There has been an ongoing dialog sparked by Colin Jago on Stills regarding Content versus Form. I think that the word ‘content’ became stickyer when prehaps I tried to use the word ‘meaning’ to try to help understand ‘content’, as use in “the photographic image had this content”. Thus, I found that we were able to get more agreement regading the use of the word ‘form’ when discussing what a photographic image is (about).
For an engineer like myself, I did not dwell much on the use of langage as much as I did the science of nature. Perhaps this is why photography appeals to me, I can go straight from my feeling about something, create an image of it and there it is, without having to explain my feeling or the resulting image. It is what it is and there it is, so go look and see it. Not many words in that process;- )
Form is the structure of the image as well as what structure is in the image, likewise for ‘color’ and ’shape’. This I can easily understand. A photograph has a very defined structure; it is a flat plane with defined edges and a tactial feel to it. On it lays either on the surface or slighly inbedded in the surface structure, a whole lot of dots that I can not make out, but create an image that also has its own form.
On the surface of this paper is the image that are also some forms (color, structure, shape) I can (or can not) easily recognize and add my words that are associated with the form I see; a ‘house’ on a ‘road’ with a ‘clear sky’ and ‘located near’ a ‘palm tree’. The parts of the image also have their own form created by tonal values that represent shadows, mid tones, highlights that reinforce what it is I think that it is, e.g. the ‘house’ in the mid-day sun.
I believe that I have a huge influence (or even ‘control’, as much as I don’t like that word as much lately) on the resulting form of the photograph and what the form on the image within.
I am still wrestling with content and meaning, so more about that a later time.
Best regards, Doug
