is allegory dead?

[jp]

I kinda like flickr for the vast variety of photography (while at the same time hating it for their needless technical tampering). There's groups for everything and photos of everything.

The topic of allegory on flickr is pretty meager there though. There aren't any lively groups for allegory. Searching tags for allegory finds mostly historical paintings and mis-tagged or documentary images. I don't think it's flickr's problem, but more representative of the photography medium in general.

Has the notion of expressing using allegory and photography died off? Is allegory a dead classical and victorian anachronism? I know one living photographer (at least) who likes to employ allegory, perhaps because he's inspired by painters that have done that.

Is it a dying anachronism because we have no cultural/educational shared understanding of the classical/mythological/religious themes/symbolism that often fueled allegory in the past? Is it too "romantic" and uncool to employ a classical/religious allegory? Are artists trying so hard to be different they avoid any shared understand that is required for allegory? Or are we too modern inspired such that is primarily about composition rather than communication? Maybe I'm asking too many questions; just trying to get your brains in gear. I like art history and don't see much of the concept of allegory happening in common contemporary art photography. generic "I dress in black" angst isn't allegory.

[BetterSense]

Contemporary allegory would be perceived as kitsch. Serious art must be as content free as possible.

[Heroique]

I think you've raised an interesting topic!

You might want to define "allegory" in general terms, and why a photograph might be one – or work as one. For example, the literal image & the implied meaning; and why "allegory" is usually more "clear-cut" than a "symbol," which typically offers multiple meanings (not just principally a clearly intended one).

Your remark about the importance of common (cultural) ground between photographer and viewer is, I think, of paramount importance if allegory is going to work. Paul will be here soon with stimulating reasons about the meaningless of this so-called common ground, and why the viewer's experience should have nothing to do (and can have nothing to do) with the photographer's intensions for him, making traditional allegory impossible, and uninteresting anyway.

Me, I don't think allegory is dead in any artistic genre, but it has caught a nasty bout of the flu from the intellectual currents in our day and age. It will recover.

[jcoldslabs]

I think there are many reasons for the decline of allegory in art, some of which you touched on in your questions. I'd venture to guess that part of the historical appeal of allegory and metaphor in the arts was being able to approach concepts that were taboo or forbidden in an oblique way. These days it seems that nothing is off limits. Joel-Peter Witkin's photographic meditations on death, decay and mortality use real cadavers. Sally Mann photographed dead and rotting bodies at the "Body Farm." Tracey Emin's conceptual piece My Bed used her actual bed and its authentic detritus, and Piss Christ used real piss. In the past such literal depictions would have been seen as too direct or "uncreative" to be considered art.

I also believe there needs to be a shared cultural language in order for symbolism to work. If a photograph references something in order to make its point that few people are familiar with it likely will not find a wide audience or will not succeed on that level. I had a talk with Austin where he discussed the symbols and juxtapositions he creates in his work to convey meaning, but he is usually met with blank stares or ambivalence when he points this out to people.

This makes me wonder: are people using allegory less these days, or are we collectively more blind to it than ever before?

Jonathan

[Winger]

If you're looking simply for photos or groups with tag "allegory", my guess is that most people posting on flickr don't know to use that word. And a large number don't see double meanings in much of anything. Just think about how few people these days "get" puns.

[jp]

If Paul has some words, I'm game. I like discussion and mumbo jumbo too. Honestly allegory is not on my mind when I'm taking photos, but it's a strong method of expression in other areas of art and in the past, so I expected it to be more alive as an intention.

Jonathan, I think you've got a little bit of it with a preference for literal depictions "because we can". I think the taste for taboo can still be uncreative and being too direct comes across as if people want publicity more than expression. But there's more to it... I still think there's a wide array of applications remaining to use one non-literal representation to explain/communicate something that's hard to communicate being direct.

Obscure shared cultural language is alive and well in Internet memes, but that has a short shelf life and isn't particularly important or timeless or intergenerational, which is where people'd rather think art should be.

Jamie Wyeth's seven deadly sins paintings are contemporary paintings illustrating a nearly timeless idea, but with gulls not people. Sort of like how animal farm was known for the use of creatures instead of people. That's allegory.

http://ralstongallery.photoshelter.c...000S0rxTZASfE4 is a photo called brimstone, which makes one think about death without a fire and brimstone sermon.

As far as allegory relating to symbolism, I think symbolism is a tool which is often used to support allegory.
The Birth of Venus by Botticelli is loaded with symbolism that we don't use as a culture anymore. The shell as a vulva; we just use an actual photo of the body part. wind as spirit and life; we don't express that like that anymore. Those clues combine together in a thoughtful manner which is sometimes allegory. Elsewhere, crossing a river is allegorical for reaching an afterlife... Coming forth from the water is birth, in this Birth of Venus painting, in Christian baptism, and many ensuing uses of that remain allegorical.

Allegory is alive and well in movies, with themes which we can't tell if it's convenient recycling of timeless tales, or allegory in modern garb. Things like the monoliths in 2001 A space odyssey or much of The Matrix plot. More straight forward was the success of the Chronicles of Narnia film. This past winter, I described our snow situation as Narnia and a few people knew what I meant, but fewer still would know the allegory of what winter meant in that book/movie.

[Larry Gebhardt]

I don't know, I find there to be lot's of examples of allegory on Flicker. I'll see myself out.

[Brian C. Miller]

Interesting result from a Google search, Encyclopedia of nineteenth-century photography: A-I, index, Volume 1, page 27. Nice article on allegory in photography.

Allegory is a concept with two parts. The first meaning is what is obviously presented, with something that evokes a second meaning through prior social, societal, and historical context. The allegory isn't a mere illustration, as it's meant to necessarily evoke something that has come before. It has to unfold over time, or be worked out by cues presented to the viewer. The allegory is like a shadow play, with characters in the foreground masking the shadows of something else in the background.

A photographic allegory isn't easy at all, unless it's been set up beforehand. For instance, I wouldn't expect someone to go out and do allegorical street photography. Allegories might be constructed later, but not likely in the actual act of making a street photograph. Using an allegory in landscape photography might be easier, but I can't think of any that I myself have made.

An effective allegory has to be carefully constructed. Consider, how would you condense The Lottery into a single photograph?

[Drew Wiley]

So now we can enjoy an endless debate over the difference between allegory, symbol, and metaphor. I don't see why any potential psychological or historical tool would be off limits. And if anything is momentarily below the surface, it's just a matter of time. Things run in cylces. But what constitutes a relevant tool kit will differ from generation to generation, according to their own cultural preconceptions. What is far more important is how skilfully things are done. That's the difference between kitch and something worth noting. But someone will always be pushing the envelope and trying to attract attention with some gimmick that has already been used long before, at least in principle.

[Brian C. Miller]

... That's the difference between kitch and something worth noting. But someone will always be pushing the envelope and trying to attract attention with some gimmick that has already been used long before, at least in principle.

Merriam-Webster, kitsch: "things ... that are of low quality and that many people find amusing and enjoyable"
Such as posting useless rants on Internet forums.

There's a difference between, "what the f--- is that," and allegory. Photography is so immediate, and perceived as immediate, that in the general context it's just not a conveyance for allegory. The first thing that's obvious about something that's an allegory is that the "obvious" subject isn't the subject at all. Was Animal Farm really about just a little slice of life on a farm? No, because there aren't any talking animals. And gee whiz, doesn't the story line sort of follow major things that have happened in the world at large? And something is uncomfortable about all of this...

jp498 didn't find any allegory on Flickr. Not even kitsch allegory. Before something can be done either well or badly, it has to be done at all.