visual language
One of the things that I’ve expressed frustration with recently is being unable to get away from the huge element of simplicity in my photography. If you look to the right at my latest stuff, you hardly need to view it larger than the thumbnails to get the gist… Annoyingly, it’s what I seem to produce instinctively and is something I would also be fairly well known for, amongst my friends. It’s also the first thing I would suggest to someone starting out in photography and trying to improve their pictures – strip it down, and strip it down some more until you”’re left with the thing that you”’re trying to put across, then work with how to present that in the frame without all the distractions. But I feel like I want to move on to something more now.
In trying to assess what it is that puts across feeling and atmosphere in a photograph, I would also be inclined to simplify. Thinking about describing emotions, I can pair them up with corresponding visual elements in a kind of formula, which just seems plain wrong and has me feeling unsettled. It seems to fit in a graphic design sort of world, but not photography.
Still, thinking about it just now brings up a few obvious examples:
Joy – bright colours, high contrast, solid shapes
Sadness – sombre, muted colours, darkness
Confusion – randomness, messiness, imbalance
Loneliness – scale, using composition to emphasise a single entity
Calm – lack of contrast, balance
That’s not even getting started on actually including people, or the anthropomorphism sometimes used to convey emotion in some pictures – you can take the above approaches to suggest feeling even in an abstract image. (I should probably mention here that I tend to think of photos less in terms of their physical subject and more just by their representation, so most of this doesn’t refer to photographs including people.)
In an idle, daydreaming kind of way (what else is rush hour traffic for…?) I started to wonder how valid those formulas/interpretations might be by turning it on its head and thinking about whether it might be possible to convery sadness, for example, with a bright and colourful scene? What about a calm picture that’s really busy, with competing, unbalanced elements – it just doesn’t seem to work! That says to me that somewhere down the line, we do follow these visual cues, even if it’s on an almost hidden basis, within something that isn’t so simple at all.
So, is there a way to begin to go beyond this basic a, b, c of visual language? At the moment I’m a little stuck – my idea would be to study images that do put across a feeling, but aren’t so obvious as to fall into the above rulings, and try to figure out what it is that conveys their mood. But that’s almost like saying I’ll pore over a russian newspaper to try and learn russian!
How do you push yourself past something like this, without forcing it or ending up with something contrived and counter-productive? How do you learn something that can’t – and shouldn’t – be turned into a ‘painting by numbers’, and still keep your work as your own?
I like the analogy of learning Russian by reading a Russian newspaper, but I don’t think it works. The symbolism used in photographs is a more-or-less universal language – everybody already speaks it.
Are you setting yourself a task that’s more akin to writing in English without using any of the existing English words? I suppose Lewis Carrol managed that in Jabberwocky, and James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake did it too. Carrol invented completely new words for his poem. Joyce didn’t go that far but he used the words of the English language (and others) in such a way that he might as well have…
Okay, now I’ve caught up on some missing sleep, the next step away from ‘straight’ photography seems obvious and well understood: go mono. Isn’t that what B&W is all about? Paring the visual scene down to just tones and forms. You could try overlaying mono pictures that express happy/sad/calm with colors that you wouldn’t expect to suit the feel of the piece to see what the effect is. Then move on to variations in the tonal and structural dimensions?
By experimenting like that you could start to define your own visual grammar without having to study other people’s work and risking a simple repetition of someone else’s ‘formula’.
Alternatively, you could look at the work of painters. The Fauves did freaky counter-intuitive things with color. The Impressionists and especially the Expressionists have been ‘out there’ too. Just musing aloud… I had time to study an Egon Schiele print as I breakfasted in my hotel yesterday and it set me thinking about how you could get that flat-yet-intense and muted-but-colorful feel with a camera instead of paint :)
I like the analogy of learning Russian by reading a Russian newspaper, but I don’t think it works. The symbolism used in photographs is a more-or-less universal language – everybody already speaks it.
Are you setting yourself a task that’s more akin to writing in English without using any of the existing English words? I suppose Lewis Carrol managed that in Jabberwocky, and James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake did it too. Carrol invented completely new words for his poem. Joyce didn’t go that far but he used the words of the English language (and others) in such a way that he might as well have…
Okay, now I’ve caught up on some missing sleep, the next step away from ‘straight’ photography seems obvious and well understood: go mono. Isn’t that what B&W is all about? Paring the visual scene down to just tones and forms. You could try overlaying mono pictures that express happy/sad/calm with colors that you wouldn’t expect to suit the feel of the piece to see what the effect is. Then move on to variations in the tonal and structural dimensions?
By experimenting like that you could start to define your own visual grammar without having to study other people’s work and risking a simple repetition of someone else’s ‘formula’.
Alternatively, you could look at the work of painters. The Fauves did freaky counter-intuitive things with color. The Impressionists and especially the Expressionists have been ‘out there’ too. Just musing aloud… I had time to study an Egon Schiele print as I breakfasted in my hotel yesterday and it set me thinking about how you could get that flat-yet-intense and muted-but-colorful feel with a camera instead of paint :)
You speak much sense, at 6am…
The thing I’m thinking, though, is that we don’t all speak this visual language – although we may subconsciously understand it. That’s why sometimes a photograph communicates something to me, and I’m sure I understand it internally although I can’t verbalise that – but even so, I can’t actually put that across in my own work. I know that part of that also lies with the problems of both shedding those ‘labels’ we have for the world around us and seeing things as they really are, and then getting away from the traditional notions of what should be photographed and how. But that’s another conversation…
A lightbulb went on when you suggested shooting mono then overlaying with colour. Thinking on it a little further – how do you imbue a black and white photograph with feeling? I suppose, as you say, you then have to concentrate on lines, form, texture – composition.
A sideline thought: do you have to be feeling something, to make an image that embodies that emotion? Is it the case that when you do feel that way, the things that you shoot and the way you choose to present them will almost automatically be infused with that emotion? Can you be more clinical about it and say “this week, I am mostly going to make ‘melancholy’ images…”, and concentrate more on the technicalities of the medium?
I find more and more that I’m intrigued by art history in terms of these groups of people that had different approaches to painting, but when it comes to the paintings themselves, I don’t get it – I definitely don’t understand that language. It’s frustrating.
You speak much sense, at 6am…
The thing I’m thinking, though, is that we don’t all speak this visual language – although we may subconsciously understand it. That’s why sometimes a photograph communicates something to me, and I’m sure I understand it internally although I can’t verbalise that – but even so, I can’t actually put that across in my own work. I know that part of that also lies with the problems of both shedding those ‘labels’ we have for the world around us and seeing things as they really are, and then getting away from the traditional notions of what should be photographed and how. But that’s another conversation…
A lightbulb went on when you suggested shooting mono then overlaying with colour. Thinking on it a little further – how do you imbue a black and white photograph with feeling? I suppose, as you say, you then have to concentrate on lines, form, texture – composition.
A sideline thought: do you have to be feeling something, to make an image that embodies that emotion? Is it the case that when you do feel that way, the things that you shoot and the way you choose to present them will almost automatically be infused with that emotion? Can you be more clinical about it and say “this week, I am mostly going to make ‘melancholy’ images…”, and concentrate more on the technicalities of the medium?
I find more and more that I’m intrigued by art history in terms of these groups of people that had different approaches to painting, but when it comes to the paintings themselves, I don’t get it – I definitely don’t understand that language. It’s frustrating.
You speak much sense, at 6am…
It’s the coffee talking : )
we don’t all speak this visual language
Ah, I think we do at the core, though perhaps with the equivalent of different accents and dialects. What may be happening is that the communication effected by a photograph (or any other piece of art) is operating at multiple levels. There’s the subconscious level (white = clean & calm), the conscious level (what a beautiful wedding dress!) and the cultural level (white is the color of death in the east, but not in the west). The lower level perceptions/responses are hardwired; the higher level ones determined by personal experience. The labels come from the higher level patterns that we filter our perceptions through.
Oh my, doesn’t that sound high-faluting! Can I have my PhD and tenure now, please?
how do you imbue a black and white photograph with feeling? I suppose, as you say, you then have to concentrate on lines, form, texture – composition.
An interesting thought… what’s the absolute minimum set of structural elements required to express feelings in general, i.e. the pidgin English of art?
do you have to be feeling something, to make an image that embodies that emotion?
I’m gonna be cynical and say absolutely not – we call the resulting ‘art’ advertising.
when it comes to the paintings themselves, I don’t get it – I definitely don’t understand that language
It took me a long time – and a spell of trying to draw/paint myself – to begin to appreciate a lot of that stuff. Mind you, a few rare pieces had instant appeal to me. They were the lure that drew me into the rest of it.
You speak much sense, at 6am…
It’s the coffee talking : )
we don’t all speak this visual language
Ah, I think we do at the core, though perhaps with the equivalent of different accents and dialects. What may be happening is that the communication effected by a photograph (or any other piece of art) is operating at multiple levels. There’s the subconscious level (white = clean & calm), the conscious level (what a beautiful wedding dress!) and the cultural level (white is the color of death in the east, but not in the west). The lower level perceptions/responses are hardwired; the higher level ones determined by personal experience. The labels come from the higher level patterns that we filter our perceptions through.
Oh my, doesn’t that sound high-faluting! Can I have my PhD and tenure now, please?
how do you imbue a black and white photograph with feeling? I suppose, as you say, you then have to concentrate on lines, form, texture – composition.
An interesting thought… what’s the absolute minimum set of structural elements required to express feelings in general, i.e. the pidgin English of art?
do you have to be feeling something, to make an image that embodies that emotion?
I’m gonna be cynical and say absolutely not – we call the resulting ‘art’ advertising.
when it comes to the paintings themselves, I don’t get it – I definitely don’t understand that language
It took me a long time – and a spell of trying to draw/paint myself – to begin to appreciate a lot of that stuff. Mind you, a few rare pieces had instant appeal to me. They were the lure that drew me into the rest of it.
One of the things that I’ve expressed frustration with recently is being unable to get away from the huge element of simplicity in my photography.
Just remembered something that might have a bearing on this…
Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) practitioners warn against something they call away from thinking, i.e. formulating your goals in terms of what you don’t want. Obviously, that kind of thinking doesn’t give you somewhere to go to because you’re looking behind you all the time. Instead the NLP guys say practice towards thinking. When you can define your goals in terms of what you do want, then they’re a lot easier to achieve.
You’ve started above to outline some technical concepts you want to experiment with. You’ve got yourself a new vehicle. I think that once you decide where you want to go with it – and ‘not here’ doesn’t count – then you’ll get there no problem. : )
One of the things that I’ve expressed frustration with recently is being unable to get away from the huge element of simplicity in my photography.
Just remembered something that might have a bearing on this…
Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) practitioners warn against something they call away from thinking, i.e. formulating your goals in terms of what you don’t want. Obviously, that kind of thinking doesn’t give you somewhere to go to because you’re looking behind you all the time. Instead the NLP guys say practice towards thinking. When you can define your goals in terms of what you do want, then they’re a lot easier to achieve.
You’ve started above to outline some technical concepts you want to experiment with. You’ve got yourself a new vehicle. I think that once you decide where you want to go with it – and ‘not here’ doesn’t count – then you’ll get there no problem. : )
Julie, I’ve read this post a number of times, but decided to think a bit before I posted. I think that our style, or portrayal of our subjects is a portrayal of where we are in life.
From your pictures and your post, I would presume that you are someone who likes clear lines of distinction. You want to know who your friends are. You like things simple and peaceful. It would appear that you appreciate the quiet times more than the noise and the crowd.
I could be totally off, but it’s what I see. I think that it is next to impossible for us to hide who we are. We give it away by the subjects that we choose and the style in which we portray them.
Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that if you try to force a new style upon yourself, which goes against who you are, then I don’t know if you’d like the results or perhaps it would come out feeling contrived. As you change, so will your style.
My 2 cents worth.
Julie, I’ve read this post a number of times, but decided to think a bit before I posted. I think that our style, or portrayal of our subjects is a portrayal of where we are in life.
From your pictures and your post, I would presume that you are someone who likes clear lines of distinction. You want to know who your friends are. You like things simple and peaceful. It would appear that you appreciate the quiet times more than the noise and the crowd.
I could be totally off, but it’s what I see. I think that it is next to impossible for us to hide who we are. We give it away by the subjects that we choose and the style in which we portray them.
Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that if you try to force a new style upon yourself, which goes against who you are, then I don’t know if you’d like the results or perhaps it would come out feeling contrived. As you change, so will your style.
My 2 cents worth.
Paul, much appreciated. Also eerily accurate!
The trick is definitely to avoid ending up with something that appears contrived. That also ties in with Neil’s observations of working towards something, rather than away from something else.
I don’t know where the drive is coming from, but if it’s coming from somewhere, it must be at least slightly intuitive…?
Paul, much appreciated. Also eerily accurate!
The trick is definitely to avoid ending up with something that appears contrived. That also ties in with Neil’s observations of working towards something, rather than away from something else.
I don’t know where the drive is coming from, but if it’s coming from somewhere, it must be at least slightly intuitive…?