What is an objective photograph?

[andi]

I want to discuss what is an objective photograph. What makes a picture stand out in terms of content against another picture. There a billions of pictures out there and most people have a camera and if they just know some basic rules of framing and find them selves in a profitable condition for shooting, they can deliver a nice picture. But can their picture go beyond being nice? not just because the universe was kind enough to show up a bit?

What I understand about an objective photograph:
- the picture has to deliver to all viewers exactly what it was intended by the shooter.
- the shooter has to eliminate all unnecessary elements in the picture and put the focus on what it wants to say
- the picture has to be attractive to the viewer without loosing essence

Ex: Picture a scene in Irak where you see soldires shooting and children running and some others hurt or even dead,laying on the ground and so on. Is this objective? I think it is.

What I do not understand:
a)
- If you look at a landscape photography; beautiful colors, mountins etc. - a scene in nature at its best - that is to me objective but what do I learn from it? I have seen similar ones more than I care to count. While I am looking at something that describes an object (nature) I could think hard and try to SEE what is hidden in what it seems like a cool photograph - but isn't that all around as , can I not look at things like that when taking a walk down the park? why do I have to take yet another of the same allready made many times before photograph?

-All photographers agree on the same lines: " ..you have to be there at the right moment to catch the right light etc. " but wait a minute - Isn't photography the art of SEEING the UNSEEN? Everybody can hold a piece of equipment (medium) and everybody who wants hard enough can look for this particular moments, but not everybody can SEE. So what is all this big fuss about the right moment, the right light if you do not know where to look - you are at the mercy of the low of accident.

I have said to myself -observing is most important ; for that I do not need a camera. I'll just go for a walk and leave the equipment at home, opposing my other I's who just want instant reword.
My goal is to learn something from my work. First I have to observe without focusing on something in particular (no anticipation), then when I find something that without any doubt is what I want to picture, then I shall observe some more and try to see from all angels the best possible shot and critically think if the end result is worth doing. And then the last step and the easyest - to shoot. This hole thing may take a week or even more for only one shoot and it may be that people may not even be interested in what they see -maybe they don't understand.

It is sticking to me how similar this photographic business is to the work on the self and who it can help create an analogy to crossreference to the inner developpings. This goes for other ''arts'' or anything at all I think.

b)
There is yet another type of photography that may not be immediately objective (or not objective for everybody), or maybe they are never objective. They are the ones that hold inside many methaphores and symbols; they can look very mundane yet there is so much more to them. It can show(ex:) a man and his shadow against a bright sunlight walking towards the sun, and another man walking towards the sun but the he has no shadow because his is in the cast of a building- nothing special here wright ? but wait -there can be many interpretations here.
-the man walking towards the sun (towards ''light'') is aware of his shadow, where the other man is not, even through he goes towards the same path (the ''light'')(but can he stay on that path without knowing about his shadow?)

So here, is this an objective photograph? I have mixed feelings... because this picture is open to all kinds of interpretations and manipulations by the viewer? Is such a picture worth taking? My questions sound ridiculous, I know - but I had to get them out.

There is more I would like to say here but I'll save it for another post. I didn't want to get anybody mixed here.

I would like to try to better understand this, this is a big part of me and I feel that I need to aer it out and get some feedback...Thanks in advanced.

 

[andi]

I think understanding photography, or anything else for that matter, boils down to understanding the self; as Gurdjieff often describes. Nothing can be understood if the self is not known.

I couldn't resist and write some more. I was taking that taking a picture as a habituate, without thinking and just wanting a reword fast fast is like feeding the ego by placing self-importance in front; a mechanical doing for passiveness and entertainment. Nothing can come from it.

Just wandering how many of this things that we do that pass unnoticed by us and how fortunate would be for us to see this things witch could open much bigger doors...

 

[andi]

I can't help but notice that after reading my own post, I have already identified with it.

 

[Gonzo]

Hi andi,

I'm not sure if I am understanding you correctly, but I'll give it a try.

I don't know if a photograph taken by a person can actually be objective in the way I understand the term "objective" to be.

As soon as a photographer decides the message they are trying to convey, they have limited the scope of reality, presenting only what they deem important, thereby subjectifying the image.

As well, I think the photographer is subjectifying reality by virtue of selecting what to record and what to ignore.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your use of "objective" though. If I am, I do apologize.

What you have said had piqued my curiosity though. As a former journalist and photographer, I find what we are able to convey through the lens to be quite compelling.

However, I am acutely aware of the methods of manipulating the viewer; of drawing one's attention to a portion of the image; of evoking a specific emotion or mood; of forcing an association in an image to a concept or idea not necessarily present in the image. These methods certainly covey a subjectivity.

If a machine randomly took photos, perhaps they would be objective. But the viewer would then be looking at the images and interpreting them subjectively.

This last thought just made me wonder if it is possible for anything to be objective once it has been viewed by someone, whether it is a photo or a scene through a window, as each person interprets reality according to their subjective filters and correlates the information according to their knowledge and experience, thereby making it subjective, IMO.

Perhaps this is why networking is of paramount importance in the pursuit of finding objective truths about our reality, as each person's interpretation is shared in the group, one by one, and the sum and collectively analyzed in a feedback loop eventually coming to the closest one can to an objective understanding (of course, subject to change with further information, discussion and analysis).

I really hope I didn't misunderstand you or waste your time with my meandering thoughts.

Thanks,
Gonzo

 

[andi]

Gonzo,

As soon as a photographer decides the message they are trying to convey, they have limited the scope of reality, presenting only what they deem important, thereby subjectifying the image.

I have read this sentence a couple of times, and it has never crossed my mind that indeed they have limited the scope of reality by the time they decide on the subject.
So if for example I am to photograph a tree, and I decide to focus only on a leaf - than, can it be said that I am limiting the objectivity and thus make it subjective just because I have decided to see just a small detail instead of the hole? There is something here that is interesting and I am not getting it.

As well, I think the photographer is subjectifying reality by virtue of selecting what to record and what to ignore.

Yes. Here I think is where the knowledge of the photographer comes into use. He is like a teacher and based on observation and "savoir faire", he decides what is appropriate to teach his pupils until they can pass to some more complicated things.

This last thought just made me wonder if it is possible for anything to be objective once it has been viewed by someone, whether it is a photo or a scene through a window, as each person interprets reality according to their subjective filters and correlates the information according to their knowledge and experience, thereby making it subjective, IMO.

... by reading the above I feel that I am sliding to extremities here. Making something objective into something subjective?? - certainly, it is done by so many religious people. Should the photographer take into account such a probable possibility?
Thats and interesting question; should the picture-man consider canceling a picture witch he finds very important because he is realizing that the audience will not get it? This reminds me of the Gurdjieff taking in "All and Everything" about the need to rewrite the hole book witch could only be understood by those very close to him.

So, If I understand this correctly, there needs to be a demand in order to deliver. Either wise it can lead to complete subjectivity?

I am a bit tired and I realize that I am shortening some long thoughts; if it's unclear, I'll reformulate.

 

[Plumtree]

I believe that before we can answer what an objective photograph is, we should define what it is ontologically. Once we are able to do this, I believe we can come to some understanding of what photographic truth is. I realize the wording of what I state below may be somewhat inaccurate, but I believe the premise is pretty accurate. I have been thinking about all things photographic for quite awhile and would like to share it with you and try to uncover what needs to be brought to light. We must remember that a camera or a computer is a black box with its program locked inside it. That stated, I believe an accurate photo is one that reveals the program (matrix?) rather than conceal it. After reading my post I would also I would like to posit a question to the other members of the forum: Which is truer, a black and white photograph or a colour photograph? Also if you could also so kindly state why you believe so I would be grateful.

I get the feeling that the more of my mind and heart that I'm able to spill out, the more at ease I'll feel. Somehow getting my ideas on paper gives me the latitude to do other things. I feel that the program of photography works in much the same way. The more photographs we are able to take, the more it frees up the program to take other pictures. The nature of the things we build are but a reflection of us. Humans tend to do this intuitively, and then by analyzing these objects in retrospect, we find that they mimic some facet of our physiology. So in this respect, human inventions are often revelatory in that they explain some function of the human anatomy before even science was even able to explain them. The camera being the first apparatus of the information age, still has many unexplored facets that have great sociological implications. So it is by exploring photography from this angle that I hope to bring some new insights to light so to speak.

Photographs are prevalent everywhere, they are omnipresent; however, this does mean that they are readable to the masses. What effect does this have on us as a society, even more pressing – as a civilization(文明)? People look, people see, but for the most part people are photo-illiterate. People look and see all kinds of things in a photograph that are not photographic which would be adjacent to looking at nature as if it were unnatural. Photographs are not representations of external things; rather, they are the application of an algorithm on external things. I will put forth that this difference of perspective is not subtle at all, with the intention of demonstrating that it makes all the difference in the world. People are depending on programs more and more to do things that took people much time to acquire the skills to do in the past, which in turn frees us up to be able to concentrate on other things, nevertheless lowering the level of craftsmanship and awareness that goes along with being killed at something. In many ways we have dumbed ourselves down into a corner, yet the more this present trend perpetuates itself, the less aware we are of it until one day we no longer will have a way out of this situation.

What can be done to rectify this predicament? I believe some answers can be found in Buddhism and Christianity, as well as other belief systems. The Buddhist notion of Tathata (things as they are) and the Old Testament's warnings against idolatry might give us a good place to begin on the quest for solutions. Many terms still need to be explained before we continue to elaborate.

Paintings are mythical, and photographs are scientific / technical.
Cameras work on a program that was designed by a programmer, hence human(?).
Paintings have no program and are based on nature, therefore mythical.
A program is something that emulates one facet of human thinking—it can only do one thing.​

Try to imagine a time when the majority of people were illiterate. If we look back we soon realize that the people who read were the ones who had leverage. If one cannot read, one is left to the mercy of others to explain things to us with all the problems that that entails. A very similar situation has emerged today. The vast majority of people do not understand the language of the information age. This in itself has big enough implications on a social level, but doesn't begin to explain the limited and alienated situation of the individual. In the time of idolatry, people were one step away from the reality of nature; however, in the information age we are three steps away from nature. In itself, this is not a negative thing; the problem arises when people mistake these images as one step away from nature. In the case of a primitive painting the referent is nature out there that is directly experienced by someone, in the case of the photograph the referent is the text. Therein lays the crux of the problem: People are looking at these images from the wrong perspective.

the world as seen
and experienced ➡ images ➡➡➡➡➡➡ not the same
↓ ↓
idolatry ➡ writing ↓
↓ ↓
textolitry ➡ images
↓
apparatus worship?

idolatry=the worship of idols resulting from the obscuring of the meaning
text= used to explain images
textolitry= the worship of texts that have become opaque
technical images= used to explain opaque texts

Apparatuses like cameras and computers were borne from texts and not nature and run on a program.

 

[MusicMan]

What if I wanted to research a subject, such as; "Laughing zebras", or "Cows in space" ?
First I would need to photograph the object. And maybe observe other photographs of it.
By the way you can research these images using a common search engine and the results are hilarious.
Have fun!

 

[bjorb]

This is how I see it,

Music, Art in its essence is to be used as a medium to spread awareness. That’s objective art/music. Everything else that does not share this message is subjective art/music and promotes in it most extreme form, ''entropy'' (Ego, narcissism)

In other words, The objectivity of an photograph would depend on the message that is conveyed.

 

[Plumtree]

In other words, The objectivity of an photograph would depend on the message that is conveyed.

I totally agree with your observation, however, can one effectively convey a message without fully understanding the language/program? Since a program is limited/finite, when are we sure we are controlling the program to convey our message and not accommodating ourselves to the program. How do we know when we are being creating or are conforming to the confines of the program? When are we merely operators of the apparatus or creators that transend the program?

 

[bjorb]

[quote author=Plumtree]How do we know when we are being creating or are conforming to the confines of the program?[/quote]

You mean the programs of the false personality?

Depends on how conscious we are I think. Difficult to tell, not only that. We should also take into consideration the programs of others. And how we can be creative enough to wake them up.

 

[Plumtree]

[quote author=Plumtree]How do we know when we are being creating or are conforming to the confines of the program?

You mean the programs of the false personality?

Depends on how conscious we are I think. Difficult to tell, not only that. We should also take into consideration the programs of others. And how we can be creative enough to wake them up.
[/quote]

I believe that before we can take the programs of others into consideration, we should understand the algorithmic program of the photographic apparatus. The camera is a black box that runs on a program, like a computer, and is programmed only to do one thing: take photographs.

To add some clarity, a tool is a simulation of an organ of the body in the service of work, a machine is a tool that simulates an organ of the body on the basis of scientific theories and an apparatus is a plaything or game that simulates thought also an overreaching term for non-human agency, e.g.the camera, the computer and the apparatus of the State or of the market, as stated by Vilem Flusser.

So taking these definitions into account, I feel it would be more effective to decode one program at a time since trying to decode multiple programs on different planes would be a Herculean task to say the least. Once we can understand the camera's program, we can then move on to the other overlapping programs involved.

The surface of the photograph camoflages it. The photograph conceals rather than reveals. It's very similar to trying to see a mirror and only seeing your reflection in it. The more we talk about the superficial aspects of a photograph, the further from we get from the truth of it. Is the reflection in the mirror you? Once you understand a mirror you can then 'see' the mirror for what it is. Unlike a mirror, a camera does all its 'magic' in its black box and until we can understand it we won't be able to 'see' it. Maybe a more precise question would be: What is a photographic photograph? (And please let's try not to be superficial;)

 

[davey72]

Im not sure this is the meaning you are ascribing to the word objective but i remember that Gurdjieff had said objective art was only possible if one had ascended beyond man number 1;2 or 3. He had said the sphinx in Egypt was an example of truly objective art.