Should metaphor be taken from photography?
April 1, 2004 6:09 PM   Subscribe

Should metaphor be taken from photography, or should photos only be approached (or critiqued) as realist?
posted by the fire you left me to Media & Arts (12 answers total)
 
Would you want that we hand you your own personal context in which to make a reading as well?
posted by jazzkat11 at 6:21 PM on April 1, 2004


Two ways to look at this. You could look at it traditionally and say that any metaphors would likely be have to be backed up by the intent of the artist (at least consciously or unconsciously), or you could look at it as many post-modern thinkers look at art and believe that once it leaves the artist's control it takes on its own meaning separate from those intended (and almost entirely controlled by those experiencing the art).

There's no real answer to your question.
posted by The God Complex at 7:07 PM on April 1, 2004


Phase 1: Paint an abstract image on a canvas
Phase 2: Snap a photograph of said painting
Phase 3: Rhetorical victory!
posted by Space Coyote at 10:08 PM on April 1, 2004


Interestingly enough, American law generally sees photography as creative. Some circuit courts have held that even very boring photographic works - pictures for catalogs and advertisements and such - have the requisite originality and creativity to earn copyright protection.

So that may or may not be relevant to your question, but I gather that this thread isn't seeking definitive answers anyhow.
posted by PrinceValium at 11:56 PM on April 1, 2004


Should metaphor be taken from photography, or should photos only be approached (or critiqued) as realist?

Sorry, but, WHAT THE HELL?

You want some kind of a law about art, like, "All photos should be taken at realist face value and should never be explored for further metaphor?"
posted by Shane at 8:29 AM on April 2, 2004


What Shane said. The question isn't really answerable, because photography is such a wide-ranging art form and is often both realistic representation and metaphor. What should be considered is the end result, with a mind open to considering the full range of possibilities from hard realism to abstract metaphor. I don't necessarily agree with considering artist intent, at least not on first impressions, the end result either works or it doesn't, what they meant to do with it is an intellectual exercise which can lead to deeper understanding later, but is not really relevant to initial critique (beyond the ultimate effectiveness of the work). In other words, it's one thing to discuss the intrinsic merit of the work, and it's another thing to discuss the success of the work with regard to the artist's intent. If you have to explain it to me, it doesn't work the way you intended it to. If you intend to show me sadness and emotional depth and what I see is a black and white picture of a tree, then your telling me what you intended, when I get nothing of that from the actual work, is useless to me, except in terms of my telling you that what you intended didn't come through to me.
posted by biscotti at 12:13 PM on April 2, 2004


Would you consider this to be portraiture, either in realist or metaphorical terms?


posted by jazzkat11 at 1:00 PM on April 2, 2004


Should metaphor be taken from photography, or should photos only be approached (or critiqued) as realist?

That sounds a bit strange to me - it's sort of as if you're asking if there are rules about how to view art? Anyhow, as someone with an Art History degree, who has taught history of photography, I think you can definitely say many photographers have used metaphor and abstraction as themes. Just take a look at photo history. The Pre-Raphaelites (some of the earliest "art" photographers) were a movement based on allegory.
Man Ray, Minor White, Paul Strand . . .I don't think photography would be appreciated as the art it is today without a huge number of abstract and metaphorical artists. Then there are photographers who do both. Take Garry Winogrand or Diane Arbus. They took "straight" or "realist" photographs that were, of course, filled with metaphor.
posted by sixdifferentways at 1:12 PM on April 2, 2004


I think the question sets up a false dichotomy. Nothing prevents realist works of art from being metaphorical. Furthermore, realism is itself a far more complicated set of artistic conventions than one might think. Read Henry James' short story "The Real Thing" for a great early take on your question (though it addresses illustration instead of photography).
posted by smrtsch at 2:51 PM on April 2, 2004


I would suggest you read About Looking by John Berger. It is more interesting than his popular Ways of Seeing and has really affected the way I look at representation both in photography and paintings.

The first four chapters of About Looking are about photography specifically, and you can preview them at the Amazon link.
posted by shotsy at 3:19 PM on April 2, 2004


BTW the above photo is Uta Barth, you know, in case you were wondering. And yes, arguably it is portraiture, both in a metaphorical and realist sort of way.
posted by jazzkat11 at 6:13 PM on April 2, 2004


There are (at least) two ways to look at this (!), both arguable. I think it's helpful to consider both of them.

First, I'm reminded of Andre Bazin's theory of cinema. His argument was that cinema, relative to theater, is in its nature realist and thus realism is its proper mode. I find that argument persuasive and interesting, but ultimately unconvincing.

Second, it's worth considering the fact that conventional photography is really very artificial and quite different from how the eye and mind "see". While I suppose it is in some sense the most realistic of the conventional representational arts; it's still such a long way from our experience of reality that it's probably best for a photographer to deeply understand how a camera "lies" rather than how it tells the truth.

Conventional oral or written narrative seems very representational. But how faithful is it, really? It seems clear to me that if one, as an artist, does not feel compelled to use words only in their most literal sense, then why should one feel compelled to use light and film in the most literal sense?

But distrust the advice of anyone who is doctrinaire on these matters.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:27 AM on April 3, 2004


« Older Windows Syncing Software for Website Backup, But...   |   Where's the best bet for cheap domain name based... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.