The Arc of Communication

In another thread Asher Kelman wrote:

"All photographic art requires that an arc of communication occur between the photographer and the viewer. From that, the creator depends on the viewer comprehending intent. He also relies on the observer finding enough from their own minds to make the art work."

As that thread is quite long and picked up other points, I thought I would start another.

I'm interested in this idea, because (surprise, surprise) I disagree. To me there are two independent relationships. What the artist puts into the work and what the viewer takes out. These may, or may not, be related. My point being that there is no necessity for a communication between originator and viewer. What you see in my photographs may be what I wanted you to see, or it may be a whole other world that I did not envisage. Further than that, it may be that as a creator of artworks my relationship with that artwork is essentially internal. It is a record of my relationship with the world. It may explicitly not be an act of communication. The artwork may just exist for you to take from it what you will.

I think if we rely on being able to comprehend the intent of another then we are in for frequent disappointment. It is almost impossible to comprehend the intent of a small circle of very close acquaintances using their daily utterances. To comprehend the intent of a stranger from just a photo - I don't think I would begin to try.

Now, where's the beer?

Colin

Colin Jago said:

In another thread Asher Kelman wrote:

"All photographic art requires that an arc of communication occur between the photographer and the viewer. From that, the creator depends on the viewer comprehending intent. He also relies on the observer finding enough from their own minds to make the art work."...........

I'm interested in this idea, because (surprise, surprise) I disagree. ........My point being that there is no necessity for a communication between originator and viewer. What you see in my photographs may be what I wanted you to see, or it may be a whole other world that I did not envisage. Further than that, it may be that as a creator of artworks my relationship with that artwork is essentially internal. It is a record of my relationship with the world. It may explicitly not be an act of communication. The artwork may just exist for you to take from it what you will.

I think if we rely on being able to comprehend the intent of another then we are in for frequent disappointment. It is almost impossible to comprehend the intent of a small circle of very close acquaintances using their daily utterances. To comprehend the intent of a stranger from just a photo - I don't think I would begin to try.

Now, where's the beer?

Colin

Click to expand...

Colin,

There will always be beer! This with tea, after all are the key beverages of any civilized place where one can relax and kick back. Well at least for me!

Regarding the arc of intent and reception, you are correct. But your interpretation of two distinct classes is merely nomenclature.

It is just that, in all art, the first reception of the completed work is by the artist. It is that moment that the artist understands whether of not the work is "done" expresses his/her intent and whether and to whom it might or might not be shared.

The next viewer might hate the work or love it. That is of no consequence to the art as representing the vision and intent of the artist. The arc has already been completed. The viewer either "gets it" or doesn't.

My view, that

"All photographic art requires that an arc of communication occur between the photographer and the viewer. From that, the creator depends on the viewer comprehending intent. He also relies on the observer finding enough from their own minds to make the art work."

still stands. The arc may or may not be completed. However, there is not a lot that the artist can do with this particular picture, unless he/she wishes to add an introductory note or other images to better place it in context.

After all, some viewers lack the requisite background information/experience to fully "get" the piece. Or the artist can simply say, "Too bad, I get it, others get it, if you don't, so be it!"

Many things are made with the trust that the person considering it has the ability to deal with it. This applies to micrometers, nail polish, missiles and no less, art.

Now I admit using nail polish to cover the printed "M" "A" and Av mode dial of my Canon digicams to prevent the paint coming off. Pat Robertson might interpret your landscape art as a metaphor for resurrection. Someone in Hollywood might install a missile on Santa Monica Boulevard as a phallic scuplture and an antiwar statement! All that is possible.

In any case, these new interpretations of meaning and use does not alter the inventor's intent and the validitiy of its design.

The same with photography and art. If the viewer get's fulfillment interpeting the art in a new way, that's O.K.

Sometimes, the artist leaves things ambiguous for that very reason to explore a social issue, for example. Here the viewer is trusted and even seduced and encouraged to fill in the gaps with their own experience.

That, then, is part of the author's intent too.

There is always an arc if intent, simple or complex, implicitly carried with the picture, however, you might or might not be able to complete it!

Asher

mmmhhhh ... a beer sounds good right about now...

Colin, I understand and appreciate that you feel that a direct arc of communication does not have to exist between creator and viewer. Then you go on to state "... as a creator of artworks my relationship with that artwork is essentially internal. It is a record of my relationship with the world. It may explicitly not be an act of communication."

But the essense photography is communication, whether it be creative communication or recorded communication, it is communication nonetheless. How or when to you see any aspect of photography as "explicity not be an act of communication"? From image capture to processing to image viewing, it all seems a rather explicit form of communication to me.

Gary

PS- "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - B. Franklin

Communication

Gary Ayala said:

But the essense photography is communication, whether it be creative communication or recorded communication, it is communication nonetheless. How or when to you see any aspect of photography as "explicity not be an act of communication"? From image capture to processing to image viewing, it all seems a rather explicit form of communication to me.

Click to expand...

Gary,

OK, there is a sense in which anything we do which has output is a communication. If I go beyond looking and actually press the button. If I process the picture and then print it, there is a thing which is a medium of communication.

But the word 'communication' seems to have layers of meaning. The dictionary I've just used has an astonishing range of definitions, though I guess that this might apply to any complex word.

Asher used the word in association with the word 'intent'. To me, this creates a strong meaning for the idea of communication. I don't see how a viewer can distinguish between an intent to communicate the idea 'save this wilderness' from 'I had a nice day out and this is what I saw' through to 'this was an exercise in dynamic range', just by looking at a photograph. Further, I can't see how we can hope to communicate which ever of those is true, just by producing a photograph.

The photograph as an article of message/intent driven communication is a bit of a lame horse.

So, when I say that it is possible to produce a photograph which is expressly not meant to be a communication I mean it at this strong level. Yes, there is a communication as the photograph passes from hand to hand, but it might be a low level communication. If the giver is not intending the recipient to get something, then no matter how deeply moved the recipient is by the artwork, there is a sense in which it is not communication.

I suspect that the word is not precisely defined enough to stack any more angels on to this particular pinhead.

Colin

Communication

Asher Kelman said:

Colin,

Regarding the arc of intent and reception, you are correct. But your interpretation of two distinct classes is merely nomenclature.

It is just that, in all art, the first reception of the completed work is by the artist. It is that moment that the artist understands whether of not the work is "done" expresses his/her intent and whether and to whom it might or might not be shared.

The next viewer might hate the work or love it. That is of no consequence to the art as representing the vision and intent of the artist. The arc has already been completed. The viewer either "gets it" or doesn't.

My view, that

"All photographic art requires that an arc of communication occur between the photographer and the viewer. From that, the creator depends on the viewer comprehending intent. He also relies on the observer finding enough from their own minds to make the art work."

still stands. The arc may or may not be completed. However, there is not a lot that the artist can do with this particular picture, unless he/she wishes to add an introductory note or other images to better place it in context.

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher,

I've obviously spent too many years telling people that if the recipient doesn't get the message then there hasn't been a communication!

"The arc may or may not be completed." I had taken your original comment to mean 'successful communication', which obviously requires that the arc be completed.

Colin

Colin,

My point is that once the first viewer, the artist him/herself, has made the observation that the work provides the impressions, feelings and meanings intended in the vision, that work is done and the arc of communication has been completed.

The same message then goes out to others who also view that very same work.

At that point, even if they can't themselves complete the arc, it is already completed. The art is already served it's minimal function, to express the intent of the artist.

The art will remain as a message waiting for someone else to appreciate it and again complete the arc, or not.

Asher

Communication has to be studied & defined in regards to a specific medium. In other words, it is medium-related. Communication in art is different than communication in journalism, advertising, portraiture to name but a few other photography-related fields.

In my situation I am focused upon creating art. In this regard I see communication very similarly to Asher's description above. Once I am pleased with a piece, and once this piece is displayed publicly, the audience is free to interpret the work as they like.

Broadcast

Alain Briot said:

Communication has to be studied & defined in regards to a specific medium. In other words, it is medium-related. Communication in art is different than communication in journalism, advertising, portraiture to name but a few other photography-related fields.

In my situation I am focused upon creating art. In this regard I see communication very similarly to Asher's description above. Once I am pleased with a piece, and once this piece is displayed publicly, the audience is free to interpret the work as they like.

Click to expand...

Alain,

That is a really interesting use of the word. I think we are all agreeing what is going on, but the last word I would have used for what you describe is 'communication'.

Thanks for helping disentangle the linguistic issues from the issues of substance.

Colin

Colin Jago said:

Alain,

That is a really interesting use of the word. I think we are all agreeing what is going on, but the last word I would have used for what you describe is 'communication'.

Thanks for helping disentangle the linguistic issues from the issues of substance.

Colin

Click to expand...

When you say "for what I describe" do you mean Art? Please be clear otherwise it makes this exchange unecessarily confusing.

Communication

Alain Briot said:

When you say "for what I describe" do you mean Art? Please be clear otherwise it makes this exchange unecessarily confusing.

Click to expand...

Alain,

I was being literal. I quoted your whole post. So when I said 'what you describe', what you described was their above - accepting that in itself that referenced what Asher said and so on.

That was in the wee small hours. As it is now day.........

Let's stick to still photography as art (although what I think about this probably applies to many art forms I haven't thought through them all and don't want to start a conversation which goes "Ah, but what about video installations, then".

A photograph can act as a tool of communication ('look, here I am on holiday and the sky is blue'). Art photographs can act as tools of communication ('the wilderness is nice'; 'war is terrible'). But the sorts of messages that single photographs can get across is limited, and unreliable ('potential for development'; 'war is glorious').

To say that a communication has happened when the artist completes the work, is, for me, an odd use of the word 'communication'. And that's all I'm saying. Communication hasn't happened, until it has happened. Between two people. It is just a word thing.

To say that communication has to be defined in a media specific way seems to me to miss the point about what communication is about. ('Well, your honour, you see, this wasn't libel at all. You have to understand what I said in a media specific way').

I think we all agree what an artist does. I think we all agree what a viewer does. All I am saying is that 'communication' is the last word I would use.

It is just a word thing.

Colin Jago said:

All I am saying is that 'communication' is the last word I would use.

Click to expand...

I find communication to be the perfect word for what I am saying. Art, and photography as art, is communication. When an artist presents his work to his audience, and the audience experiences it, communication has happened. To say otherwise is to miss the whole point about what art and communication are. Again, the nature of the communication taking place has to be defined in the context of a specific medium (see my previous post). Each medium, in this respect, is its own form of communication. Music, dance, sculpture, painting, photography, ceramics, writing, poetry, etc. each communicate a message that is in large part contained in the medium itself. This is why artists decide to work in a specific medium, either temporarily or as a life long choice. This is because what works in one medium may not work as well in another and because what can be expressed in one medium may not be as easy to express in a different medium. However, each medium does allow us to communicate. Through the artistic use of a medium it is possible to express concepts that cannot be expressed otherwise. To not realize that is to reduce one's enjoyment and experience of life tremedously.

And to use your libel example, regardless of the fact it is miles away from what we are talking about --namely, art--what can be considered libel in one medium may not be considered libel in another medium. Why? Because Libel is essentially verbal, and best expressed through speech or writing. It is much more challenging to express libel through a musical composition, or a sculpture, etc.

How much we would lose if we today believed that we cannot communicate our deepest feelings through the arts! How much we would reduce what can be achieved through photography if we today believed that photography cannot express our deepest, most sophisticated feelings! How limited our world would be if we believed that the audience must instantaneously understand what the artist is saying! Art demands time to be fully appreciated. As Asher points in another post, it would be presumptuous to assume that one can in a second perceive what the artist has spent months, or years, working upon and sharing with his audience.

I think that you and I disagree at a fundamental level about what photographic artists & their audience do and what their responsibilities are. I, personally, believe that photography is a rich, varied, sophisticated, personal, emotional, classy, artistic, and in one word superb vehicle of communication with endless possibilties. I also believe that one must be patient and take the necessary time to say something well, on the part of the artist, and to understand what is being said, what is being communicated, on the part of the audience. You, on the other hand, believe that photography is "something of a lame horse" and that " the sorts of messages that single photographs can get across is limited."

Communication, expression (and libel)

Alain Briot said:

I think that you and I disagree at a fundamental level about what photographic artists & their audience do and what their responsibilities are. I, personally, believe that photography is a rich, varied, sophisticated, personal, emotional, classy, artistic, and in one word superb vehicle of communication with endless possibilties.

Click to expand...

Alain,

I, personally, believe that photography is a rich, varied, sophisticated, personal, emotional, classy, artistic, and in one word superb vehicle of expression with endless possibilties.

I just think that the chances that communication happens is remote. But again, I believe that we are just using the word differently.

Where I do disagree with you is the bit about having to interpret the word according the medium. Having the message received and understood is either fundamental the word 'communication' or it is not. This is independent of the medium.

Off on a side track: - My libel example, by the way, although meant flippantly, also has substance. There is a law in the UK which allows the subject of a photograph comeback against the photographer (or newspaper etc) if they have been depicted in a way that suggests that they are doing something which they were not. The classic example is a photograph that is widely interpreted to show a rioter about to hit a policeman with a stick, whereas the reality was a shop keeper helping the police to clear up riot damage.

It is perfectly possible to libel or defame through the visual arts.

I think you and I profoundly disagree regarding what is artistic communication, period. Art is not just expression. It is communication. I personally believe that photography is art and that art is communication. I also believe that to not consider art to be communication is to miss out on one of the most enlightening experiences we can have.

May I ask how one can assume a Sender [sending expression] without a Receiver?

For whoever I take my photos - and that can even be me alone, just like several famous poets (e.g. Emily Dickinson) wrote for themselves - it will always be a communicative act. To express oneself entails that someone gets to receive this expression.

The discussion seems to be about degree: How much do we lay upon the artist and how much on the viewer (or listener). Some schools of [non-]thought place all the burden on the viewer, the catch phrase is "Art is in the Eye of the Beholder"; others see every work of Art as something to be interpreted such that the viewer gets to know "what the artiste wanted to express"*.

While the first is obviously nonsensical saying more about social perception than art, the second is problematic, too. For one, it leaves out all abstract art that is not to be meant to mean anything [L'art pour l'art]; also left out are those kinds of works which will only get a meaning through the interaction [may be passive] with a recipient. It totally neglects that an artist may not actually know of certain things he expresses simply because they are second nature to him. And what about changing interpretations due to changes in sociology, politics or knowledge?

Since all good works of art are transcendend interpretation of them must change. Picasso's Guernica surely is not just the depiction of one mass murder, although at the time the artist himself may have seen it so. His rage upon wasting so many of his fellow countrymen may have triggered him to comment upon this incident his way, the painter's way. With the experiences of the Second World War Guernica became an indictment of the horrors of war in general.

Obviously art - good or bad, intended to be high art or not - is an act of communication.



*Curiously one can successfully argue that those pieces of art that are closed, that is which show exactly what the artist wanted without anything left to interpretation, are not good art, they are only 'Kunsthandwerk' [no English word that captures the German meaning; think Monarch of the Glen].

Dierk,

I wish to aknowledge your reply just for now and reread it in the morning. I find your writing as always, well reasoned and sufficiently challenging that it has bite and gets my attention.

The last remark, those pieces of art that are closed, that is which show exactly what the artist wanted without anything left to interpretation, are not good art, they are only 'Kunsthandwerk' [no English word that captures the German meaning; think Monarch of the Glen]. is precious!

Asher

Dierk Haasis said:

May I ask how one can assume a Sender [sending expression] without a Receiver?
Obviously art - good or bad, intended to be high art or not - is an act of communication.

Click to expand...

I agree with Dierk. I also believe that arguments against photography as communication are often discriminative rather than objective. Often, those making this point do not see photography quite up to par with other medium and make contradictory arguments.

Objectivity

Alain Briot said:

I agree with Dierk. I also believe that arguments against photography as communication are often discriminative rather than objective. Often, those making this point do not see photography quite up to par with other medium and make contradictory arguments.

Click to expand...

Alain,

Not sure I understand "often discriminative rather than objective". Can you explain?

For the avoidance of doubt, I make no ranking between media in terms of their artistic merits.

If there is a contradiction in my argument, please point it out so I may correct it.

Colin

Colin,

My message is not about you.

Colin Jago said:

What you see in my photographs may be what I wanted you to see, or it may be a whole other world that I did not envisage. Further than that, it may be that as a creator of artworks my relationship with that artwork is essentially internal. It is a record of my relationship with the world. It may explicitly not be an act of communication. The artwork may just exist for you to take from it what you will.
Colin

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

For me the point of art is in the 'expression' of the artist and appreciating it as an expression, not as communication. Communication will always be inaccurate due to interpretation differences between individuals. All interpretation is based on the viewers past experience. We never experience through somebody elses experience even if we imagine it or empathise due to a similar past experience.

The interpretation does make the viewer an active participant, of which I enjoy greatly. AND, I do enjoy feedback on the journeys and messages drawn from the viewers interpretations, but it should always be remembered that it is in the eye of the beholder and that eye is totally unique even if on some miniscule insignificant level. The mystery and myriad of interpretations is often what makes an artwork more interesting. However, nobody has experienced exactly what the artist is expressing.

'Communication' is not the definition of 'art' in my view. 'Expression' is. It can be appreciated, interpreted, but never experienced directly, as the artist feels and remembers.

Basically, an experience can never be replicated exactly in another person's mind or heart. Art is a tool for the artist to exorcise demons or endeavour to come to terms with the world and specific events that affect the artist. If other's draw from that, then great, they also have some unique insight or rememberance.

Amen. Now pass me the brandy. The beer is too weak

Dierk Haasis said:

May I ask how one can assume a Sender [sending expression] without a Receiver?

Click to expand...

The artist is sending it to themselves as they struggle to understand and make sense of their experience, whether good or bad. Sometimes it is just to let out built up emotion. An escape valve for energy to disperse into the universe. It does not have to be appreciated or received by others. Although, that is a bonus.

Art in this sense, is basically born from a selfish motivation, albeit a healing or developmental exercise. Self absorption and self awareness does help one grow spiritually.

LittleG. said:

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

For me the point of art is in the 'expression' of the artist and appreciating it as an expression, not as communication. Communication will always be inaccurate due to interpretation differences between individuals. All interpretation is based on the viewers past experience. We never experience through somebody elses experience even if we imagine it or empathise due to a similar past experience.

.........Communication' is not the definition of 'art' in my view. 'Expression' is. It can be appreciated, interpreted, but never experienced directly, as the artist feels and remembers.

Basically, an experience can never be replicated exactly in another person's mind or heart. Art is a tool for the artist to exorcise demons or endeavour to come to terms with the world and specific events that affect the artist. If other's draw from that, then great, they also have some unique insight or rememberance.

Amen. Now pass me the brandy. The beer is too weak

Click to expand...

The brandy no, great Czech beer, yes!

I don't want to burn my mouth, just clear my brain and relax.

Communication is sending a message, however, garbled or clear!

It relies on the other person giving it enough attention to see the message as relevent enough to translate.

The translation hopefully approximates that of the message intended.

Perhaps the recipient has to fill in gaps.

However, it is only through this inexact process that any intent of the artist reaches the audience.

That imperfect transfer from the artist to him/herself (and again, hopefully, through sharing of this to others) is communication.

The net result, if successful, is an experience. Perhaps the different experiences are congruent, perhaps not.

The essential drive is sharing of the ideas that cause feelings to errupt and reward us, the artists and the audiences.

Asher

The thread expands

I've written about this thread on my blog (don't worry folks, nothing derogatory, just an opportunity to take a longer run at it).

The Online Photographer has picked up my blog entry and potentially started a whole new thread.

It will be interesting to see where this one goes.......

Colin

[This has been posted this morning in the completely wrong thread in another board on this forum. I leave it as it was.]

I just happened upon a comment by Mike Johnston on the topic of this thread, which has been taken further by Colin somewhere else. My comment posted below has originally been posted by me on MJ's blog but since the discussion originated here, I wanted to share it with all those not regularly visiting MJ or reading the comments to his entries:


As I already pointed out - although put slightly different - the use of the term 'communication' by Colin is [misguidingly] narrow.

Even if one can agree on the premise that a photograph carries no message [another very narrow definition used here] it still shows something. Who shows? And to whom?

My counterpoint is not academic, it is not about redefining a term as long as it has either no menaing at all or a very specific one. To the contrary. Communication, as a quick glance into the Oxford English Dictionary shows has several meanings in the vernacular, of which even the euphemistical one for sexual intercourse is applicable to photos.

Holding together all of the listed definitions are two things:

1. Communication is about information.
2. Communication is about relaying.

Obviously a photo showing something has informational content - which is relayed to someobody (could be oneself). Actually anybody not having sat through Philosophy 101 or those that went on into further courses will immediately and instinctively recognise 'show' as an instance of 'communicate'

Phew, I just had a look into some of the comments on your site, Colin. I especially liked the one anonymous guy or doll who had nothing to say but still wasted everybody's time (his post is easy to find, he types 'jesture', has no idea whatsoever about grammar and is obviousy a troll deeming only his interests of importance).

We may not disagree about solutions but we both agree about the value of the issue and its discussion.

He also relies on the observer finding enough from their own minds to make the art work."

Click to expand...

Very much so!

From the bottom of my heart, I believe everything is interdependent, hence, I call you brother/sister!

To build this connection in a 2 dimensional media, I am struggling, sometimes, when it works, it is most satisfying in deed!

Georg,

I must admit that I have been thinking a lot more of the artistic process. All this is my own approach to creating for myself a way of approaching my work with some attempt to understanding what on earth is going on.

My first concept is that art is almost always a process. A Pullitzer prize-winning news photographer may also make art just by one click of the shutter, but that work, the planning, scouting and hunting for the subject is a process in itself.

For most of us, the process must involve many decisions and choices during processing of an image. In general, unless this is the point of the art (like performance art) auto-produced images just don't make it. Nicolas, for example, who insists on framing the image the way it should be printed, still imprints his own imperatives in the processing. The more such work, the more the image is at risk of damage but the richer it might become.

It involves some cognitive effort, craft and intention

There is a feedback from the product to the artist in this process which is iterative.

But what is actually happening in this activity?

The process associates within a physical medium characteristics of some sort such that a range of expected reactions in the artist and secondarily (in a competent or prepared audience) can be evoked.

How about when the artist says "I had no thoughts, no intent, no hidden message, what then"?

Answer: They do not acknowledge the deep and powerful libraries of experiences, patterns and preferences we have in our brains which, whether we admit it or not, direct our choices.

Even selected "doodles" that are presented as art are likely to have benefited from thousands of weighted experiences leading to selection.

Asher

Extending from the Arc of Intent and communication: Creating the Sensotic Space

Asher Kelman said:

My first concept is that art is almost always a process. A Pullitzer prize-winning news photographer may also make art just by one click of the shutter, but that work, the planning, scouting and hunting for the subject is a process in itself.

For most of us, the process must involve many decisions and choices during processing of an image. In general, unless this is the point of the art (like performance art) auto-produced images just don't make it. Nicolas, for example, who insists on framing the image the way it should be printed, still imprints his own imperatives in the processing. The more such work, the more the image is at risk of damage but the richer it might become.

It involves some cognitive effort, craft and intention

There is a feedback from the product to the artist in this process which is iterative.

But what is actually happening in this activity?

The process associates within a physical medium characteristics of some sort such that a range of expected reactions in the artist and secondarily (in a competent or prepared audience) can be evoked.

How about when the artist says "I had no thoughts, no intent, no hidden message, what then"?

Answer: They do not acknowledge the deep and powerful libraries of experiences, patterns and preferences we have in our brains which, whether we admit it or not, direct our choices.

Even selected "doodles" that are presented as art are likely to have benefited from thousands of weighted experiences leading to selection.

Asher

Click to expand...

I am happy with what has been written, but there may be more than communication. In addition, there's another component present to some extent. This involved mostly the active participation of the person experiencing the work. So lets now go beyond what the photographer sends with the content engraved into the picture he/she shows the world. Let's go beyond the logically inferred ideas the work generates.

I add that in photography, like in all art forms, there might occur the creation of a work by which another person might be entertained using almost completely their own ideas and imagination. Consider a room rented out to a singer to sing in, for lovers to spend time together or plotters to plan a horrible deed. Perhaps a photograph might also be used as such a container for our own purposes.

The photographer's work, simplified or made complex at the extreme, then might just provide the physical and emotional fabric in which we exercise our imagination, (creating, exhorting, exercising or exorcising hidden demons/angles and generating new prerogatives and necessities. This space, for such observor-controlled mental gymnastics, would have more of a container funtion than the meaningful contents that the photographer/artist most often provides us to induce some intended menu of evoked experiences). Such a work of art might then be considered then a kind of "sensotic" space. We just populate it, as we wish. I would argue that such a "space" exists in all art to some extent.

Can we come with examples of images where the photograph might be mostly "sensotic" space, as the creator has made a compelling photograph, but with almost no specific content?

Asher

Hi, Asher,

In your recent message in this thread, suggesting that we go farther into the matter that it treats, you quote your earlier message to Georg Baumann:

Asher Kelman said:

My first concept is that art is almost always a process. A Pullitzer prize-winning news photographer may also make art just by one click of the shutter, but that work, the planning, scouting and hunting for the subject is a process in itself.

For most of us, the process must involve many decisions and choices during processing of an image. In general, unless this is the point of the art (like performance art) auto-produced images just don't make it. Nicolas, for example, who insists on framing the image the way it should be printed, still imprints his own imperatives in the processing. The more such work, the more the image is at risk of damage but the richer it might become.

It involves some cognitive effort, craft and intention

There is a feedback from the product to the artist in this process which is iterative.

But what is actually happening in this activity?

The process associates within a physical medium characteristics of some sort such that a range of expected reactions in the artist and secondarily (in a competent or prepared audience) can be evoked.

How about when the artist says "I had no thoughts, no intent, no hidden message, what then"?

Answer: They do not acknowledge the deep and powerful libraries of experiences, patterns and preferences we have in our brains which, whether we admit it or not, direct our choices. [Emphasis added. -DAK]

Even selected "doodles" that are presented as art are likely to have benefited from thousands of weighted experiences leading to selection.

Click to expand...

I just wanted, at this juncture, to congratulate you on this brief essay. It so succinctly strikes at a concept central to the issue here.

Having given the wheel a turn, I will watch with interest the further insights that may emerge here.

Best regards,

Doug

A few thoughts which came to my mind when I read this thread:

There are two general types of messages - the ones that contain what I will call 'basic information' and the ones that contain 'higher order information'.

Basic informations address feelings like fear, hunger, thirst, etc.

Higher order information is needed e.g. for storytelling.

Where do I draw the line to distinguish between both worlds?
A question difficult to answer.
For me the difference starts, when you have to think to understand.
Thinking involves the application of some sort of context, let us call it a cultural context.

Example 1:
Warning signs tend to be red. Why? Red is the color of blood!
This is basic information.

Example 2:
Tearing clothes apart is seen as a sign for mourning for some, but for other this is unacceptable.
This is higher order information.
Why?
It is context sensitive!

If something is attractive or not depends - from my point of view - on the cultural context unless it addresses basic information.

Just my point of view...

Did anybody read 'Goedel Escher Bach' by Douglas R. Hofstaedter? There are some interesting thoughts on message and context.

Michael