urban ku # 22 ~ apparatus embodies conventions and assumptions about picturing
Wednesday, January 31, 2007 at 10:33AM 
Trailer at Fern Lake • click on photo to embiggen it I recently came across a book, Photography: A Very Short Introduction by Steve Edwards. I don't own it yet - it's on its way to my house - so I can't really comment on it but Doug Plummer has opined that "The semiotics of photography has never had such an accessible vehicle as this book..."
OK, perhaps, but, try this excerpt on for size; "At the heart of any criticisms of photographic realism is the idea that apparatus embodies conventions and assumptions about picturing. While the consequences of the staged, manipulated, or mocked up image are readily apparent, recognizing the deep conventions underpinning the apparatus can be less straightforward. However, these conventions are no less important for serious understanding of photographs; if anything, the relative invisibility of these determining assumptions makes them more worthy of attention and more insidious in their effects."
I think I understand it.............I think...and that's why I posted Trailer at Fern Lake with this topic. FYI, I created the photograph one day when I was out picturing.
Make any sense to you? Can you relate it to my photograph?
I'll wait for some comments before I chip in on the matter. And, oh yeh, this is a no-time-limit open-book test. You will be graded on a curve.
Featured Comment: Paul Maxim wrote (in part): "...if the rest of the book is written like this paragraph, I'm not jealous that you're going to have it and I'm not. Talk about obtuse language.....My interpretation of what he's talking about (which hinges entirely on my definition of "apparatus") is that our photographs are affected tremendously by our methodology...."
publisher's comment: Without a doubt, Paul is on the money regarding meaning "which hinges entirely (the) definition of 'apparatus'". I suspect, although I can't be sure untill I receive the book and read the chapter titled, Apparatus and the Image, that "apparatus" means much more than just hardware, photographic technique and aesthetic decisions. In fact, I think that those items are probably the least of it.
Again, I suspect that Mr. Edwards, being an academic and all that entails, is probably less interested in the hows than he is in the whys - the (deep) underlying social and cultural conventions that trigger response assumptions in both the photographer during the act of picturing (creating photographs), and the observer during the act of, well, picturing (observing photographs). If you also throw in a heaping spoonful of semiotics - the study of signs and symbols as elements of communicative behavior, I think that you will be much closer to Mr. Edwards meaning of "apparatus".
As far as my photograph is concerned, think of the trailer as a "sign" or "symbol" with underlying communication significance that might create "determininng assumption" on the part of the observer.
PS - everybody gets an "A" just for thinkng about it.
Reader Comments (7)
Very perceptive - Translated from artspeak into English, that says, "go photograph a trailer."
Not sure what you're getting at, unless it's the fact that light falloff and edge blur are characteristic of old equipment, so your treatment lends a nostalgic feel to the scene (anachronistic trailer notwithstanding). Perhaps a hundred years ago those features would not even be noticed, it's just what photos were like.
I think it says that we need to go beyond the pretty picture, to cement the fact that man and nature co-exist and that co-existance is actually reducing the environment to a garbage pile.
But on second thought, I like your wife's take on it too.
So I guess I get my E for effort and my F for failure.
Well, if the rest of the book is written like this paragraph, I'm not jealous that you're going to have it and I'm not. Talk about obtuse language. Why can't people just say what they mean? English doesn't have to be difficult.....
My interpretation of what he's talking about (which hinges entirely on my definition of "apparatus") is that our photographs are affected tremendously by our methodology. If we use a tripod all the time, for example, chances are that all of our images are taken from a height of about 5 - 6 feet. Even handheld, that would generally apply (as in your picture, whichever is the case). What I'm still having trouble with, though, is why this would have an "insidious" effect on interpretation.
I can't wait for your take on this (not to mention my grade).
When we go out in the world with a camera we look for vantage points or compositions that fit the cameras capabilities -- the frame, aspect and power of the camera. This both focuses and limits our vision.
I sometimes go out and wish I could take all of a scene from top to bottom left to right with my camera. This is almost never possible for me.
Other times I'm thinking something like 'I need an image for the calendar month of July. Its got to be of 'nature' in a particular place (usually), beautiful, and w/o any sign of people (a design standard for the calendar)' This makes me somewhat myopic.
The scene with the trailer is beautiful. Cabins in the woods are usually beautiful why not old trailers? This one is -- probably because its obscured by snow and woods and camera angle.
Mark's photos sometimes look to me as if no camera was used -- they look to me like snatches of the world ripped out of a viewers mind. Like prints from a dream of the woods or a lake or whatever. This one has that look.
A photographer makes explicit choices about where to stand, the field of view and how to frame the scene. They make choices based on the subject matter they wish to include or exclude and on the basis of visual design (the colours, lines, textures etc. as abstract elements in 2 dimensional space). These choices determine the meaning and feeling of the photograph. These choices may be governed by various implicit or explicit conventions.
In 'Trailer at Fern Lake' Mark has chosen to stand in a location where there are trees and foliage between him and the trailer. These 'intrusive' elements an integral part of the visual design. The choice to include them as an integral part of the picture is (probably) an explicit choice by Mark. He could have chosen a point of view where the trailer is NOT obscured (by moving to the side or moving closer for example). Perhaps he is trying to show human habitation in the context of the natural environment - a theme he explores frequently.
Oh - and there are a bunch of ferns (I think) in the picture which given the title seems appropriate.
Cheers,
Eric
The conventional assumption that most digital photographers have been made aware of is that using film and standard processing shows the "real colors" in a scene, whereas using digital cameras means you've probably "enhanced" the color. While there may be some justification for this in some cases, it sure isn't based on understanding of how the apparatus actually works.