@Randem

One of the aspects of art that has always fascinated me is power of symbols. There is a truly powerful resource out there for artists to tap into, in the form of everyone else’s prior work. Funny isn’t it?

Symbols carry messages with them. They do a large amount of communicating for the artist. And what’s more, symbols have an advantage over words because whereas an opinion expressed in words will lose most of the portion of its audience who disagrees, the use of a symbol resonates just as much with those who agree with it as with those who do not.

Let’s take a look at a few examples of symbols, and consider some of the various thoughts and emotions they can evoke:

• Religious Symbols. Religious symbols of any kind can evoke a whole range of thoughts and emotions in their viewer. They have the ability to align the viewer with the subject of the photo if s/he is a member of the religion, whereas a non-believer will be aligned against the subject.
• Military Emblems. Military emblems can imply patriotism, strength, and power to those aligned with them, whereas they can at times convey ideas like oppression and injustice to those who do not.
• Corporate Logos. Many people will have many different opinions of the companies or ideas associated with a corporation and its logo.
• Historical Icons. Famous scenes, such as raising the flag over Iwo Jima, the protester in Tienanmen Square, Michael Jackson’s white glove, and Nixon’s “peace” sign all have personal meaning for the viewer.
• Real World Objects. Many items in the real-world have specific uses that convey meaning: candles can have spiritual significance; chains can indicate captivity; masks can represent anonymity, or pretense; money can symbolize power, greed, etc.

When used well, a symbol can take an average idea and make it into a truly powerful image. For instance, imagine the difference between a photo of a man pointing a gun at another man when compared to the same image if the man with the gun is also clinging tightly to his Bible. How much stronger is the emotional connection to the second image?

Similarly, how boring is the typical group photo? Everyone bunched in, arms around one another, all wearing that goofy fake smile. What if everyone posed like Charlie’s Angels? Or Michael Jackson’s Thriller?

What are some possible symbols that could be used to make your photo more interesting? Here are a few ideas…

Charlie’s Angels
Michael Jackson’s Thriller
Raising the flag over Iwo Jima
Lunch atop a skyscraper
Mona Lisa
Gabrielle d’Estrees and one of her sisters
sitting in yoga “lotus” position
the crucifixion
The Last Supper
“Air” Jordan
Michelangelo’s “David”
the Unabomber
The Statue of Liberty
Hopper’s “Nighthawks”
Rocky
A Coke and a smile
Rosie the Riveter

Does something else come to mind that you don’t see listed? Please, feel free to add it in the comments!

So I’m walking back from Home Depot — it’s maybe 10 blocks through the city for me — and as I cross Broadway a man comes from behind me and says “you should find an ash tray, or quit smoking, or something, you loser.”

Well geez, that was pretty hostile. Naturally, I fired back, “hey, go preach to someone who gives a shit, asshole.”

His response? “Hey, screw you, ya loser. Why don’t ya think about that, huh? Think about why I said that to you, ya loser.”

And my silver-tongued response, naturally, was to make all the curious onlookers laugh: “I already know why you said it. Your father was an alcoholic and your mom didn’t hug you enough, and you’re filled with the rage of 45 years of virginity, so the only thing that makes you feel better is calling people names as you pass them on the street. Who’s the loser?”

And yes. People did laugh.

But I did think about it. I did, as he said, think about why he might say that to me. Who knows? Maybe some of my cigarette ashes flew into his eye — that would be unpleasant. Or maybe I didn’t put out my butt all the way and he burned his big, gross, sausage toes on it as he walked by in his stupid looking man-sandals. Who knows? Whatever the case, it was more than coincidence, because he was upset.

What stands out most, however, is that this 40-year-old virgin thought the way to make himself understood was to cuss people out. It’s kinda silly when you think about it, because if he had said, “hey, man, your cigarette ash burned me… you might want to be more careful,” I would have felt sorry and immediately taken the opportunity to apologize and we could have had a semi-pleasant interaction. And moreover, I would have been more careful about whatever it was from that point on, because I’d be concerned for the people around me.

But instead, he never told me what his problem was. All he did was call names and make a fool of himself. And now, every time I’m near that street corner, I’ll be looking for him so I can flick a cigarette butt at him. Mission accomplished, eh douchebag?

So my point is this… anger really doesn’t solve anything. Nevermind the fact that people have more respect for a man who is in control of his emotions… but how about the thought that being calm about expressing his problem might have actually gotten him a better result? I, for one, learned from this experience that it’s important to express myself in a positive, friendly manner the next time I’m inconvenienced by a stranger.

I don’t know what I think is worse, the fact that John McCain’s latest campaign ad has sunken low enough to call Obama the Antichrist, or the fact that there are people out there who are actually buying into this horseshit.

There is so much wrong with this that I don’t know where to start. I suppose a good place to start is Snopes, which points out plainly how much bullshit all the antichrist talk is anyway.

But I’m really mind-blown at the baseness and audacity of such an ad. I mean seriously, people… how can you even call that political? This is the equivalent of campaigning on a message of “elect me because my opponent is clearly better than me, and that makes him evil.” And this from the guy who promised to run a policy-based campaign without attacks. Come on!

Moreover, doesn’t this defy all logic? I mean, if Christians truly believe the horseshit they keep telling each other, then they should welcome the antichrist! I can’t believe I’m even humoring the thought of it, but let’s just go down that road for a minute…

So let’s play along, and assume there actually will be an armageddon, and that we’re near the “end times”, and that the antichrist had just made his appearance. If you really believe in all that bullshit, you should be happy! You should be celebrating! It would signal the beginning of God’s great plan, and you’re going to magically disappear anyway, right?

And wouldn’t it be heresy to vote against him? If he really is the antichrist, wouldn’t a vote against his election be the equivalent of a vote against God’s plan? Wouldn’t it make sense then to say that voting against the antichrist is voting for evil? Because, after all, by working against the master plan, you are actively trying to keep “the devil” in the world and delay its destruction?

Yeah.

So the fact that these religious nut-jobs and assholes are actually biting this bait proves something much bigger: deep down inside, they really don’t believe any of this horseshit either. They’re afraid the world will end, but they don’t really believe they’re going to be spared (or “saved”, as they call it in their cult code language). A vote against a possible antichrist is the equivalent of saying “I want to live — right here on earth — because I’m not sure I really believe in this place called heaven, or my place therein.” And thus the entire religious argument uravels yet again. Funny how that always happens when you follow logic.

Which leads me back around to where I started. I just don’t know which I find more offensive: the hideous depravity of Republican campaign tactics, or the self-deluded masses who are, like sheep, swallowing it up.

I just took the ALA Survey 2008 for people who work with the web, and I encourage anyone else in a web-related profession to take it as well.

One of the most important aspects of planning a photographic project is knowing your audience. This happens in two parts: one is determining who your target audience will be, and the other is determining who you want them to be.

Today, I want to deal with the first part: Knowing who you expect to be viewing your photo(s). It’s good to ask yourself a few questions about your audience:

Who is your audience?
Do you expect them to be mostly women? Mostly men? Mostly children? Are they motorcycle enthusiasts? Boaters? Campers? Hunters? Dentists? Sports fans? Cat lovers?

Children don’t understand politics. Women don’t understand football. Men don’t understand women. You might get a teenager’s attention with photos of a band. You can usually get a woman’s attention with photos of shoes. You can always get a man’s attention with photos of women.

By what means will they encounter the photo?
Is this photo going to be published in a magazine? Will it be included in an article, or standing alone? Is it for an advertisement? A billboard? Is it going in a brochure? Is it an art piece, to be displayed in a gallery showing? Is it a product photo for eBay?

Yes, it’s safe to assume that a photo being printed in Cosmo is going to be viewed by women, whereas a photo printed in Sports Illustrated should target men. A product photo for Macy’s has a different audience than one for J C Penney, and neither is like Abercrombie.

What do you know about their personality?
Is the average viewer going to be someone who tends to be very conservative or liberal? Will they respond to religious imagery? Are they likely to be politically active? Romantic? Humanitarian? What social groups are they likely to relate to?

For some people a photo of a Bible evokes deep, personal meaning. Others just see a book. A humanitarian may view a photo of a homeless person completely differently from how a capitalist might see it.

What experiences do they bring with them?
Are they likely to have experienced a wedding? A funeral? A death in the family? Are they likely to have eaten a hotdog at a baseball stadium? Cotton candy at the fairground? Have they been in a car accident? Been in a submarine? A casino? A hospital? A snowstorm?

Some people love them, and some people hate them, but either way, most people have strong feelings about clowns. The same might be said about cats. Or priests. Or guns. Or naked women.

Sometimes, simply adding one of these themes will draw out strong, unpredictable emotional responses from your viewers. How can you use your photo to draw these memories and emotions out of the viewer?

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of gun ownership today in the matter of District of Columbia v. Dick Heller, saying “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”

This has Chicago politicians all in a huff, because this will inevitably spawn challenges against a similar handgun ban that has been in place here for the past 26 years. Well I say “quit your fucking whining.”

As the old saying goes, if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns. It’s hard to argue with that. Making it illegal to own a gun only means that people who follow the law will stop owning guns. But for those who regularly scoff the law, a ban means nothing.

The Chicago Tribune quotes a related legal brief:

“Chicago, like other big cities, has a compelling interest in reducing crime related to firearms,” the brief states. ” Chicago Police Department statistics show that from 2004 to November 2007 there were 43,685 firearms-related violent crimes in the city.”

So by the city’s own police statistics admit that over an (admittedly ambiguous) period of approximately 3-4 years, there were 43,685 gun-related crimes committed in a city where gun ownership has been illegal for a two-and-one-half decades! We’re talking about somewhere between 10,000 and 14,000 per year!

This quotation mentions nothing of whether or not the victims in these crimes also owned firearms, but I’m willing to assert that they probably did not. Why? Because it’s usually the law-abiding citizen who is a victim, while it is criminals (by definition) who commit crimes.

Isn’t it easy to think that these criminals might have an inflated sense of bravado, knowing how strongly the odds suggest that whomever they point a gun at will probably be unarmed? And isn’t it also easy to imagine that they might think twice if they knew there was a good chance of their intended victim being armed and capable of defending him- or herself?

The way to reduce crime is not to ban guns, it’s to encourage them. Admittedly, this may initially result in some fatal escalations. But when the gang-bangers and the burglars realize that they don’t just have to be faster than the cops (they have to be faster than a speeding bullet!), they might reconsider their activities.

That’s my opinion. What’s yours?

I remember cringing every time I heard President Bush utter that phrase — “the American dream of homeownership.” It always rubbed me the wrong way. (Sorry, Mr. Bush, The American Dream stands for something much bigger than owning a home.)

So how has that all worked out for us? An op-ed in the New York Times seems to think not:

Owning a home lies at the heart of the American dream.” So declared President Bush in 2002, introducing his “Homeownership Challenge” — a set of policy initiatives that were supposed to sharply increase homeownership, especially for minority groups.

Oops. While homeownership rose as the housing bubble inflated, temporarily giving Mr. Bush something to boast about, it plunged — especially for African-Americans — when the bubble popped. Today, the percentage of American families owning their own homes is no higher than it was six years ago, and it’s a good bet that by the time Mr. Bush leaves the White House homeownership will be lower than it was when he moved in.

Now, as the real-estate market still hasn’t found its bottom, and foreclosures keep coming in, homeownership will be the domain of investors, and I argue that greater percentage of American families will rent, rather than own, when compared to the numbers before Bush decided to take credit for housing.

I’ve recently written a pair of posts about the difference between taking a photo and making a photo, and the whole subject of this difference has really gotten my mind going on the subject. It would seem that I’ve got quite a lot of opinions about it!

Photo takers capture what happens to be there. Some may prefer it this way, but I believe many have simply never thought about what it would take to me a photo maker, so this will be an introduction to what is involved in making a photo.

Knowing your goal

Failing to plan is planning to fail. A good photo must start with a goal. It is important to determine up front what you want to accomplish. What thought or emotion do you want to convey? Is the photo going to represent a professional? Is it going to be used on a business card? Is it a glamor photo? An editorial? An art piece? Is it meant to sell clothing? Is it meant to illustrate a procedure? Determining the purpose up front is an important part of making a great photo.

Knowing your audience
There are actually two parts to knowing your audience. The first is determining who your viewers will be. The reason for this is that you choose imagery to which your audience will relate. For instance, if your photo is about the strong taking advantage of the weak, an adult may relate to a photo of a group of police beating up on a minority, whereas a child might relate better to a bigger kid stealing lunches from a smaller kid.

The second part of knowing your audience is determining who you want them to be. This helps you to determine aspects of the photo such as camera angle. Should the viewer be emotionally neutral to the scene? Should they feel disoriented? Are they meant to revere the subject? Scorn it? For instance, if the viewer is meant to take the side of the bully, shoot from up high, over the bully’s shoulder. If the viewer is meant to take the side of the underdog, shoot from a low angle, up into the bully’s menacing face.

Choosing a subject

While those who take photos may already have some control over their subject, the control that is introduced when you make a photo may be quite new. Will you choose a subject with hard, chiseled features? Do you want a soft, friendly face? How should they be dressed? How should they be posed?

Choosing a location
What clues can your choice of location add to the photo? Again, with the bully example, how could your choice of location help or hurt that photo? What idea would the photo convey if you shot it at night, in a warehouse district, by the loading dock? How might that idea be different if you shoot during the day, near the merry-go-round, at a park? What about in a parking garage, surrounded by dozens of onlookers?

Controlling your lighting
Perhaps one of the most daunting of new factors one encounters in the switch to making a photo is the total control of lighting. How much light do you need? Where do you need it? Should the light be at the front? On the side? High? Low? Do you want long, ominous shadows, or soft, pleasant shading? Do you have a lot of detail that needs to be filled in? What if the light was set up that the bully’s face was hidden in a shadow… how might that change the meaning of our photo?

Composition
In addition to all the “golden rules” of composition, there are, again, new ideas to consider when “making” a photo? What part of the scene do you put in? What part should you leave out? How might you crop the shot to change its meaning? Can you use a different lens to cut out the cars in the parking garage? Can you assign a new meaning by tilting your camera to the right or left?

I’m certain that there are more aspects that could have been included, but hopefully this is enough to get the mind going, and start you thinking about how you could exercise a little control over different aspects of your photography in order to make more interesting photos.

Recently, I discussed the topic of “taking” photos vs. “making” photos. Today I’d like to continue on that thought.

The question is: What kind of photographer are you? What kind of photographer do you want to be?

There are two kinds of photographers: journalists and artists. Both require skill, but each uses it differently. One uses his camera to record the facts, the other uses his camera to express a fiction. One produces photos that are documentary, the other produces photos that are fantasy. In other words, one takes photos, while the other makes photos.

Taking a photo
The photojournalist takes photos. He “captures” a scene. He records an event. When you look at a roll of his photos in a series, you see the story of what happened. While photojournalism can often evoke an emotion (example), the photos themselves are a cold, sterile retelling of fact.

Those who tend toward photojournalism — those who tend to take photos — find their niche in such realms as news photography, war photography, sports photography, street photography, or doing school portraits.

Making a photo

The photo-artist, on the other hand, makes photos. He “creates” a scene. He sells an idea. When you look at a roll of his photos in series, you form the story of what could be, what might be, what you imagine, what you want. The very intent is to convey a thought or an emotion. Facts are covered up, because they distract too much from the fiction.

Those who tend more toward photography as an art — those who prefer to make photos — usually find their place in fashion photography, glamour photography, fine art photography, commercial photography, or stock photography.

Both of the photos on this page have the same meaning to me. One says it through through the cold retelling of fact, while the other conveys it through the expression of an idea.

This is the kind of spam I’d like to get more of:

Subject: FW: WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?

There are many things people do not know about BARACK OBAMA. It is every American’s duty to read this message and pass it along to all of their friends and loved ones.

Barack Obama wears a FLAG PIN at all times. Even in the shower.

Barack Obama says the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE every time he sees an American flag. He also ends every sentence by saying, “WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.” Click here for video of Obama quietly mouthing the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE in his sleep.

A tape exists of Michelle Obama saying the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE at a conference on PATRIOTISM.

Every weekend, Barack and Michelle take their daughters HUNTING.

Barack Obama is a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He has one HAND over his HEART at all times. He occasionally switches when one arm gets tired, which is almost never because he is STRONG.

Barack Obama has the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tattooed on his stomach. It’s upside-down, so he can read it while doing sit-ups.

There’s only one artist on Barack Obama’s iPod: FRANCIS SCOTT KEY.

Barack Obama is a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. His favorite book is the BIBLE, which he has memorized. His name means HE WHO LOVES JESUS in the ancient language of Aramaic. He is PROUD that Jesus was an American.

Barack Obama goes to church every morning. He goes to church every afternoon. He goes to church every evening. He is IN CHURCH RIGHT NOW.

Barack Obama’s new airplane includes a conference room, a kitchen, and a MEGACHURCH.

Barack Obama’s skin is the color of AMERICAN SOIL.

Barack Obama buys AMERICAN STUFF. He owns a FORD, a BASEBALL TEAM, and a COMPUTER HE BUILT HIMSELF FROM AMERICAN PARTS. He travels mostly by FORKLIFT.

Barack Obama says that Americans cling to GUNS and RELIGION because they are AWESOME.