Emotion in landscape photographs

ancient_mariner

ancient_mariner

Moderator
Messages
27,780
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
For various reasons I am able to display some of my photos in the coffee area at work, rotating images from time to time. This week I popped up some new images and while discussing them with a friend over lunch, he mentioned that a couple of the images were full of emotion, while another was quite cold. I don't really 'get' emotion in landscapes, which may be a reason I find it difficult to select pictures that people will respond well to, but I would like to try to understand what it is about an image of a landscape that produces an emotional response, if someone is willing and able to explain it.

This is the image that generated the first comment about having a lot of emotion:
LordDowding-9426 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

This was his favourite image, the sky reminding him of the ceilings found in older theatres, though missing the cherubs usually seen.
Cherwellvalleypano-5159 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

And this image he described as quite cold, and without emotion at all.
Middletonstoneypano-9081 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

Bear in mind that there were prints, so shadow areas tend to convey less information at a distance of several feet than when viewing by transmitted light from a distance of around 24".
 
I suspect this is a very personal thing and you might get different answers from different people but I think it may come down to personal memories. The first picture evokes memories of steam trans and sunny days, i.e. happy days. The second, as he said, reminds him of happy times in an old theatre ( does nothing for me ) The third picture...... I don't know..... nothing wrong with it but it is a little clinical.

Just my opinion though :)

regards
Graham
 
It is, as it is bound to be, a very subjective business, and though consensus might be found it will never be universal. Not only do we have different personalities and consciousnesses but we also might have different cultural backgrounds.

For some people, 'emotion' is more a cerebral experience and for others it is more visceral. Emotion can vary in depth too between cheap sentiment and something that can move the world.

What someone sees in (or feels about) a photograph is what they bring to it, and not necessarily what the photographer thinks that they have engineered. That is normal and their right.

I think that essentially we have to make photographs for ourselves, whilst questioning what we have produced as to its technical quality and its range of functions.
 
Last edited:
The first image has a lot going on in it - it's 'busy' with colours and textures from the meadow and trees, as well as having the train expressing motion as a reinforcement. So I imagine many people might respond to it more strongly. Maybe you should sample the reaction of more viewers than the one you quote.

I could go on about the other images but less in the terms of your query and of this forum section ...
 
Smells sounds and images are powerful provokers of our memory. this is greatly enhanced if strong emotion was involved at that time.

Some events are by their nature full of emotion and in some way shared by many people, perhaps not identically, but the events they recall are very similar to those evoked by a particular image.
This is unlikely to be the case if it is entirely outside their experience . Similar but not identical events and places, can also trigger these emotional responses.

It is very unlikely that every one will respond to the same things, neither in the same way nor to the same extent.

I personally find the three images in the OP invoke very little emotional response, even though they do link to some less specific memories.

I find I respond more directly, to smells and sounds, as they can be more profoundly evocative.
 
Last edited:
Graham Roberthall said:
this is a very personal thing and you might get different answers from different people but I think it may come down to personal memories.
Click to expand...


Graham's reply suggests wisely that there is a
communication process, a very unidirectional
and at a subjective level. I agree with that.

A picture, like any other form of document (text
of all kinds and even videos) is created to trans-
port information that may do one or both of these:
inform and/or inspire.

The photographer has little to no control on the
viewer's emotional receptivity thus the subjective
response. OTH, the photographer has the deci-
sion power to create to document a scene or to
inspire through an image… but in then end, it all
boils down to the viewer sensitivity to a given sub-
jet and its expression via the artistic intent of the
image creator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbw
Kodiak Qc said:
The photographer has little to no control on the
viewer's emotional receptivity thus the subjective
response. OTH, the photographer has the deci-
sion power to create to document a scene or to
inspire through an image… but in then end, it all
boils down to the viewer sensitivity to a given sub-
jet and its expression via the artistic intent of the
image creator.
Click to expand...
Which replicates what I just said, n'est ce pas? But I'm not grumbling!
 
droj said:
Which replicates what I just said, n'est ce pas? But I'm not grumbling!
Click to expand...


When I started my reply, it was after Graham's.
My son need me in studio for some time and I
quickly completed my thoughts in my reply but
did not have the time to look at the other replies.

I'm happy to share the same PoV! :cool:
 
I agree with most of the comments made. For me, there are 3 possible ways to view a photographic image. You can look at in order to apprise its technical merit ( exposure, sharpness, composition etc), you can view it as a pleasing or not pleasing image ( usually based on personal preferences, favourites, past experiences, contemporary fashion etc) or you can try to 'read' the image to see if it has an obvious or perhaps hidden message ( allegorical, metaphorical, symbolic etc) .
I think it was the great landscape photographer Ansel Adams who said there was, at a minimum, two people in every picture - the photographer and the viewer.
 
I do agree that all viewers bring their own experiences and psychological make-up to their appreciation of images. However I'm a sceptical type and I suspect that some people say this sort of thing because it seems to add a depth to their critical faculties which others do not have. What exactly do they mean by emotion? There is a wide range of different emotions but only a very few which could ever apply to a photograph - expecially a landscape.

To go off on a bit of a tangent, one gets a little ....er....tired of hearing or reading landscape photographers claiming that their images "express the emotion they felt at the time" . Even Ansel Adams said this, but (being the sceptical type) i'm not even sure he knew what he was talking about. In terms of how the landscape photographer feels, I'd suggest that in order to produce a successful photograph any trace of emotion needs to be kept in check or even completely subdued for the successful operation of their equipment.

Are you sure your friend didn't describe the first image as being full of "motion" - this might seem to be a more fitting reaction to it.

Anyway, I don't want to sound totally cynical and it is a very interesting point you have raised, Toni.
 
Thank you, gentlemen, for your input.

I had somewhat made the assumption that for some, images were like music is for me, where often the emotional message is written in 10ft high letters of fire to the point where it's unmissable, even if not always describable. Apparently that's not the case. As I hinted in the beginning, for me, landscape images do not display emotion - they are landscapes - and because there's no leeway on that I'd hoped for more of an explanation. Phil V had a stab at things a while back, pointing me at Sebastio Salgado, and while I get that he shot the landscape as if taking a portrait, that wasn't generally the case for these images.

jerry12953 said:
Are you sure your friend didn't describe the first image as being full of "motion" - this might seem to be a more fitting reaction to it.
Click to expand...

He did ALSO describe it as having motion, but that wasn't it. To him, it looked like a painting, at least partly because at 24X16 it had what he thought was too much detail for a photograph (it was also printed on canvas, which works best in the display space I have because of the multiple lighting sources that causes reflections, even on satin papers). It also wasn't about size - the panos were all at 16X8, favourite & unfavourite.
 
As far as I'm concerned landscapes can only express a very limited range of emotions. The most common is "wow!" whatever that might be in more technical terms. And that is a very reasonable emotion to feel and want to express, and most landscape photographers will understand this. Sometimes one can feel anger at the way a landscape has been mistreated or destroyed and i feel that to try to take a photograph to express that anger is also very valid. But from there onwards I think one is struggling - at least I am.
 
I agree with Jerry 12953 in it can be a bit over done when hearing on numerous occasions that a photographer is expressing the emotion they felt at the time yet the art of photographing the sublime is not totally dead - there are a few pictures I have seen of amazing landscapes that still inspire awe and wonder - but not many.
 
Looks like it's going to remain a mystery. :p
 
Often, emotion is expressed best in words and pictures. This can be in the form of a statement of intent, an accompanying essay if in a book, captions, or an expressive title.

Personally I don't buy the tired old arguments 'a picture should stand in its own' or 'a picture should speak a thousand words'. Sure, there are examples of dazzling iconic images from history, but for the rest of us, words can be a useful aid when trying to articulate an emotion or feeing we had when taking the photo.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
... words can be a useful aid when trying to articulate an emotion or feeing we had when taking the photo.
Click to expand...
Not at all, that's not the point in the current context, Andy. The photographer shouldn't be trying to EXPLAIN anything about feeling - that would err towards the prescriptive. We aren't talking about documentary functions. Whatever the viewer might feel is their concern alone. When you release a photograph out into the world, whatever your own feelings about it are (if any), you set it free of your control, and the viewers' responses in all realms are as valid as yours are even if they're radically different.

ancient_mariner said:
Looks like it's going to remain a mystery. :p
Click to expand...
Yes, it's bound to be, but the principles can be talked about, Toni.

jerry12953 said:
As far as I'm concerned landscapes can only express a very limited range of emotions. The most common is "wow!" whatever that might be in more technical terms. And that is a very reasonable emotion to feel and want to express, and most landscape photographers will understand this. Sometimes one can feel anger at the way a landscape has been mistreated or destroyed and i feel that to try to take a photograph to express that anger is also very valid. But from there onwards I think one is struggling - at least I am.
Click to expand...
Landscape photographs don't express emotions, Jerry. They don't express anything - they are just themselves. But people might (and often do) experience emotions when they see them (or any other photograph - so in terms of the present discussion a landscape is no different from any other subject). And are you suggesting that the only emotions in this context that you can recognise are 'wow' on the part of the viewer, and anger on the part of the photographer? You're turning the whole subtle gamut of possible intents and responses (which as I've explained above are quite distinct, though they might link up in untold ways) into an over-simplified cartoon.
 
droj said:
Not at all, that's not the point in the current context, Andy. The photographer shouldn't be trying to EXPLAIN anything about feeling - that would err towards the prescriptive. We aren't talking about documentary functions. Whatever the viewer might feel is their concern alone. When you release a photograph out into the world, whatever your own feelings about it are (if any), you set it free of your control, and the viewers' responses in all realms are as valid as yours are even if they're radically different.
Click to expand...

I partially agree. Landscape photography is a broad church, it doesn't have to be just about the individual master shot for example. Salgado has been cited above, and certainly my enjoyment of Genesis was increased by reading the accompanying text. The 'why' can be as interesting as the 'what'.
Not all landscape photography is driven by emotion. But if it is, if there is an underlying passion be it environmentally driven, sentimentally driven or whatever, then it is useful to have an appreciation of this. Whether that colours the viewers appreciation or not is up to them.
I'm not being prescriptive here, there's plenty of very nice landscape photography that is accompanied by nothing more descriptive than a location.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
I partially agree. Landscape photography is a broad church, it doesn't have to be just about the individual master shot for example. Salgado has been cited above, and certainly my enjoyment of Genesis was increased by reading the accompanying text. The 'why' can be as interesting as the 'what'.
Not all landscape photography is driven by emotion. But if it is, if there is an underlying passion be it environmentally driven, sentimentally driven or whatever, then it is useful to have an appreciation of this. Whether that colours the viewers appreciation or not is up to them.
I'm not being prescriptive here, there's plenty of very nice landscape photography that is accompanied by nothing more descriptive than a location.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Last edited:
The way that we 'see' photographs, either as makers or as viewers (every maker is also the original viewer) is compound - and involves, at least, both intellect and emotion. At the simpler levels, such involvement might be minimal - photographs can be casual just as they can be inept, but let's pass beyond that baseline.

We are complex beings with higher functions. The thing I haven't mentioned yet (at least in this thread) is intuition.

Photography can be a craft, and sometimes that's a story on its own. But on its own, as a craft, no matter how high that goes and how satisfying it might be to see, it remains just that - a craft. And is not craft about control? But that's only one benchmark.

Photography can also be a an art. But art is about embracing lack of control, or at least walking the tightrope. But craft is hopefully still required, though the proportions can be juggled, and I wouldn't rule out that art could be accomplished without any craft at all.

So we're on about art, again? But all this arises naturally out of Toni's original query about how we respond to photos. The intuitive level is mysterious and removed by a step, but not wholly, from the material world of just craft. And there are different levels of everything. But I see no harm in trying for an accurate analysis of it all, as far as that can be done.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
I had somewhat made the assumption that for some, images were like music is for me, where often the emotional message is written in 10ft high letters of fire to the point where it's unmissable, even if not always describable.
Click to expand...
One person's music is another's cacophony? That's what I find even with friends to some extent. I wish I knew what music you're referring to, to know what's particular to you, and expand the meaning of your remark.

But they're different media. Music is of the moment, its performance is essentially alive, thus it accords with what we are. Photography is a step or two away from that. Nothing to worry about.
 
droj said:
One person's music is another's cacophony? That's what I find even with friends to some extent. I wish I knew what music you're referring to, to know what's particular to you, and expand the meaning of your remark.

But they're different media. Music is of the moment, its performance is essentially alive, thus it accords with what we are. Photography is a step or two away from that. Nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

Music carries messages - almost words. So music from WWII says "everybody is OK, we'll all carry on and it will be alright". Music hall tunes say "this is all a careful show with unspoken and elaborate rules, and there's probably a knocking-shop round the back". Rock and roll says "we're a conflicted generation trying to leave the last generation's rules and have a great time". etc. I won't generalise classical music because that's written to carry many and various messages. Reggae often tells stories of being on a long journey, surveying wide arid plains or going hunting. Cello music is like emotional overload for the insensitive to actualy feel something "I'm so bloody miserable I should slit my wrists" - kind of like internet cute cats that make you want to hang yourself. You know from the first A chord of Alright Now that your lip wants to curl in a kind of pouting sneer, and when you listen to Sharp Dressed Man while driving your foot automatically goes down on the accelerator.

Those kind of messages. :)
 
Thanks - I asked for that, and it's illuminating! Was this thread about photography? Your thread, your call.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
Thanks - I asked for that, and it's illuminating! Was this thread about photography? Your thread, your call.
Click to expand...

It seemed relevant to the discussion about emotion. As you said, photography is a couple of steps away from music, which may be a good thing......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top