as no it isn't a Leica) camera and not those disposable ones. If all you do is document why spend money on any good equipment? Why? When you look at a family related picture from 50 or 100 years ago does sharpness really matter? At all?

But on the other hand you want to show yourself and others present and future that you really were good - then this article and the concepts expressed should matter. Old people die memories fade so do photos but not digital... So say you were here and that you were good with a camera. I think.

I'm going to try. Any other opinions?

-Ed-

I'm wondering about the first image in Ian Plant's article. Is that 'high concept'? If that is considered 'high concept' I'd want no part of it. It's small, I tried to enlarge it to see it better, maybe it's better big? But dang, it looks like art painted on velvet from years ago. I guess some people like that. The use of filters, several exposures, hdr...it's one ugly image, and I'd wonder what part of it's execution or subject matter made it 'high concept'....my opinion only.

Reminds of the low/high art argument. Graphic design = low art. da Vinci paintings = high art...and on and on...

here's a link to a site i often visit...great photos and interviews that are a great mix of 'styles' of photography,...

AMERICAN SUBURB X – Since 2008, an epicenter for photography, art and culture.

 

[Luke]

As a moderator, I've gotten a few messages about this thread, so let me highlight a few points from the Site Rules and Terms of Service.

1. No personal attacks or insults allowed.
2. Be nice. Rude comments have no place here.
3. Don't troll. In other words, don't bait people with inflammatory posts or make posts for the purpose of disruption.
4. Don't repetitively argue. If you've made your argument, move on without trying over and again to have the last word.

Feel free to discuss the topics at hand, but please do it with a bit more care. The next step now that everyone has been reminded of specific rules that have been ignored already will be to hand out infractions. I would much rather be viewing images than playing the role of referee. And remember, sometimes it is easier to just walk away.

Also for EasyEd, please note these lines (also in the Site Rules and Terms of Service)

Do not post anyone else's photographic work, modified or otherwise, in any SeriousCompacts forum, gallery, blog, group, review, or other site section without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.*
* Copyright is a complicated subject, and laws differ in different countries. Although we realize that a case could be made for fair use in some specific situations which are beyond the scope of what is discussed here, SeriousCompacts.com is a privately owned and maintained site. The above rules are our rules which apply site-wide in addition to any applicable laws.

Now, I'd like to get back to my morning coffee.

 

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

OK on the copyright stuff - I'll see if I can get an email from the FDR Library of the National archives saying that Migrant Mother can be posted for discussion purposes and I will explain to them why. I will try to make it general enough to cover other National Archive photographic documents. I understand that the issue is apparently even opening the door to fair use. I would suggest putting the onus on the poster by requiring them to be responsible for the fair use of a photograph.

But I'd like to know who specifically I was rude to? I am very careful about what I say and never single anyone out. You have not and will not see that behaviour from me. I don't believe in doing that at all. If somebody thinks something is rude speak to me about what.

My experiences and philosophies are not a reflection on any specific person as I have always said that is just me. Is that what you consider rude - expressing what actually did happen in college? Or the way I said I see people as basically good not bad or the way I said I am not very sensitive to the words others choose to use to express a concept? Especially when they explain their meaning - as Ian Plant did in his article? I said nothing and implied nothing about any person or group of people on this website. I am certainly not trolling.

Where I see we are at is simple - an iconic American image from the National archives cannot be shown (I'll make it a point to get a response from the National Archives) or apparently discussed on a website dedicated to photography without attacking - but I don't mind as it doesn't bother me - the OP.

Maybe what is best is to simply lock or delete this thread and we'll try again later.

-Ed-

 

[KillRamsey]

I feel like it's really, really easy to have meaningful and thought provoking discussions on this board about imagery, composition, technique, and even the philosophy of creating images. 30 or 40 people with varying degrees of experience show up daily to listen and respond, and it's often quite wonderful. This hasn't really been one of those meaningful discussions, unfortunately, because you can't start them off with "this is my point and if you don't agree, then you're not sophisticated enough to get it." Following that up with "if you don't like me implying that you're unsophisticated, then you're too sensitive" is just going to shut people down and make them not want to even consider what you originally were trying to say. Begin by allowing for the fact that you might be mistaken, and that your points may not be self-evident. Support them, kindly, and you'll usually find that worthwhile discussion develops. But there's an awfully short tolerance for snark around here.

/unsolicited 2 cents

 

[olli]

Well, speaking personally I'm finding this conversation very interesting - more so than discussion of technique and very much more so than the endless discussions about 'gear'. So I hope modes don't feel the need to lock or delete. I can only suggest that those who find anything said here unpleasant should consider opting out or following up on a new thread. I'm happy to carry on the conversation. I do want to come back on a number of things Ed mentioned in #21 but don't have time to do it now but will do so later today.

 

[Lightmancer]

Civil <=> Confrontational

Polite <=> Rude

Courteous <=> Condescending

Engaging <=> Sarcastic

Supportive <=> Dismissive

Behaviour to the left tends to lubricate social discourse. Behaviour to the right is the territory of the high-functioning sociopath. Let's try to stay to the left, eh? It makes for lively and informative debate and obviates the need for tin hats.

Thank you.

 

[Luke]

Ed, please don't get bogged down in the very small point about not being able to post an image here. We are all quite capable of clicking on a link to view a photograph. And although there is a wide gamut of experience levels here, I would presume that many here would be familiar enough with the "Migrant Mother" photograph so as to not even really need to see it to discuss it (although how that photo relates at all to the original article by that Ian chap completely escapes me).

 

[Djarum]

I consider myself a novice photographer and I really didn't feel anything wrong per-se with the article. It describes much of the several books I've read from Michael Freeman. I think articles and books like this are helpful, especially for someone like me who doesn't naturally have a keen eye for photographry like many on the forum do. I am also not suprised by some of the reaction simply because most of the responders are extremely good at it. It's like telling Lebron James how to make a 10 foot jumpshot. You think Lebron would be upset or defensive? Probably. For me on the otherhand, I don't mind such articles because I feel I need to read them, even if some of them say much of the same thing. Sometimes its how someone says something that makes a difference in understanding a concept or not.

I will say though that the overriding tone of the article is a bit egotistical and a little bit overly snobbish. I think good teachers of any skill has to set ego aside, and sadly, even in acedemia, thats not always the case.

As an engineer, its just plain truthful that many like educated engineers or scientists aren't going to get somene else's idea or scientific analysis. I see this all the time. It has nothing to necessarily with education or sophistication, just communication and understanding. Why does this matter to me? Simply because in art, and photography alike, I think its ok not to like or get a photo or understand a picture whereas someone else may love it and think its fabulous. For the most part, I believe pictures are mostly subjective, unlike the completly objective engineering field I work in everyday.

So its not about sophistication or the lack there of. Simply put, we are allowed to like photographs and allowed to not like photographs. We are allowed not to get or understand the purpose of a photograph as we please. That is the beauty of the arts over the sciences. There is much more freedom of expression that isn't tied to scientific rules and corrollaries and mathematical postulates.

 

[olli]

Ed, I generally don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying. It's just that what you are saying isn't what the article you linked to is saying. I assume it was the Minor White quotation that caught your attention since you have referenced it a number of times but, as with many quotations, it's possible to read it many ways. That you offer Migrant Worker as an example of a high-concept image confirms this to me since the author of the article says, "Low-concept photography can also describe photographs that have a primary purpose of creating a literal or documentary interpretation of the subject." That is about as good a description of Stryker's ambition for the FSA project as you could get - a literal or documentary interpretation. Stryker had a very hands on role in the project. He personally looked at the images coming back from his photographers and chose which ones got published. Ansel Adams somewhat snobbish view, which I referenced in an earlier post, confirms that at least one 'high-concept' photographic guru did indeed see the FSA images as 'low concept'.

Regarding the Migrant Worker image, since you asked me what I see, I.m happy to say. First, I think it's a very strong image, but I wouldn't call it a great image. It's strong because Lange has captured something very powerful, primarily in this woman's expression and, secondarily in the interaction with the children. What does it convey? What story is being told? Despair, weariness, resignation, suspicion, determination, strength. But here's the thing, I don't know the 'source' of the story. Superficially, I can see it as a response to the image, but this is not just another random image I might come across on Flickr. This is an image with a context - the wider body of images of which it is part, the overall project to which all of the images contributed, the specific history of the times that the project set out to capture and convey and the 'iconic' status the image has achieved over time together with the subsequent discussion of this image in the years since it was first published. So I look at this image and interpret it in the knowledge of all of that, very specifically in the knowledge of the purpose of this and the other images, conveyed, not visually, but in writing.

The image certainly deserved to stand as a historic record of an important time and as a exemplar of what photography can be culturally. It will continue to stand because, setting all else aside, it has become 'iconic' and irrespective of how certain images achieve that status, once they do, they retain it without reference to the reasons why. They are iconic because they are iconic.

And even though I don't think it's a great image, I do think its a greater image than anything Ansel Adams ever managed, though of course I should acknowledge that my view of his work is shaped not just by the images but by his elitism and by the the Ansel Adams industry..

Enough for now. Some more to follow later perhaps.