Looking at the 1x gallery of conceptual pictures I find a great diversity in style, expression and the intended message. Some pictures are extreme simple with a single or few subjects and kept in a single color – others are complex with a lot of subjects and a lot of colors. I would like to discuss if the conceptual pictures have common characteristics, characteristics that we can find in them all – and is those characteristics that make the pictures conceptual?

I can may be add, what i feel to be conceptual. To me conceptual images are those in which i try to visualize an idea a story deeper than the usual one.

 

I mean: In a non conceptual image i show somethign that interests me.

 

In a conceptual image i follow an idea. Most of my concepts are series. Like "about isolation" or the images of Marei sitting in lomely places.

Conceptual can be a similar development (series of vaseline lens or lens baby. Whatever

 

But conceptual to me has nothing to do with the content like amout of elements, colors or so.

 

So my opinion would be, that a concept can be seen and realised in an image but in my eyes not by general characteristics

Offhand I can think of two rather distinct cases though both can be applicable at once. Maybe there are more possibilities. All examples are from 1X.

 

First, a conceptual picture might show one thing but the viewer is supposed , or invited, to think about something rather different. For example, Victoria Ivanova is often shooting pears. Well, they might be just pears, with nothing else as a prop, but we immediately see that the shot is not just still life with pears, but conceptually pears are people in a certain life situation.

 

Second, when a picture is showing familiar objects in relations not existing in real life, like many Kaveh's pictures, one can be reasonably sure that the author meant such a picture to be a conceptual one. Then usually the author meant to say a story, or induce a complex mood, or wanted us to feel allusions etc.

 

It's a different issue whether the author's story, mood, allegories, allusions are perceived by viewers the same way as the author meant it. The more complex the picture is, the less chances the viewer will feel or think the same as the author. Is the picture bad if we don't get its concept? Depends on whom you ask. Some like a single interpretation only, understandable to pretty much everybody. Some treasure the mere existence of multiple interpretations and conceptual pictures offer multiple interpretations, more often than not.

 

If you would like to try your perceptiveness on complex conceptual pictures - try Sauco...

 

Anna

 

I've read your posts, very interesting for me because i've tried to define what a conceptual photo is without being satisfied by any definition.

 

i always thought a conceptual photo was a photo that conveys a message, but as a matter of fact we could say every photo conveys a message, even the most descriptive photo.

Something simple like a landscape can tell you "he ! Look at this landscape I'm sharing with you, this is a place i love, what about you ? does it inspire you too ?"

 

That's the reason why my definition fails i think.

 

I like Anna's definition :

 

"a conceptual picture might show one thing but the viewer is supposed , or invited, to think about something rather different. For example, Victoria Ivanova is often shooting pears. Well, they might be just pears, with nothing else as a prop, but we immediately see that the shot is not just still life with pears, but conceptually pears are people in a certain life situation......

 

I "tried" Sauco, "not my cup of tea" but a very interesting example ;-)

 

MC

 

I've just added a photo, as a test, can this be regarded as a (simple) conceptual photo, considering the title. Does it convey anything to you ?

Is the title appropriate in your opinion ? is it in any way interesting, i dont' mean technically speaking but as a conceptual picture.

 

I'm not expecting compliments of any kind, i just wish to hear sincere comments.

 

Did I understand the notion of conceptual photography or not at all ?

 

Thanks,

 

See you latter,

 

MC

Sorry, i meant see you "later".

Ah - we have a discussion going - great!

 

Well, the reason for starting this discussion is that I, like Marie-Claude, also operate with a faulty self definition for conceptual photography - conveying a message.

 

As an engineer of education I like when thinks can be described precise and accurate - I know that photography of this kind is some "fluffy" stuff, but on the other hand it should be possible to "get to the core" of conceptual photography.

 

As I read your post so far, there is a strong tendency towards conceptual pictures being the visualization of ideas, thoughts and complex feelings, meaning that the viewer should not see the objects in the picture as they are, but instead interpret the photographers meaning with them.

 

The example with Victoria Ivanova's pears is real good, because it is so clear to every one that we look at humans - not pears. But would the pictures still be conceptual if I made the same pictures, but with humans instead??? and would they be as interesting as Victoria's work???

 

yes, Sauco's pictures are a good example of really complex conceptual pictures, with a lot of references to religion, Russian culture and history. All though some of his pictures are in the "strong end" for me (I have and issue with distorted/deformed bodies), I can not stop looking at them again and again, and every time I discover new details and clues. I do not think that any people is in doubt that Sauco is conceptual.

 

Could a definition (or part of a definition) on conceptual photography be that the picture contain some element of symbolism???

 

@Marie-Claude - For me, this picture become conceptual trough the title. "Life, maybe" and the black bird flying over the frozen forest, immediately turn my thoughts towards the meaning of life and how our time here a spend in the best way. The black bird my be lonely, flying over the frozen world, but it can choose to go wherever it want to. That it is a black bird could symbolize that people choosing the free life do often feel excluded or unwanted in some way - maybe they did not chose this life them self. That the forest is frozen could be seen as a symbol of a world, where there is nothing of value for the bird (the materialized world). Without the title or with a descriptive title "black bird over winter forest" the picture would lose it meaning and value to me.

 

/Peter

 

Hi Peter,

 

I like your answer !

 

"Without the title or with a descriptive title "black bird over winter forest" the picture would lose it meaning and value to me. "

 

I think you are right and this shows the weakness of my photo, it needs its title !

 

Very good analysis, i appreciate your sincerity a lot ! :-)

 

MC

I agree with Peter: the title does move the picture towards conceptual. Without the title I'd categorize it as Mood perhaps, and a rather elegiac one, with very strong intertwined colors and textures of the forest. I do not subscribe to a common idea that an artistic picture must stand on its own and a title "has no right" of adding anything to it.

 

I think it's impossible to say in advance whether humans instead of Victoria's pears would be more interesting or less interesting. It so depends on their faces, their clothes, their age - you name it. Chances are - less conceptual, yes, but not necessarily.

 

Mentioning symbolism is good, because symbols are, by definition, representing something else and not just "themselves". Symbols are usually sort of universal, at least within some society. Conceptual imagery can deal with very personal concepts as well, and not necessarily something more universally and readily understood.

 

Quite the opposite I think - Your title lift the picture from ordinary to art, but it is not a weakness in the picture - it is the strength in the title...

 

Personally, I hate (maybe to strong a word) when picture do not have a title or just a descriptive title. Even the quality of a portrait can be improved by a carefully throughout title.

 

Like Anna mention do some people work with the philosophy that pictures should stand on there own without a title. I understand the arguments for that, for example that everyone, despite language, can understand the picture, but on the other hand (working this philosophy) should we that renounce using colors to please the colorblind or renounce have small details in the pictures to please visually impaired???

 

Do any of you know a conceptual artist who work without titles and where the message is universal and clear???

 

I think that the world have reached a point where we need to agree a some common language. Writing this I am sitting in Tatarstand, Russia, where very little speak foreign languages - Ironic in some way.

 

Coming back to the subject I think that titles on picture are so short that people can overcome translating it, If they really care about photography. I know that some can be lost in translation, but until we find that common language, we must live with that. Renouncing titles would in my opinion destroy a lot of beautiful pictures.

 

 

I many of the pictures I have on the drawing board I try to exploit the fact that symbolism is not universal universal, but many times on universal within a limited society. I work with all kind of symbolism - religions, colors, artifacts, gender ect. in an attempt to create pictures that carry two completely opposite meanings ... It is not easy in any way and I will probably fail to some extend, but it is very interesting and rewarding to work with. I have realized the importance of beauty and ascetics in these pictures as a kind of "fail safe". If the message do not burn trough to the viewer it will not be a complete disaster because instead they "just" get a pure visual artistic experience - and time is not wasted.

 

/P

Hi All,

 

I don’t forum much, but I do like the new 1x and thought I would start being active in the forums that interest me. This one is my preferred style, mostly because what I do, I consider conceptual photography. But the more you think of it, the harder it is to define. I have read the posts in this thread and all have strong points about what is or isn’t conceptual, so I thought I would put my two cents in regarding the defining characteristics of “conceptual.” I think it is analogous to a scripted film compared to a documentary. One is conceived, storyboarded, written and pre-planned, the other is shot as is, no-frills, little editing, rooted in coverage and reality. This is not to say that a random shot cannot become a conceptual piece, either by editing or by happenstance, but generally, whether in-camera or put together in editing, whether coming together instantly or slaved over for days or weeks, I think a conceptual piece is something contrived, not in a negative sense, but deliberately put forth with symbolism or implication to suggest other levels beyond the visual information alone. At least, that is my take on it!

 

Not to be an ass, but I am really frustrated trying to follow this thread. I just started reading this topic today and I have no idea what image Marie-Claude "added" or how to see it while I read this. The old way was cumbersome too but at least you could scroll up and find it. Here I have to click through a whole gallery to find one image that was added 7 days ago. AND you can't click through the list, you have to hit back each time.....

Clyde, I believe this is the image she was referring to:

http://1x.com/photo/94543/group:27

 

Good question difficult to answer....

 

Wikipedia defines Conceptual photography as "a type of photography that illustrates an idea." that still leaves a lot of options open. It expands it a bit more by adding "As a methodology conceptual photography is a type of photography that is staged to represent an idea."

 

Since a lot of pictures can be seen as something that illustrates an idea or which contains something that can be thought about I think that is not enough to define "conceptual"

In conceptual photography the idea of the maker (concept) is the most important thing, the concept from which a 'recipe' is distilled, which then is executed in some way. It has to do with the artist turning his concept into some kind of visual reality by means of photography, or showing it by means of photography

 

That gives it a rather narrow bandwidth though.

 

In a way my own "Speed of Light" http://1x.com/photo/47283/all:user:37615 could be seen as a conceptual image, because I set out to make something like this, but I wouldn's include it in the category, because the idea of making a particular type of image for me would lack real 'intellectual' substance to name it "Conceptual"

Being one of those whose photos had been removed I think I have to appologize not having really had an idea about conceptual photography. I just had looked at the photos that were uploaded before and I thought some of my photos would fit into this group.

 

Now I read a little about conceptual photogrphy and I guess that I havn't allready worked in this category. As it is just the beginning for me to set me apart with this theme I understood that normally you first have an idea and then you put it into your photo ( or a serie of photos). And symbols seems to play a certain role.

 

But what about a photo I shot just because i liked the situation and afterwards I think it could stand for an idea. In other words: can the title of a photo make a simple photo to a conceptual one? For instance I made a photo of an escavator demolishing a house. It looked as if a big dragon was eating the house so i called the photo "hungry". Would it be more conceptual if I called it "transience of earthly"? This is the photo I am talking about: http://1x.com/photo/114857/all:user:257460

 

 

Hanne, I do not see any problem in making a photo conceptual in retro perspective. I often "make" other peoples pictures conceptual by coming up with my own title when studying the picture - I works well for me and it is also in retro perspective. Becoming more philosophic and deep you can argue that the parts and the future are concepts themselves - only the present is real. Past and future only exist as concepts and exist because we have the mental capability to project or thoughts around things that have happen or may happen...

 

Talking about past and future, you picture "hungry" makes me think of how we "manipulate" the past and the future by actions in the present. The dragon is eating the past and there by changing the future for the space where the house is...

Peter thanks for your reply. Well maybe we have a new point of view about conceptual photography: I guess there could be some philosophy with it. In this case as you say "only the present is real", a core set of Buddhism.

 

Well it is the core set of may ways of seeing life :-)

i'm in love with the conceptual creations, they really allow me to make tangible

ideas, dreams, emotions.

i mentally compose the image at night before sleeping, on my bed, whatching the cieling, and the day after i make my idea come true, it's a kind of magic, it's like painting, you can create whatever you like, and it becomes real.

Great inputs from a lot of you. In my personal conceptual work, I am thinking of (conceptual) photography as a means to bring an artistic vision to life, much like a painter uses a brush and canvas. So it is on the exact opposite end of the scale from photojournalism. It is carefully planned, evolved, agreed upon by a team, staged, finely tuned and ends with a post-production, that brings everything together. I am well aware, that there are other approaches to conceptual art - e.g. maybe you are someone who has the ability to see deeper meaning in everyday scenes and objects and invite us to join your thoughts. But for me there has to be a certain degree of control over the output. Not 100% though. Surprises and accidents happen, when we let them and sometimes these surprises are so much more effective then what we had envisioned.

 

So what takes this apart from commercial photography then? There are certainly some similarities. We wan't to catch the viewers attention, draw him in, convey something that lingers on his mind. However it's not a product/service/etc. It's the actual concept we are advertising.

Don't need no stinkin' studio with strobes!! BTW, don't show these to Dave

 

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/05/manon-wethlys-instagram-photos-of-airborne-beverages/

 

Hello Marie-Claude Couillard:

Reading all comments, observing images by this theme, I have also problems to give my images in a right file.

But that have also others by other files.

1.What is a concept? Planning and than doing, not more. Yes you can make also a serie or one work.

2.I do not like give a title, because I suggest an idea of mine, but the oberserver will decide, what he is seeing.

 

To me it is interesting if others tells me, what they are seeing without a title, they have to think about it.

If they are seeing nothing, they should ask you.

 

I hope I could explain my intension of this theme.

 

How to express a concept?

As convey the concept?

The "conceptual photo" is the "subjectivity" par excellence

As convey eg happiness, freedom, the emotion?

For each one of us will be different.

Always depend on the "empirical knowledge" of each.

For example, I imagine the freedom and happiness ... and inspires me a childhood free, happy, ...

 

http://1x.com/photo/243932/all:user:423930

 

"Thousand viewfinders = thousand visions = thousand versions"

I suspect that this thread is dead, but I have been struggling with the difference between the Conceptual and the Mood categories. It would seem to me that Conceptual art has both ideas and mood, but at the same time, Mood has both mood and ideas. What is the difference? For my own sanity, I assume if it is more about the idea and less about the mood, then it is Conceptual. There are some Conceptualists that attempt to divorce mood completely from their work. We look at a piece of work posted in Conceptual and decide up or down, yes or no, that it should or should not be published. What is the essence of a Conceptual piece that would warrant it's being placed on a wall in MOMA?

basically conceptual photo is an expression of the soul, mood attracted me to get into his world and I try to find my soul in a conceptual photo. example photos:

 

"a lonely soul"

 

https://1x.com/photo/1277216/all:user:518207