Music as analogy for LF photography

[Bernice Loui]

Previously discussed on LFF.

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...bigger-picture

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ition-Formulas

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...Look-At-Images

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...ns-From-A-Lens

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...n-or-all-three

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...-of-seeing-%94



How are these previous discussion related to "Music as analogy for LF photography"

Bernice

[Tin Can]

Outliers are a necessary variable, if we are all in 'tune' we don't mutate and evolve

A General Model of Dissonance Reduction: Unifying Past Accounts via an Emotion Regulation Perspective

[Heroique]

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Please, if I may ask for just a moment of your patience, I just might be able to organize a few more thoughts.

I’d say I’m close to 95% agreement with your beautifully clarifying post above, so I don’t think my thoughts below qualify as a significant disagreement with them. In fact, some of it echoes what you say, even while stating differences, concerning mainly temporal organization of art, cognition, psychology.

I’ll start with a simple claim: If viewers need a period of time to perceive art, then it is impossible for any viewer to experience an art that exists, as you say, only in a static moment (such as architecture, sculpture, painting, LF prints). I’m sure you noticed your ideas slightly straining, eloquently, and with a nice summersault thrown in, to have it both ways. For example, “a painting, sculpture, structure or photograph exists in its entirety at a given instant,” and then later, “We need time to take them in and recognize [rhythm].” In a phrase, I think if a work can exist “entirely” in a given instant (and maybe it can), then the work, as such, is beyond our comprehension. We won’t perceive it because, I agree with you, we need time. The time necessary, for example, for our eyes simply to take it in. You say columns when looking at the Parthenon and dune ripples when looking at a print “really don't come one-after-the-other in time,” but I hope you might consider that they really do come one-after-the-other (yes, literally) as our scanning eyes take advantage of the requirements of time – looking left to right, up and down, sideways, jumping from point A to point B – whether we’re attending a show of LF prints, visiting Athens, or standing on Maui watching real waves. To be sure, even a work associated with perfect physical stillness, let’s say Rodin’s “The Thinker,” will offer-up rhythm, movement, and other elements of time as we stand before it and admire its contemplative tranquility. Our mind can do no other. I will quickly add that I know this isn’t an iron-clad argument. For example, I’m aware that I’ve left out any mention of Plato’s cave and the eternal, timeless forms just outside the entrance which is at my back.

And I didn’t even get to music and the irrational. Euripides, Dionysus, and Oliver Sacks will all have to wait. BTW, do you remember that old thread about how the eye works? Maybe it's one of the links above by Bernice. Also reminds me of Paulr. This is beginning to remind me of those fun times.

[Vaughn]

Excellent points, Heroique.

One of the uses of composition is to guide the viewers' eyes within the image...to draw the eyes in and then keep them interested in taking in the whole piece...to break the slow stride of those who otherwise walk along a gallery wall, nodding their heads down to the label and up to the print, a few steps, down to the label and up to the print, a few steps, down to the label and up to the print. To get them to spend some time with an image. Not always easy to do with pictures of dirt, bushes, rocks, trees, and that sort of otherwise boring stuff...especially with subject-centered viewers. I like to reward those who do with small minor things hidden in the image if possible (such as the mist in the image below -- what is hidden is not the mist, but the depths the mist is rising from).

I just posted this in the Alt processes thread. It took me a long time to fall in love with the print and to finally mat and frame it up. Taken at the top of a waterfall, this is definitely a high-volume soundscape. Too loud for rock and roll. Not shown directly is the tall drop -- semi-represented, along with the sound, by the rising mist above the fall and the turbulence of the water exiting stage left. The glacial sourced light-blue water is flowing between two lakes in Parque Nacional Torres del Paine in Chile.

5x7 FP4+, f16/ at 1/60 second, 180 or 210mm lens. 5x7 platinum/palladium print, taken 26 December 2018

[Doremus Scudder]

Heroique,

I agree with everything you say. My only point, and the only substantial difference between a viewer scanning through a photograph in time and a listener experiencing a piece of music in time, is that in the latter, the temporal organization, i.e., the order and speed of presentation, is determined by the composer/performers and the listener experiences the piece in that way only. When scanning a photograph or painting, etc., the viewer decides the order, the speed, if something gets left out, revisited, etc. In this latter case, scanning with one's eye, the brain is really working to get an impression of the object as it exists as a whole; it's instinctive and basic to visual perception. When listening to music, the brain has to be trained to recognize form, repetitions, variations, etc. as they are presented in time, using tools are aren't simply instinctive, but which require a higher order of processing; something learned.

The difference is not huge, but important. However, so are the similarities you point out, which lead to the myriad comparisons of two-dimensional, plastic and architectural art to music. Again, I'll posit that these comparisons are by way of analogy - i.e., extended meaning of those musical terms used for comparison, and are not really equivalent. They are nevertheless similar enough to make the analogy valid.

Sure, the artist often has tools to direct the viewer's attention in a certain order, but I really think that the experience of a static work of art is fundamentally different from that of one dependent on temporal organization.

I've got Oliver Sacks' book on the way. We can discuss that when I've read it (and digested it ).

Best,

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, indeediee.. Nice print and example of how composition serves as one of the foundational elements to an expressive print.

Previously posted example.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...n-a-LF-wedding

Where to do the eyes go in this image of the bride, bride/groom and why?

Both music and images can be considered as forms of language, more and deeper understanding/comprehension of the language allows extracting more and deeper meaning to what is being expressed within a given language. As with any language or means of human expression, there is effort required to learn any language or means of communication.


Bernice

Excellent points, Heroique.

One of the uses of composition is to guide the viewers' eyes within the image...to draw the eyes in and then keep them interested in taking in the whole piece...to break the slow stride of those who otherwise walk along a gallery wall, nodding their heads down to the label and up to the print, a few steps, down to the label and up to the print, a few steps, down to the label and up to the print. To get them to spend some time with an image. Not always easy to do with pictures of dirt, bushes, rocks, trees, and that sort of otherwise boring stuff...especially with subject-centered viewers. I like to reward those who do with small minor things hidden in the image if possible (such as the mist in the image below -- what is hidden is not the mist, but the depths the mist is rising from).

[Tin Can]

Right now watching VOIR 'The Duality of Appeal' on Netflix

https://www.rogerebert.com/streaming...d-fincher-2021

They are showing exactly what most members love

and why

[Heroique]

Taken at the top of a waterfall, this is definitely a high-volume soundscape. Too loud for rock and roll.

Was it loud enough for bass-heavy, industrial dance music?

BTW, looks like you’re inches from a fall into the abyss!

Viewers sensing danger might stand an extra foot or two from the frame, squinting to see the label – and be quite happy to do so.

[Vaughn]

Was it loud enough for bass-heavy, industrial dance music?

BTW, looks like you’re inches from a fall into the abyss!

Viewers sensing danger might stand an extra foot or two from the frame, squinting to see the label – and be quite happy to do so.

My son sent me a short video he captured at a rave in the middle of Tokyo's airport...so I think the answer to your first question is, "I can't hear you! What did you say?!"

On the second part -- yes, I was being a bad example to the children of the tourists behind me. But it is all 'grand landscape' down there and I was drawn to this rushing of water. The two 5x7 panorama below was what was the backdrop for the waterfall image above. The waterfall would be dropping into this lake way back there directly under the tallest 'horn' of the mountain in the right frame.

I worked at the Grand Canyon (South Rim) for a long summer in 1977. I would see tourists arrive at Mather Point, walk up to the railing, start to comprehend the vastness and depth of the Canyon, and back away from the railing for a bit. It leaves an impression...

[Alan Klein]

Please, if I may ask for just a moment of your patience, I just might be able to organize a few more thoughts.

I’d say I’m close to 95% agreement with your beautifully clarifying post above, so I don’t think my thoughts below qualify as a significant disagreement with them. In fact, some of it echoes what you say, even while stating differences, concerning mainly temporal organization of art, cognition, psychology.

I’ll start with a simple claim: If viewers need a period of time to perceive art, then it is impossible for any viewer to experience an art that exists, as you say, only in a static moment (such as architecture, sculpture, painting, LF prints). I’m sure you noticed your ideas slightly straining, eloquently, and with a nice summersault thrown in, to have it both ways. For example, “a painting, sculpture, structure or photograph exists in its entirety at a given instant,” and then later, “We need time to take them in and recognize [rhythm].” In a phrase, I think if a work can exist “entirely” in a given instant (and maybe it can), then the work, as such, is beyond our comprehension. We won’t perceive it because, I agree with you, we need time. The time necessary, for example, for our eyes simply to take it in. You say columns when looking at the Parthenon and dune ripples when looking at a print “really don't come one-after-the-other in time,” but I hope you might consider that they really do come one-after-the-other (yes, literally) as our scanning eyes take advantage of the requirements of time – looking left to right, up and down, sideways, jumping from point A to point B – whether we’re attending a show of LF prints, visiting Athens, or standing on Maui watching real waves. To be sure, even a work associated with perfect physical stillness, let’s say Rodin’s “The Thinker,” will offer-up rhythm, movement, and other elements of time as we stand before it and admire its contemplative tranquility. Our mind can do no other. I will quickly add that I know this isn’t an iron-clad argument. For example, I’m aware that I’ve left out any mention of Plato’s cave and the eternal, timeless forms just outside the entrance which is at my back.

And I didn’t even get to music and the irrational. Euripides, Dionysus, and Oliver Sacks will all have to wait. BTW, do you remember that old thread about how the eye works? Maybe it's one of the links above by Bernice. Also reminds me of Paulr. This is beginning to remind me of those fun times.

I think it takes about two seconds to figure out if you're physically attracted to a woman, a car, a shirt, or a photo. Our brain assesses it pretty quickly and we move on. If you have to think about it too much, you're really looking for intellectual reasons to like it or not. The brain's desires and aesthetics work quicker than that.