Symbolism in photographic images? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Donald Miller

8-Jan-2008, 02:09

I have experienced that one of the things that photographers are apparently reluctant to discuss is the value or the importance of symbolism in photographic images. In fact I have experienced outright refusal to discuss this on other forums. Visual artists in the fields of painting, drawing, video, and movie film are seemingly all aware of the importance of symbolism in their work and since I think that many of us aspire to be artists it may be a subject worthy of discussion.

I would like to hear from other photographers whether this is a subject that you would like to discuss. Is this something that is part of your consideration in making a particular photograph? Have you considered that this may be the reason that we are drawn to certain subject matter? If you have an awareness of symbolism, what objects or scenes have symbolic meaning to you? Have you thought about this?

If there are those among you that wish to discuss this, and I hope that there are, I look forward to visiting this topic.

MenacingTourist

8-Jan-2008, 09:05

Great subject but may be hard to discuss on a forum. I'm not sure.

Here's my take:
I'm mostly a painter, but the things I want to do in photography are very similar to what I like to do in paint. I'm highly influenced by the sybolist movement as well as the Pre Raphealites. I love calm beauty but I don't want it to be real. I can paint this a lot easier than I can photograph it. I think this is why I'm drawn to old lenses, shallow depth of field, odd use of camera movements and slow b/w film.

Once I get a handle on the materials I plan on adding costume, props and environment to the mix. Now that I think of it I may want to try painting studies in black and white to see how things may work out...Hmmmm...

Not sure if this is what you're looking for but this is my view of symbolism and how it relates to photography in my little world.

Alan.

Kirk Gittings

8-Jan-2008, 09:52

Are these non-traditional, traditional or abstract symbols?;)

Seriously, it might be useful to talk about known photographers who utilize symbolism in their work. Minor White, Wynn Bullock, the Caponigro's and Manuel Alvarez Bravo come to my mind.

Daniel_Buck

8-Jan-2008, 10:04

for me, there is no symbolism in my own work. None intended anyway. I've had some people really read into a few of my photographs, seeing things that I did not even think about, when it's just a photograph to me. Which leads me to believe that if someone is looking for symbolism, they will find it just about anywhere. :-) But then again, I'm more of a 'what you see is what you get' type person.

paulr

8-Jan-2008, 10:13

I don't think symbolism needs to be a dirty word. It became one for a little while early in the modern period, but we've probably gotten past that.

It seems to me there are a couple of general kinds of symbolism: intentional and incidental.

When someone mentions symbolism in art, we tend to think of intentional symbolism, like in Romantic art and pictorial photography. In this kind of work, the artist typiically uses symbols taken from artistic and religious and mythological traditions, and crafts an image around them. That glowing orb in the woman's arms isn't a rice paper lamp; it's fertility! And that isn't my sister, it's Woman! That soft glowing light isn't smoke from a smoke machine; it's femininity!

I'm poking fun here, but the general idea is that The Thing Itself is subverted to the Other Thing (the abstract one) that it points to. I see this as different from more subtle metaphor in photography, because the physical subject really is seen as subordinate to whatever it symbolizes. It's just a sign or a pointer.

There's a lot of symbolism, though, that's different from this. I think of it as incidental symbolism, and it's everywhere, whether or not an artist conciously uses it. The human mind just seems to engage the world symbolically (take a look at your dreams sometime!). Every culture has a vocabulary of symbols that mean various things. Mountains, the sun, the moon, water, snow, the color red, the color white, dead trees, bones ... they may be what they are, but they also imply other things. When there's a mountain in your photograph, like it or not, there's a symbol. Of what? Depends on who you ask, but giant landforms that dwarf the human scale tend to mean something to people.

It's interesting to look at the work of someone like Weston, who was philosophically uninterested in the kinds of intentional symbolism used by the pictorialists. I find it almost imposible to look at some of his work without responding to symbols ... think of "lilly and rubbish" or the one of the dead hobo, or the one of the dead swan floating in kelp, or the late point lobos pictures with the skeletal forms of bleached trees. These pictures strike me as being about (to quote minor white), "what they are, and also what else they are."

Kirk Gittings

8-Jan-2008, 10:23

It's interesting to look at the work of someone like Weston, who was philosophically uninterested in the kinds of intentional symbolism used by the pictorialists. I find it almost imposible to look at some of his work without responding to symbols ... think of "lilly and rubbish" or the one of the dead hobo, or the one of the dead swan floating in kelp, or the late point lobos pictures with the skeletal forms of bleached trees. These pictures strike me as being about (to quote minor white), "what they are, and also what else they are."

Absolutely. I don't think that symbolism is always either conscious or intentional.

Jim Galli

8-Jan-2008, 10:25

I have a natural resistance to naval gazing and that is compounded by lack of any formal education in the arts so I'm not entirely sure if I understand what symbolism in photography would mean. It sounds intimidating. I'm also resistant to all this spiritual talk of otherness that seems to be necessary to the art community.

That said I see an underlying current in some of my pictures. A fascination with a work ethic and quality bygone. Educate me.

Kirk Gittings

8-Jan-2008, 10:38

The ubersymbolist (perhaps?) is Witkin.

http://www.zonezero.com/exposiciones/fotografos/witkin2/

Eric Biggerstaff

8-Jan-2008, 10:58

Nice post Paul, well said.

I tend to be more in line with Galli, not much of a deep thinker on religion or symbolism. I photograph what grabs my eye and what, on some level, moves me emotionally. I don't see symbols in my work, but that doesn't mean others won't.

We each bring our own set of experiences with us, and when we see an image that moves us we filter it through those experiences. I think this is why we like some work and not others.

The ideas and work of Minor White have fallen out of favor in the years since his death, and I think this is a shame. He tried to teach photographers to look for meaning in their work and find ways to tap into their past experiences to create strong and meaningful images. I know I need to go back and re-read his teachings ( hey it worked for people like Caponigro, DeWolf and Rosenstock). Why has there not been a large retrospective of Minor's similar to the one for Ansel? There should be as he was very influential in his day.

Also, for me, artists who try and beat me over the head with messages and symbols begin to irritate me after a while! :-) A little goes a long way. Kirks reference to Witkin is a good example for me.

Brook Martin

8-Jan-2008, 11:14

Without getting either too new ageish or overly acedemic, symbols are the visual language of the un/subconsious mind. I find that trying to consiously use this language in photography either falls flat or comes across as corny. It seems to be most effective when it happens by "accident" or when its is allowed to arise on its own, sort of a photographic automatic drawing.

My $.02

Gordon Moat

8-Jan-2008, 11:34

Witkin is almost like a shock jock, perhaps the Howard Stern of photography. I find his work to be too much in your face, and lacking subtlety. Wall is more subtle, though some of his work strikes me more as advertising (commercial) photography derived, though perhaps that is the direction of art photography now. Maybe someone few might consider to use symbolism would be Gursky and Burtynsky, though I suppose some might throw in Richard Prince. Burtynsky has been careful to not state too much about the why of his images, though it seems some environmental types jump all over some symbolism that apparently they find in his images. Which leads us to how much of the work of Gursky is symbolic, and not just hyper-documentary.

There are many levels to what I create, either in my paintings, or in my photography. I don't particularly want someone to dissect my paintings or images, to figure out what I meant . . . rather I would prefer viewers to draw their own conclusions, find their own ideas, and use their imagination. Quite likely most of what I create contains levels of symbolism, but I think those will often be different for each viewer.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Donald Miller

8-Jan-2008, 12:11

Since I started this, I guess that it is time for me to share a little about what this subject means to me, not so much in academic terms, but more importantly at a personal level.

I personally think that contrived symbolic meaning oftentimes falls flat. Witkin's photographs are that way for me. However, I will go on to say that I believe that each of us has a path and that no one can assign meaning to our predilections any better than we, ourselves. For some that understanding is important and to others it is not...that is O.K.

For myself, I found that beginning in the mid 1980's that I began to make a certain type of image. Many doorways, passage ways, reflections etc. I thought at the time that my photographic orientation was due to what I saw in other images...I really did not understand why my images were of that type until almost fifteen years later. In retrospect I see now what my images were telling me about me and where I was in life at that time. I firmly believe that the camera does point both ways and that this self revelation probably is most meaningful, in my experience. The language is symbolic and this makes it difficult to decipher at times. I am open to observing, questioning, and often times waiting for the answer that invariably is there. I don't waste a lot of time in self analysis...but I am sensitive to the existence of this second language

I don't consciously try to impart meaning to a photograph by using things that I believe have broad symbolic meaning to most of us. Whether that meaning is consciously or sub-consciously received and interpreted is not important, the language is still there nontheless. I believe that art, if it is art, most effectively speaks to us in broad terms of the uniformity of the human experience. I am firmly convinced, based in my personal experience that it can speak of this experience in two languages. I am just as firmly convinced that our images speak this symbolic language most loudly to us as practicing photographers...whether another human being receives the same meaning or not is really unimportant. We are human beings first and foremost how could it be otherwise?

In closing I would like to thank each of you that contributed from your own personal experience.

Brook Martin

8-Jan-2008, 12:31

Amen bro.

Kirk Gittings

8-Jan-2008, 13:42

Without getting either too new ageish or overly acedemic, symbols are the visual language of the un/subconsious mind. I find that trying to consiously use this language in photography either falls flat or comes across as corny........

My $.02

Conscious use of popular symbols, except in the form of social criticism or irony, are the basis of cliches. IMO the most successful symbols work on both the creator and the audience in the form of an almost inexplicable and intriguing felt sense.

As a Roaming Catholic, who has been deeply involved at times in monastic contemplation (Benedictine) and a critic of the church, Christian symbology has a duel meaning to me beyond the obvious cliches. It suggests to me both the mysticism that arises out of deep religious meditation colored by church and personal battles with tragedy, addiction, obsession, failure, evil, greed etc. The image "Fall from Grace" is a good example of this if anyone has my last book. Though as Donald mentions, the meaning of this image came clearer to me many years after it was made. Ironically others see what they need in these images and some of the images which on a personal level are clearly critical of the church are actually in the church museum and permanent art collection and regularly displayed. What do they see? Just my personal struggles? I actually have no idea. Does this constitute a failure of my unconscious intent? This is a question that has plagued me for along time. Generally I am pleased that an image important to me illicits a response in a viewer regardless of whether that response is sympathetic to my own.

domenico Foschi

8-Jan-2008, 14:31

Although I like this kind of threads much more than gear oriented ones, I have to say,...here we go again.

Yes, of course there is symbolism involved in a work of Art, of course some is intentional and some unintentional, but....
...Why should that be explained, since everybody absorbs a photographs or any work of Art through their own filter born from their background of life experiences?
I don't like to talk about my work, because this would mean to route the viewer in an experience that is not their own.
As I said in another thread, Art is about Beauty, all the rest is intellectual nonsense.

AN Artist statement is not about the Art as much as the Artist, and the maker shouldn't be the focus, the Art should.

Brook Martin

8-Jan-2008, 14:42

Kirk,
I am always a little jealous of artists raised Catholic, such a broad and rich tradition of images and icons to use as you see fit.

My point was more that often I have started with an idea, and wanted to make something symbolic and would choose symbols to try to fit the idea to make some point. As you say, the result would be cliche, or sarcastic or just boring.
On the other hand, sometimes an object comes into my posession or something catches my eye in a landscape that I just have to come back to, but cant put my finger on just why. These images tend to be much more powerful and lack the shallowness of just trying to be clever. At the same time often these are so intensly personal that any meaning arrived at is a bit like an inkblot. Nothing wrong with that, but perhaps a bit limiting (in the sense of being able to share the meaning with others) in the same way that dream imagery can be.

I think in a case like "Fall from grace" you have that rare intersection of raw need to make the image for intensly personal reasons, but the symbols employed are so universal in nature that they speak to a large number of people who see them, not just people use to talking about art. Am I even close?

I think its the old Apollo vs Dionesious. The origin of the impulse is going to be a bigger factor than any specific iconography employed, but a universal iconography will speak to many more, the impulse being from the same place.

Kirk Gittings

8-Jan-2008, 15:21

My point was more that often I have started with an idea, and wanted to make something symbolic and would choose symbols to try to fit the idea to make some point. As you say, the result would be cliche, or sarcastic or just boring.
On the other hand, sometimes an object comes into my possession or something catches my eye in a landscape that I just have to come back to, but cant put my finger on just why. These images tend to be much more powerful and lack the shallowness of just trying to be clever. At the same time often these are so intensly personal that any meaning arrived at is a bit like an inkblot. Nothing wrong with that, but perhaps a bit limiting (in the sense of being able to share the meaning with others) in the same way that dream imagery can be.

I agree completely.

*********************************************
Domenico,

Personally, I think work should stand on its own and in the real world it almost always has to, but I also like to talk about it. The usual one page artist statement at a show is usually about the scope and motivation of a project rather than a bio and hardly diverts attention from the art. It simply puts the art in some context. Talking/writing about my works helps to absorb it, think the ideas through, leading to new ideas, helping one to move on. Intellectual nonsense? Hardly. It is a profound part of the process.

..Why should that be explained, since everybody absorbs a photographs or any work of Art through their own filter born from their background of life experiences? I don't like to talk about my work, because this would mean to route the viewer in an experience that is not their own. People will have their own experience no matter how much you explain your work. Frankly having taught photography over 30 years, I find most people who have a philosophical opposition to talking about their art are simply lacking confidence.

With all your recent success with shows, I don't know if you have gotten to the point where people are writing about your work? My work has been written about a fair amount, much of it shallow, missing the point or wrong. Having my own statements out there balances the perception.

In the final analysis though no matter how much you talk about your work, people will find their own meaning in it.

paulr

8-Jan-2008, 15:31

Brook, I think you're talking about an even broader issue ... artists who like to work in a premeditative, conceptual way (like designers), vs. those who like to discover things and respond to them more intuitively.

Like you I'm a member of the latter camp, but also get value from thinking and yakking about the the process when I'm not in the middle of it. I also sometimes love work that's done in the more deliberate/conceptual way ... just not as often.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that when heavily symbolic work fails, it REALLY fails ... it can be more embarssing to look at than just about anything else. This might just be some kind of cultural bias on my part. I see a lot of work that bores me or that feels like it misses the mark, but nothing makes me cringe like a pictorialst symbol-fest when it just seems to be trying too hard.

Ralph Barker

8-Jan-2008, 16:57

I can see all sorts of gradations in the topic, from the intentionally (occasionally contrived) symbolic to the unintentional. In the most basic sense of the word, I don't think we can avoid symbolism in photography.

If we photograph an interesting tree or rock, I think we do so because it symbolizes something to us. The same goes for a portrait of an interesting person with two or three days worth of beard. The face becomes symbolic of the person's character, and thus worthy of photographic rendering. Even the casual family snapshot is symbolic of the time, the event. And, since the photo was taken, deemed worthy of remembering.

Further, I think people respond, positively or negatively, to images because the image symbolizes something to them, as well.

Asher Kelman

8-Jan-2008, 16:59

The symbolism that's unintentional, (not even realized by the photographer just being skilled, but driven by inner and cross cultural references), is the most powerful.

An uneducated handyman, fed up with his 3 daughters home from college at Thanksgiving (and their obsession with Art in fashion) invited them on an early morning breakfast.

The girls were perplexed at the location. He delivered them to the beach before dawn and they asked what's the point of being there in the cold and darkness. Hot chocolate from a thermos and a long wait. Then the pillars of dawn arose from the horizon and as flocks of seabirds circled and screetched through mist and the sun set the sky and a swathe of the sea on fire.

The girls were moved and humbled. They then knew what was really art boiled down. They were taken back to basics. That is, after all what is encoded deep in the cathedrals of our minds. This is what informs our careful photography. Of course, we can be very clever and supplant the basic with the hackneyed symbols that are so obvious in much modern work.

Whether we want to admit it or recognize it or not, as long as we make decision of positions, lighting, exclusions and inclusion we are using millions of little rules of worth, all encoded from some sources. That expression in our choices is what symbolism is made of. A small portion of this is trans-cultural and can be recognized and so can be listed as artistic symbolism. Much of the messages are more subtle and nuanced and simply not available to us but still help to evoke feelings and response.

Skilled homage is still great!

Asher

John Kasaian

8-Jan-2008, 18:59

Isn't every photograph a symbol? Isn't the primary purpose of a photograph to be a symbol of whatever was photographed? IMHO that makes a distinction between the symbol of what a photograph is (Washburn's glaciers or Hedrick-Blessing's buildings) and a manipulated symbol (Weston's peppers) They are all symbols but they serve a different end. My 2-cents anyway.

paulr

8-Jan-2008, 20:32

Isn't every photograph a symbol? Isn't the primary purpose of a photograph to be a symbol of whatever was photographed?

Well, we call it a symbol when it represents something else. If a picture of a tree is a symbol only of a tree, then we call it representation. If we're looking at it as a symbol of life, or shelter, or God, or (insert your idea here) then we call it symbolism.

If we photograph an interesting tree or rock, I think we do so because it symbolizes something to us. The same goes for a portrait of an interesting person with two or three days worth of beard. The face becomes symbolic of the person's character, and thus worthy of photographic rendering. Even the casual family snapshot is symbolic of the time, the event. And, since the photo was taken, deemed worthy of remembering.

I think of these more ambiguous meanings in photographs as metaphor, which is, helpfully, a more ambiguous term. Metaphor (in the art/philosophy sense, not the English class sense) covers any situation where something means or references something else. Symbolism is a special case of metaphor where an object stands for some specific idea. When someone talks about symbolism in a photograph, it suggests not just that the picture means something, but that they could point to an object or form in the picture and relate it specifically and literally to an idea. A dove representing peace is a symbolic construct; a landscape that because of subtle factors gives a sense of emptiness or loss is an example of more ambiguous metaphor.

Clueless Winddancing

8-Jan-2008, 22:19

Felt "brain showers" occur, followed by a persistence of a drive to manifest the "dreamt, to then be released and opened again -is my experience. It sounds much like a drive toward sexual release to me too. Tension - release is pretty black and white. A student of Minor White tells about himself saying that his mother asked why he photographed rocks. Once while out photographing "rocks" he encountered a group of skinny dippers. The "rock" prints were noticably different from that day of shooting however, as they were "...unusually sensous..." were the comments about the prints, but Abbot John Daido Loori was just photographing rocks.

I wonder if the image maker goes through stages of refinement like drafts of writing so that "early" images are cliches and all the other disgusting sights that "shouldn't" be? I wonder do you repeatedly work on the "theme" to clarify it or to clarify the manifestation of it?

John Kasaian

8-Jan-2008, 22:40

Well, we call it a symbol when it represents something else. If a picture of a tree is a symbol only of a tree, then we call it representation. If we're looking at it as a symbol of life, or shelter, or God, or (insert your idea here) then we call it symbolism.

Hmmm....how can a flat sheet of paper in black and white represent a tree? Or anything other than a flat sheet of black and white paper? IMHO, The image on the paper is the symbol and maybe not necessarily just of "tree" but a particular tree (or a forest of them) intentionally altered or given a deeper meaning by the artist, or not.

I could see a photograph of a tree being a representation a tree if it were exhibited on a stick in the back yard.:D

Of course I'm looking at this through the eyes of a lit. instructor who thinks words are symbols too. The word "glacier" looks nothing like a glacier (any of the ones I've seen anyway) although it may represent a glacier when written on a chart, in a text the word glacier symbolizes...a glacier.:)

Turner Reich

8-Jan-2008, 22:47

I prefer a clear mind and don't get into a lot of clutter when working, if someone sees something they think is necessary then that's fine, but it's their thing, not mine. Life is too complicated to worry about adding some "necessary" components to an already complete picture.

Donald Miller

9-Jan-2008, 01:15

Well, we call it a symbol when it represents something else. If a picture of a tree is a symbol only of a tree, then we call it representation. If we're looking at it as a symbol of life, or shelter, or God, or (insert your idea here) then we call it symbolism.

I think of these more ambiguous meanings in photographs as metaphor, which is, helpfully, a more ambiguous term. Metaphor (in the art/philosophy sense, not the English class sense) covers any situation where something means or references something else. Symbolism is a special case of metaphor where an object stands for some specific idea. When someone talks about symbolism in a photograph, it suggests not just that the picture means something, but that they could point to an object or form in the picture and relate it specifically and literally to an idea. A dove representing peace is a symbolic construct; a landscape that because of subtle factors gives a sense of emptiness or loss is an example of more ambiguous metaphor.

Paul, I agree with what you have said above.

Taking this a step further, in consideration of symbolism, I am most comfortable with the Jungian view of the organization of the human psyche as the explanation of how and why symbolism appears as it does within humans. In consideration of that view, I believe that some human beings are more sensory than intuitive and that the intuitives among us are most open to the reception and understanding of symbolic meaning. In other words intuitives are most comfortable operating in the arena of "possibilities". While a more purely sensing person does not normally consider the existence of anything apart from what is seen, heard, tasted, or physically felt through bodily nerve impulses.

Additionally I agree with Jung in that we all are made with our minds separated and existing in three very distinct regions...those being the conscious, the personal unconscious, and the collective unconscious. Thus the more purely sensing individual operates most normally, for them, primarily at the level of the conscious...while being influenced, albeit unawares, by the personal unconscious. It would seem from my personal experience and the observation of others that the personal unconscious will provide one type of symbolic definition within the individual, although this may be shared by others within the local societal construct, whereas when we view this as some symbolism being offered up by the collective unconscious it will have a very universal interpretation... oftentimes crossing boundaries of culture and geography.

This view first promulgated, in my understanding, by Jung gives me a view with which I am most comfortable. It also explains why some among us have difficulty in discussing or entertaining the existence of the language of symbolic meaning. It would seem to me that the intuitives among us are those most capable of truly creative endeavor...since to be creative means that one must bring into existence something not heretofore existing in that particular form or manifestation...this would seem to require entering into the arena of "possibilities".

There is nothing inherently wrong or right about a particular predisposition within a person...we are each individuals and as such are entitled to our dignity.

Clueless Winddancing

9-Jan-2008, 09:13

Sic

paulr

9-Jan-2008, 11:33

[QUOTE=John Kasaian;307641Of course I'm looking at this through the eyes of a lit. instructor who thinks words are symbols too. The word "glacier" looks nothing like a glacier (any of the ones I've seen anyway) although it may represent a glacier when written on a chart, in a text the word glacier symbolizes...a glacier.:)[/QUOTE]

You're getting into semiotics, which is the study of the relationship between a sign and whatever it signifies. In semiology a symbol is a sign that has an arbitrary relationship to what it describes (like a word), while an icon is a sign that actually resembles what it describes (like a picture).

But the semiotic use of "symbol" is a little different than the literary/art criticism use. When we talk about symbolism in art, we're usually talking about a relationship that's a level removed from the most basic sign/symbol relationship in semiology (as I understand it).

The word "glacier" points to the actual glacier because of the arbitrary conventions of language-- we've been taught that This Word = That Thing.

But on another level we deal with That Thing = That Other Idea. The glacier might equal slowness, or barrenness, or danger, or the wrath of nature, or whatever. This is the level of symbolism that we're talking about; it comes from mind of the viewer making a connection between a thing depicted and an abstract idea.

An image of a glacier has an iconic relationship with the glacier, which is less abstract than the way the word relates to it. The image mimics the thing's visual qualities well enough that we can identify the correspondence between the two without having to learn some language to bridge the gap.

Whether you say the word or show a picture of it, you can have different layers of meaning: the literal one (having to do with a landform made of ice) and one or more symbolic ones (having to do with something else).

Asher Kelman

10-Jan-2008, 02:01

You're getting into semiotics, which is the study of the relationship between a sign and whatever it signifies. In semiology a symbol is a sign that has an arbitrary relationship to what it describes (like a word),

I'd be cautious in considering a symbol truly is purely arbitrary, unless, like a random number, it is. Any shape is likely to be suspect as that very shape would color the meaning, no matter how it was assigned!

The word "glacier" points to the actual glacier because of the arbitrary conventions of language-- we've been taught that This Word = That Thing.

But on another level we deal with That Thing = That Other Idea. The glacier might equal slowness, or barrenness, or danger, or the wrath of nature, or whatever. This is the level of symbolism that we're talking about; it comes from mind of the viewer making a connection between a thing depicted and an abstract idea.

An image of a glacier has an iconic relationship with the glacier, which is less abstract than the way the word relates to it. The image mimics the thing's visual qualities well enough that we can identify the correspondence between the two without having to learn some language to bridge the gap.

I don't think the image is necessarily less abstract than the word. Distinctions in evoked meaning between the word "glacier" and the picture "glacier" are not per se valid, necessarily. The ideas, shapes and history of glaciers are so embedded in our language and mental images that response to either the image of a glacier or it's representation by the word "glacier" can be equally rich and real, indefinite or particular. What hones down the focus of the brain on the intended thoughts, ideas, meaning and significance is the context. The intonation and surrounding antecedent and subsequent events or ideas of the text or speech does this for the word "glacier", that's easy.

For pictures, the nature of the circumstances in which the picture is presented, the title and the other elements in the picture achieve the same effect. However, many of us are not as visually literate! That's why we need help. Some iconic images or abstractions of them work immediately on a subconscious level, providing a rich existential, cultural or social meaning. Other shapes are more nuanced and need to be translated or developed or buttressed by other elements.

So you might say surrounding the image "Glacier" with circumstance and other image elements is cheating. After all it should express meaning on it's own. But the "Glacier" as a word is, itself not always emotive, evocative or "abstract" on its own in an a simple sentence such as

"Biologists drilling into glaciers have found organisms." or "In portions of the glacier melted to form lakes, can freeze at night, hiding deep caverns of the coldest water." In each case, specific use of context removes most abstracted or metaphorical ideas of "slow-moving" or icon status or even danger to shipping. So I don't rank the word as being inherently more abstract.

I do not know off-hand of major works were the glacier is used as an image building element carrying rich metaphor. No doubt the Innuit or other native peoples indigenous to frozen coastlines, have exploited the glacier in their iconic art. I'd love to learn of examples.

Whether you say the word or show a picture of it, you can have different layers of meaning: the literal one (having to do with a landform made of ice) and one or more symbolic ones (having to do with something else).
Agreed.

An that's why I wish Photographers would give images great titles if they have intentions in meaning and significance so we can "get it" and not get lost. I believe that all shapes and compositions and positioning of elements in pictures have value and meanings beyond the concrete narrow object they represent. Whether one knows it or not, I am convinced that the brain composes meaning and from this spring thoughts.

The mind, I believe breaks down the image elements based on innate hard-wired and acquired properties. Depending on the circumstance or context in the picture as a whole, an attempt to derive meaning is made. It is ranked as important or not and then as to whether it should inform one's reactions and active thought. Just like the word being "gay" no longer means just a state of happiness, the word, "symbol" in analysis of art, has been assigned the meaning of "representing by it's appearance and by extension all the cultural l and metaphors that can belong to that thing.

Even lack of objects and regular patterns are likely, in my mind to be symbolic elements, beyond being "pretty" or unusual. For a blank canvass, that is easier. For a pattern that might be harder to demonstrate but it is likely still symbolic.

Asher

poco

10-Jan-2008, 05:17

Here's a shot I never took beyond raw scan because it was ruined by unintended symbolism.

When I took it, I was only interested in the wildly contrasting meanings folded arms could convey (those of the statue and of the subject) but with the end result, I worried I'd only created a tableaux of a racist cliche: white woman shying away from the macho black "buck" etc... It's too bad, because I kinda like the shot, but it's just too loaded with symbols that could be misinterpreted.

paulr

10-Jan-2008, 09:09

Asher, the difference between the word and the image is that we need to learn the word, but the image, if it's a clear one, simply resembles what it depicts. This suggests significantly different degrees of abstraction.

Anyone in the world can look at cave paintings and recognize the forms of men, antelopes, mountains, trees, etc.. But ancient written languages, like the Mayan scripts and Cuneiform, were completely indecipherable until linguists managed to find links between them and other languages (equally abstract ones, but ones they had learned).

As far as giving images titles, that is absolutely a way to help a viewer zero in on one of the many possible meanings of an image. But it's not the only one. Everything about the context in which the image is seen can contribute to that.

Other factors are the setting, the kind of presentation, and (most importantly, in my view) the relationship to the other pictures it's shown with ... the whole group, the title of the group, the sequence, what precedes an image, what follows it, etc. etc.).

When you present a body of work, on walls or in a book or in a portfolio case or whatever) you have a lot of tools at your disposal to help people see what you want them to. Text is one of these.

Scott Schroeder

10-Jan-2008, 09:47

Rob_5419

10-Jan-2008, 10:32

Sic

Ya wot?

ljb0904

10-Jan-2008, 10:50

Rob_5419

10-Jan-2008, 11:36

Hi Donald,

It's a fascinating question and you clearly show a lot of integrity in arriving at your own thoughts. I wish I could do the same, but all I can really say is thank you for raising the question and for eliciting some fascinating thoughts. Sadly your Jungian perspective is also far too healthy compared to my Freudian fixation with big long barrel lenses.

Asher Kelman

10-Jan-2008, 11:58

wow, too much intellectual discourse for me. ;-) I always sucked at symbolism in literature, and I'm not better at it with the visual arts.

For me, I don't ever look for symbolism specifically in my work. I simply look for relationships, ie. why things are the way they are.

Symbols can be subtle and mostly even not recognized by the observer, neither the photographer nor people drawn in to enjoy the finished print it at a gallery.

http://www.schroederworks.com/gallery/Fgallery3-3.jpg
Photo by Scott Schroeder ©

"...sometimes an object comes into my posessionor something catches my eye in a landscape that I just have to come back to, but cant put my finger on just why." This happens to me all the time and I just try to explore why I'm drawn to it. I try to be receptive to what I'm feeling and what might make me feel that way.

.......... An overwhelming theme in my work is a finding a feeling of comfort or coziness. For whatever reason I see this in footpaths with lots of cover. Here's a few examples,

In fact, this path is the overriding metaphor of life and language, "Life as a journey" which starts coming through the "birth passage" and has pauses like "I'm blocked", "lost", "at crossroads", "I don't know where I'm going", "we'll cross that bridge when we get there", else "go over a cliff", "make progress" or we might "regress" get "take one step at a time" and so forth.

This is why this picture subject is so fascinating. The picture becomes a channel for one's own experiences to be relived and future to be considered, all active thoughts but usually we are unaware of the work our brains are doing. We look at the picture, fascinated and want to return to it if it is done well.

That, in my opinion, is how symbolism works in art.

Asher

Asher Kelman

10-Jan-2008, 13:28

Here's a shot I never took beyond raw scan because it was ruined by unintended symbolism.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8732&d=1199966802

When I took it, I was only interested in the wildly contrasting meanings folded arms could convey (those of the statue and of the subject) but with the end result, I worried I'd only created a tableaux of a racist cliche: white woman shying away from the macho black "buck" etc... It's too bad, because I kinda like the shot, but it's just too loaded with symbols that could be misinterpreted.

There's such a long history of exploitation that the questions will always be there. We just must rise above that.

The poorest Irish laborers in the USA were cruelly treated like wretched beings without pride diginity and worth. However, having the same skin color as other more privileged Europeans, once they climbed out of the "pit" of poverty, were educated and successful, they assimilated in the "melting pot" of European immigrants.

We are distinguished by hair color, clothing style and fashion. Skin color and ethnic features, however are part of our inheritance. Blacks are distinguished by skin color. Even brilliant doctors or lawyers going to work may be disrespected by some racist traffic cop and questioned as if they might be gangsters. The still disadvantaged are trapped in each large city in communities of the poor, the struggling workers and slums. The successful move out. Those who are left become "the face" of the black community. This serves to preserve our backward views and horrible prejudice and racism.

Your photograph of the strong black man with folded arms and behind him a lion and a woman with folded arms too, is, IMHO, cluttered with other elements, ( e.g. the fence indicating a barrier which one might include or remove). Also the framing does not clarify things as the composition at present seems unfinished. May be that's it, but I think that more may be possible if you can state what you now intend to show.

In my personal view, the photographer must choose the composition such that what is recorded seems to be one unit. There's nothing else needed and nothing that takes away from the "unity of being" one thing that the photographer breathes life into to have it's own existence as an entity to be appreciated by someone.

The choosing can be done at the time of releasing the shutter or in the darkroom. So, with this in mind, I would work on this picture of a man with folded arms and edit it to give you the appearance you need to convey.

If you state this, then others could have a go at expressing your intent too. Would you like that?

Asher

Sorry the post is not abbreviated more, but Poco's PM mailbox is full so my response is all here!

poco

10-Jan-2008, 14:20

Asher,

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful critique. My intent was pretty much the result you see -- to create a suggestive tension between the statue and the subject. Making that clear dictated camera placement (so that both are fully visible with her looking at him, that the lion is isn't chopped off, etc...) The only problem is that I considered the contrast between the white statue and a dark skinned/clothed subject purely in visual terms at the time of the shot, without recognizing any possible racial message.

A retake is impossible, so it'll likely just go on the negative pile.

Thanks again,

-Michael

Donald Miller

10-Jan-2008, 14:22

I think that personal recognition and interpretation of symbolic meaning some times must be recognized as simply that...a personal experience. The thing that I think is worth mentioning is that while we are all human beings we do have different life's experiences. These personal experiences become, I believe, the equivalent of filters over the lenses of our perceptions. They color our perceptions and hence our interpretations.

That is why, I believe, contrived symbolism is often empty and personally recognized symbolic meaning is most acute and accurate for the photographer or the artist doing the act of creating.

I am not saying that symbolic interpretation by a viewer of a photograph is wrong...but it most likely is meaningful because of the filters of the viewers own perception and not because of the filters of photographer's perception.

There are certainly some universal symbols...a path is one. There are quite a number of others...I believe that these universal symbols often originate or arise from a deeper source than our personal unconscious.

domenico Foschi

10-Jan-2008, 14:23

"I agree with Scott in that the camera is a tool to explore who I am. The pictures I take are a window into me and I'm discovering myself as I go."

That's exactly my approach with my work as well.
I also agree in part with Kirk's statement that in many instances the inability of talking about one's work is a evidence of lack of confidence in one's work....
....However, for what entails my work, for instance, and many other artists, I consider it highly personal, and to truly explain the symbolism, would mean to completely uncover myself to the public, to strangers I have never and in most cases, will never meet in my life.
When I say truly, is because there are many levels in which you can talk about your work, but the most valid is the one that truly goes to the core of your own self.
So, if you want to truly be honest with the explaining of your work you have to bare yourself naked in front of your audience with the details of your own experiences and traumas as well some of which you are not even aware because most Art comes out of the unconscious.
And I don't think that is the job of the visual artist as much of the work He/She produces.
How many artists have done that?
And again, by doing this I would route the viewer in absorbing the work through my own experiences.
Am I always happy about my work? Am I always confident of the quality of my images?
Definetly not, but I prefer to think of that as a good thing, because it pushes me to go deeper, instead of being overly critical at the point of stifling the creative act.

Kirk Gittings

10-Jan-2008, 14:32

Asher Kelman

10-Jan-2008, 14:47

Domenico,

Actually, I think I said (meant anyway) that a philosophical objection to talking about ones work is usually, IME, related to a lack of confidence in talking about one's work, not a lack of confidence in one's work.

And IMO, you should have great confidence in your work. I think it is superb.

Domenico,

It's hard to improve on Kirk's comments. Your work would give any museum curator a rich trove of technically outstanding and remarkable photographs. I doubt they would be tongue-tied! You have no shortage of people who would be driven to talk about your work.

Kudos,

Asher

paulr

10-Jan-2008, 15:42

I am not saying that symbolic interpretation by a viewer of a photograph is wrong...but it most likely is meaningful because of the filters of the viewers own perception and not because of the filters of photographer's perception.

Absolutely. But the perceptions can overlap when the photographer and the viewer share a similar background. All the arts, literature, movies, fairy tales, tv commercials, posters, myths etc. that we've been exposed to are rich in a vocabulary of symbols. They become a kind of language that people respond to even when they're not consiously aware of them.

If a photographer is moved by a scene because of certain symbolic elements, it's reasonable that you might respond to those same elements in the picture, assuming you're both from the same civilization and general time period.

John Voss

10-Jan-2008, 17:12

Absolutely. But the perceptions can overlap when the photographer and the viewer share a similar background. All the arts, literature, movies, fairy tales, tv commercials, posters, myths etc. that we've been exposed to are rich in a vocabulary of symbols. They become a kind of language that people respond to even when they're not consiously aware of them. .

On some TV show or other, there was an analysis of on of Mike Huckabee's political ads during the Iowa campaign that was fascinating. As Huckabee spoke, the camera very slowly panned from right to left bringing the very large mullions of a commonplace window into view behind his head. The mullions, the analyst observed, clearly described a rood which in a nearly subliminal way was intended to reinforce Huckabee's religious identity to those evangelical voters who were likely to respond sub-consciously to that "message". What made it particularly interesting to me was that I wasn't sure I'd have noticed what was clearly there not-by-accident. And that is the essence of what symbolism in photographs, beyond the obvious nimbus behind a venerated subject's head, does to me....the symbols slip by completely. (The cymbals, when they're there, I recognize immediately :D )

Because of this thread I've examined the various monographs I have of a host of photographers, but except in the case of Wynn Bullock, I'm at a loss to see the symbols that might be there. Minor White may well have symbolically outlined an entire theology/cosmology/mystic universe with his photographs, but I'm at a total loss to interpret it.

Leonard Bernstein, in his "Young People's Concerts" from the '60's, took a major work by Richard Strauss - Don Quixote - that seeks to musically unfold a carefully composed, orchestrated, and very specific program, and utterly re-inventrd it. He demonstrated that music is "absolute" despite its creator's best intentions to make it something else.
Photographic symbols fare no better for me.

Kirk Gittings

10-Jan-2008, 17:38

Wynn Bullock.........You don't see the use of symbols in these?

http://www.laurencemillergallery.com/images/bullock_real42.jpg

http://mocp.org/collections/permanent/uploads/Bullock2001_7.jpg

http://www.scottnicholsgallery.com/artists/wynn-bullock/images/WB_Stark_Tree_1956.jpg

John Voss

10-Jan-2008, 17:53

Wynn Bullock.........You don't see the use of symbols in these?

Yes, I do. If I my quote myself: ".... but except in the case of Wynn Bullock, I'm at a loss to see the symbols that might be there." He's very overt in the use of symbols.

Kirk Gittings

10-Jan-2008, 18:47

Sorry, I misread your statement.

Merg Ross

10-Jan-2008, 20:05

Kirk, thanks for the links to Wynn's photographs. Certainly plenty of symbolism in his work, and a fascinating person to be around. He took the West Coast school in a new direction; his own.

Kirk Gittings

10-Jan-2008, 20:08

His was the first real high quality photo show I ever saw in Santa Fe around 1970? I went back three times. I never quite got over it. They still knock me out today.

Did you know him at all? I never net him.

Donald Miller

11-Jan-2008, 04:01

Donald Miller

11-Jan-2008, 04:05

Asher Kelman

11-Jan-2008, 04:14

A current photographer that moves me with some of his work is Misha Gordin www.bsimple.com

Interesting to me that I am moved since we do not share either geography or culture during our early formative years.

He does fine work and seems pleased with himself that he does not "assemble" his work in Photoshop. His style is cleanly informed by Magritte, otherwise it seems quite original.

Asher

Merg Ross

11-Jan-2008, 08:41

Kirk, yes I knew Wynn Bullock for about 25 years. You and I share an admiration for his work. It is appropriate to include him in this discussion of symbolism in photographic images.

ageorge

11-Jan-2008, 10:48

Kirk Gittings

11-Jan-2008, 11:17

"Dominic Rouse came to mind. Although his work is probably more related to painting than "traditional" photography. His does use a large format camera and the darkroom."

Looking at his work (which I enjoyed allot), I didn't believe that they were not computer manipulated to some extent anyway. He shoots and processes film which he scans and composites in the computer.

"Normally I will shoot on a Bronica SQA 6x6 camera but I do occasionally drop down to 35mm and sometimes I have used 4'x5' and even 8"x10". More often than not I will use a standard lens though if space is very tight I will occasionally employ a wide-angle lens though I prefer, in these instances, to photograph my subject into two, three or four sections with a standard lens and then strip the pieces together in the computer.

For scanning I use a Howtek D4500 drum scanner which produces beautiful scans albeit slowly. I float the transparency in oil for optimum results. The Howtek has a feature allows the operator to manually focus the scanner's 'eye' on any part of the transparency that he chooses with microscopic precision. I, for example, when scanning a face always make sure that the eyes are the primary point of focus.

Once all the elements have been digitized then the compositing begins. The assumption is often made that I am using Adobe's PhotoShop but I have never used it. Ten years ago when I decided to invest in digital technology PhotoShop was less than impressive. I am sure that it has improved greatly in the intervening years.

I use a piece of software called Imaginator, made by Dicomed. The story goes that the Imaginator software designers enlisted the advice of working photographers during the design stages which would account for its ease of use for 'old school' photographers such as myself. The terms used in the menus are those I am familiar with and there are no distracting windows. The image is displayed on a simple black background and icons automatically disappear when not being used.

What separated Imaginator from its competitors years ago was its ability to offer infinite 'undos'; not 'undos' selected from a 'drop-down' history menu but limitless 'undos' applied subtly and in real time by the simple use of a digitizer's erase button. These 'undos' are also pressure sensitive which allows even greater control by the human operator over the will of the software design." From his website.

The file is then made into a negative via a film recorder which is printed on regular paper. Though he does sell ink pigment prints too.

Gordon Moat

11-Jan-2008, 11:36

"Dominic Rouse ......"

....... He shoots and processes film which he scans and composites in the computer.
. . . . . . . . . . . . use a piece of software called Imaginator, made by Dicomed. . . . . . . . . . . .

Not really that unusual an approach. There is another popular older software called LivePicture, which functions in a similar manner. Other choices were the late 1990s version of Alias Studio Paint.

PhotoShop is often assumed, because it is now very common. Probably the most disconcerting aspect of that is several colleges now including PhotoShop in their business classes curriculum. It might not be much longer until knowledge of PhotoShop is barely more relevant than knowledge of MicroSoft Word.

Anyway, composite images are much more of an illustration approach, than photography. Even using photographic elements simply makes it photo-illustration. Most illustration, especially commercially done work, uses symbolism, with an obvious exception of technical illustration. I think it is difficult to compare that sort of usage of symbolism with what might be seen in purely photographic images.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

paulr

11-Jan-2008, 12:15

Dominic Rouse (http://www.dominicrouse.com/) came to mind. Although his work is probably more related to painting than "traditional" photography. His does use a large format camera and the darkroom.

I get a kick out of that kind of symbolist work (including the early versions of it in the 19th century, in both painting and photo). It's so heavily symbolic, but of what, I often have no idea! Fun to look at and think about though.

Kirk Gittings

11-Jan-2008, 12:18

I think heavy symbolism is a symbol in and of itself.

John Kasaian

11-Jan-2008, 13:19

Probably OT but I'm reminded of an observation by a trained artist who responded to scholarly speculation about the symbolism of animals painted on the walls of caves in France by suggesting their meaning "could be" for target practice.:D

Scott Schroeder

12-Jan-2008, 06:04

Fascinating thread....
Donald, you've said some great things that I completely agree with, especially how it's difficult to decipher at the time. Also, something Brook said is EXACTLY what happens to me "...sometimes an object comes into my posession or something catches my eye in a landscape that I just have to come back to, but cant put my finger on just why." This happens to me all the time and I just try to explore why I'm drawn to it. I try to be receptive to what I'm feeling and what might make me feel that way.
As Donald said, I know this can reflect a broader view of my life. I don't read into it to much while I'm on location and photographing, I just try to find a composition that feels right. An overwhelming theme in my work is a finding a feeling of comfort or coziness. For whatever reason I see this in footpaths with lots of cover. Here's a few examples, winding trail (http://www.schroederworks.com/gallery/Fgallery3-3.jpg) , bamboo and trail (http://www.schroederworks.com/gallery/Fgallery3-5.jpg), and st. ed's trail (http://www.schroederworks.com/gallery/Fgallery3-7.jpg).
It's part of what makes photography such a joy for me. It's a constant exploration of who I am. I've been known to see meaning where others see none. It can be a curse in certain ways, but as Donald said it can allow me to see the possibilities.

Scott

I would like to make another observation in regard to what I said above. I see the same exact trait when I'm looking at other people's work. I may be completely disenchanted with a photograph because I'm not drawn to it. Or rather it doesn't resonate with who I am (in the deepest sense). Perhaps, that might be a bit much but I think the photographs that blow me away 'probably' hold some symbolic meaning that are a mere reflection of myself. Certainly I can enjoy a fine crafted print, but the ones that truly grasp me are the ones that might tell me a little bit more about myself.

Now, I'll stretch that out a little and propose a possible observation to the more popular photographs. Bullock was mentioned so let's 'use' him (and I am also drawn to his work). Do you think his photographs (say the one's Kirk posted) contain some universal symbols that broaden the possibilities of being positively received? I guess I mean to ask: is that what makes some photographs more popular than others? Or is it merely superficial beauty?
Again interesting discussion....