Archetypes in Photography

[drg]

Webster's Dictionary says of Archetypes :

"The original pattern or model from which all things of the same kind are copied or on which they are based; a model or first form; prototype."

The Jungian psychologists refine this to a "collectively inherited unconscious idea, pattern of thought, image, etc.," universally present in individual psyches. Common ground we all relate to and share instinctively upon conscious examination or experience.

The Greeks referenced a model or pattern for a structure such as we find in a photograph. Theirs was a universal concept or idea, the root from which types and subjects of photographs spring or emerge.

There are subjects, themes, and standard compositions for photographs that are readily recognized. From these commonalities the photographer/artist draws to make their work.

Photographs of particular athletes as example, may be iconic because of the fame of the individual. That might be thought of as a Portrait archetype. I’m not sure that portraits fall in the list of archetypes. A dancer captured en passant, though athletic, would fit into the archetype Performance.

Photographs that are trite or, clichéd often have that distinction because they are so instantly familiar. An example of the clichéd is a sunset. The archetype might be a Viewscape. The importance of the panoramic expression is not lost, just the expression in a ‘typical’ sunset/sunrise is too easily and quickly recognized. Therein lies one twist. It is commonality the photographer plays upon to make their photograph. Execution distinguishes and sets the result apart, if successful, from the ordinary or common.

The search for these common images began to coalesce with the blog entry “A photo every one takes” and lead me to this,


What do you see as photographic archetypes?


Some possibilities for consideration as archetypes in photography:

Viewscape (includes landscape, waterscape, sky and sunsets)
Performance/Performer (could include athletes /athletics, musicans, and more)
Celebrity/Fame (abstract or personified in a recognizable figure)
Still Life (classic forms as well as objects of adoration like cars)

[reverberation]

Great thread. This topic is really interesting for me, because I do alot of archtypical shots and then try and find patterns within the shot to transform them into something else.

An obvious archtype is a shot taken from the bank of a stream looking upstream. The interesting thing about this archtype for me, is that it is a landscape that often encompasses action. Aperture manipulation allows for the water to add movement and a sense of action to the shot that juxtoposes the stillness of the surrounding elements. I think because you get an open area of sky above the stream it is a shot that is easily composed. Stream, trees, and sky. I would say this stream archtype has at least two sub-archtypes. Stream with water effect and stream with sun effect, both adding a sense of movement, in drastically different degrees.

Another easy one is the top of a mountain against the sky. Simply by throwing some element other than the sky and mountain into the shot you get another shot that is easy to compose. This is why in my mind, they are shot so often.

I think it is possible to look beyond a shot as being archtypical in some cases and see elements that are. The stream shot usually encompasses matching lines, which is to say the sky always matches the shape of the stream and the top and bottom of whatever sepparates them has the same lines as well. Some shots that are more complex compositionally may have archtypical elements. Any line that moves away from the viewer giving the photograph depth, any element used to frame the photo (I am thinking borders, shooting through a hole in the trees, a window and encorporating that into the shot). I am sure there are more. I am just writing this as things pop into my head. It just occured to me that perhaps the "rule of thirds" explains an archtype.

Now I think perhaps I am confusing archtypes with elements of composition. Well certainly stuff worth thinking about. I gotta run, thank you DRG for this excellent thread, my thanks also to the blogger.

Just got in from work and decided to add a couple thoughts rather than respond to my own post ( I fear creating some kind of feedback loop). I think there are archtypical elements that are defined as rules of composition. Your mind registers them when you see them in a photograph. Pools of water that reflect the sky come to mind as an archtypical element in photographs. I think photographers emulate what works. It is the reason there are guidlines for composition. These are all patterned on early photographers work. Photographers put their own flair on it, make it their own onterpretation, but the essential elements are there.

The other thing I was thinking about was the Sabbattier effect and how it lent itself to a certain type of shot. It just works more effectively with one type of shot than with others. It makes sense when you take into account how this effect is produced. It occurs to me that perhaps the Sabbattier effect is the archtypical effect for shots where the sun is a meaningful portion of the composition. It is a somewhat shocking effect the first time you see it. I realize this is a whole 'nother can of worms so I'll leave it at that...

[drg]

Reverberation,

Your 'handle' is especially appropriate in the context of this post! An echo is exactly what an archetype is, a remnant in our visual brain in this case, that is played upon to remind us our relation to the image being viewed.

The streams, river, and mountain shots I classify all as one archetype, a viewscape. They are from nature or man's alteration of nature with changing shorelines or added docks etc.

I would disagree that archetypes are compositional elements or defined from such. The archetypes must precede the compositional rules as composition is manmade, though it plays upon the archetypes. A sunset as a viewscape may be enhanced by compositional manipulation, but it is not the result of the composition.

I do agree that looking beyond the archetype is needed, and we find photographs that are possibly not classifiable as one type. Some photographs may contain multiple archetypic elements or use one as a backdrop for another. Winter sports with performance of athletes against the panorama of great mountains or snow fields is but one example of that kind of imagery.

Yes, it easy to take all of those wonderful 'tricks' of photography and lump them together and thus one of my original intents in starting this thread. Confusion can reign as to whether one is making good use of a technique, solid composition, photographing an iconic image, or using an archetype to subconsciosly stir the viewer.

Special effects like solarization (the Sabbattier's effect) in its various intensities, have limited use. Unfortunatly I feel they have been over used by lazy graphic designers and layout editors who needed 'something different' and thus entered our visual language with a bang. These effects (and they are included in every image manipulation program out there) mimic some technique from the days of film and had a purpose that is rarely understood today. Many of them were for analysis, speciliazed printing needs or to 'save' an otherwise one of a kind but technically poor photograph.
There's nothing archetypical about this kind of effect as it isn't natural and doesn't have a subconscious analog.

Personally for photographs with lots of light, if I am going to use an 'effect' I'm much rather use a star filter (either on the lens or during post) to slightly enhance highlights. It too requires a delicate touch to not just produce sharp flares 'everywhere'.

Thanks for your comments.

I wonder how you feel about the use of iconic imagery? They are often modified with the various special effects and filters now available to quickly isolate and identify them visually.

[darkman]

I just finished a book on "seeing" written in the early 70's (maybe even late sixties). There was a chapter that had a lot to do with photography. Basically, they looked at many photos and then found very similar oil paintings. Ditto for oil paintings vs oil paintings (etc.). Just consider the often compared Manet's Venus vs. Titian's Olympia (which followed Giorgione's Sleeping Venus). "Archetypes" as you are calling this, is nothing new.

What I find most interesting is what defines the ordinary from great, which has nothing to do with a piece of work being an archetype. Neither does this have to do with the price the piece gets at market, which we often confuse with for great work in our society - you get paid well for your work, or posthumously your work fetches lots of money, it must be great work. Often what gets neglected is that, while much of this artists work is technically very good, it's not all great (though it may command a lot of money in the market).

Strangely, the book argued that the from a historical standpoint the landscape is the purist form of art. It was the first work done that wasn't commissioned. Unfortunately, these early (mostly dutch I think) artists couldn't sell their work and had to go back to the archetype painting portraits for the bourgeoisie. Not much different than today.

[drg]

I just finished a book on "seeing" written in the early 70's (maybe even late sixties). There was a chapter that had a lot to do with photography. Basically, they looked at many photos and then found very similar oil paintings. Ditto for oil paintings vs oil paintings (etc.). Just consider the often compared Manet's Venus vs. Titian's Olympia (which followed Giorgione's Sleeping Venus). "Archetypes" as you are calling this, is nothing new.

I believe you mean Manet's Olympia and Titian and Giorgione' s Venus'.

These paintings have nearly identical poses, that they are nudes, and that all three were controversial paintings, and that connects them. As for the archetype that I'm searching for or see if others see, is it that they are portraits of the nude?

Archetypes are not new, but it is a term I feel has not been explored enough in its relationship to photography and why it works and contributes on the artistic level.

What I find most interesting is what defines the ordinary from great, which has nothing to do with a piece of work being an archetype. Neither does this have to do with the price the piece gets at market, which we often confuse with for great work in our society - you get paid well for your work, or posthumously your work fetches lots of money, it must be great work. Often what gets neglected is that, while much of this artists work is technically very good, it's not all great (though it may command a lot of money in the market).

The archetype categorization indeed has nothing to do by itself with the success or merit of an artistic work. Painting or photograph, the classification of archetype of a picture only helps define one leg of the quadrant of the four legged stool that bounds a critique.

Strangely, the book argued that the from a historical standpoint the landscape is the purist form of art. It was the first work done that wasn't commissioned. Unfortunately, these early (mostly dutch I think) artists couldn't sell their work and had to go back to the archetype painting portraits for the bourgeoisie. Not much different than today.

The landscape mythos is an interesting footnote to art history. The problem may be rooted in where one begins the timeline of art history, or if one only looks at Renaissance and later western art, but the earliest visual forms of communication we have have nothing to do with landscapes. The Egyptians and the Chinese portrayed events, people, or stories, and in the case of the art of Chin' the landscape evolved later. In much of Japanese art the landscape evolved from its components (flowers, sky, wind, trees, animals, etc) in terms of the historical record.

It is interesting to note that the best selling painter/artist today and arguably ever, primarily can be thought of a landscape/scenic painter.

I am still not comfortable with the PORTRAIT as an archetype classifier. I will respond further to this in a another post to keep this from being to long an entry.

[darkman]

I believe you mean Manet's Olympia and Titian and Giorgione' s Venus'.

These paintings have nearly identical poses, that they are nudes, and that all three were controversial paintings, and that connects them. As for the archetype that I'm searching for or see if others see, is it that they are portraits of the nude?.

No, unless I'm completely not following what you're driving at, the archetype is the composition itself. Most well composed nudes would work if the subject wasn't nude and vice-versa. Maybe nudes can be the subcategory? Using your phrasing, this is just another "viewscape" that's no different in my mind than categorizing streams, rivers, and mountains as one.

The landscape mythos is an interesting footnote to art history. The problem may be rooted in where one begins the timeline of art history, or if one only looks at Renaissance and later western art, but the earliest visual forms of communication we have have nothing to do with landscapes. The Egyptians and the Chinese portrayed events, people, or stories, and in the case of the art of Chin' the landscape evolved later. In much of Japanese art the landscape evolved from its components (flowers, sky, wind, trees, animals, etc) in terms of the historical record.

It is interesting to note that the best selling painter/artist today and arguably ever, primarily can be thought of a landscape/scenic painter.

I am still not comfortable with the PORTRAIT as an archetype classifier. I will respond further to this in a another post to keep this from being to long an entry.

Yes, I am mostly referring to western culture. However, it still can be argued in other cultures that the the early art was solely for the bourgeoisie. IOW, still for profit. Moreover, we're obviously very influenced by western culture as can be read by our remarks.

The streams, river, and mountain shots I classify all as one archetype, a viewscape. They are from nature or man's alteration of nature with changing shorelines or added docks etc. .

Personally, I do not see portrait as any different from landscapes - streams, river, and mountain shots - or viewscape archetype as you refer to it in the terms you are talking about. However, like the general category of "portraits," I can't see your viewscapes summed up as one archetype anymore than different types of portraiture or any picture with a living animal in it.

[drg]

The Archetype is separate from the composition. There is one archetype, the Viewscape as an example, that includes every composition of each sub-type or subject in the archetype such as a Sunset. No two Sunsets are alike, because of the difference in what nature provides and how we compose (framing, what we include in the foreground, exposure, etc.) but they are related in this scheme.

The archetype idea is related to the reason images grab our attention and that picture generate a sub-conscious echo based on a common human response. One does not have to even be aware of Western Culture to appreciate a Sunrise. It is a primitive element that I'm going for as a set of classes we exploit in visual communication.

The categories I am exploring here are what various photographer/visual artists see as the basic types they use in their visual arsenal. This is of course distinct from uses of compostion, and is only related to subjects at the level of what is included in these groupings.

As for portraits, I am finding I want to call the archetype "Visage".

This would cover the broad expanse of anything we respond to as face or first impression. It covers that mother/child bond be it human or not. The shapes, textures, and depths of the form have been exploited even in buildings to say nothing of sculpture and pottery to invoke that 'response' that would make the emotional connection we find in a simple, well executed photograph of a person.

It is also the recognizability for most forms that would add them to collection of elements that make up this Visage archetype. We know a face when we see it instinctively. Faces grab our attention and demand we do something with them.

That is but one example of the immediate form of the response I am looking for feedback on about distinct groupings or Archetypes, and what they make us feel, think, or do. A Viewscape may invoke one kind of memory, but a face though we may think of the same event or place gives us a different set of emotional responses as it invokes the Visage response.

[reverberation]

The archetype idea is related to the reason images grab our attention and that picture generate a sub-conscious echo based on a common human response. One does not have to even be aware of Western Culture to appreciate a Sunrise. It is a primitive element that I'm going for as a set of classes we exploit in visual communication.

.

Well, I was hoping this was not the case. I am sorry to inform you that human beings DO NOT HAVE INSTINCTS. Human beings are not born with information regarding their environment in their brain. This is a common misperception by the layperson. A human child has no preprogrammed information, it will die if not nurtured. Some animals are different. You are really speaking to the human ego, and redirecting the moral responsibility for it onto some ethereal all seeing being (some folks refer to this as GOD). Its a tough thing, we all want to think that our conduct is somewhat predetermined, its the fault of those who came before us!!! Sadly this is not true. The whole crucifiction scenario really details the absolution of the innocent and condemnation of the guilty, I am always surprised by how many are snagged in this scenario. Contrary to popular mythology...fame does not equate to absolution...LOL.

[darkman]

Well, I was hoping this was not the case. I am sorry to inform you that human beings DO NOT HAVE INSTINCTS. Human beings are not born with information regarding their environment in their brain. This is a common misperception by the layperson. A human child has no preprogrammed information, it will die if not nurtured. Some animals are different. You are really speaking to the human ego, and redirecting the moral responsibility for it onto some ethereal all seeing being (some folks refer to this as GOD). Its a tough thing, we all want to think that our conduct is somewhat predetermined, its the fault of those who came before us!!! Sadly this is not true. The whole crucifiction scenario really details the absolution of the innocent and condemnation of the guilty, I am always surprised by how many are snagged in this scenario. Contrary to popular mythology...fame does not equate to absolution...LOL.

You have me confused on what your point is?

Humans do have basic instincts. Babies somehow find the nipple and know to suck, similar to many other animals, and this is just one of many non-learned instincts.

Moreover, I do believe our conduct is somewhat predetermined by those who came before us. In the west, for example, we "see" from left to right. Studies have shown the we westerners will prefer pictures that flow left to right. This is the idea I think drg is referring to when he says primitive. By "primitive" I don't believe drg is trying to use any ingrained instinct, or make this some spiritual or non-spiritual idea. It can be in us because of our society. However, that doesn't mean we can always articulate it. This is the primitive sense. People chose the images with the left to right flow just because it appealed to them without necessarily knowing why.

I went down primitive roads to go caving this weekend. But they were made by someone recently, and someone is maintaining them, just not very good

[reverberation]

You have me confused on what your point is?

Humans do have basic instincts. Babies somehow find the nipple and know to suck, similar to many other animals, and this is just one of many non-learned instincts.

Moreover, I do believe our conduct is somewhat predetermined by those who came before us. In the west, for example, we "see" from left to right. Studies have shown the we westerners will prefer pictures that flow left to right. This is the idea I think drg is referring to when he says primitive. By "primitive" I don't believe drg is trying to use any ingrained instinct, or make this some spiritual or non-spiritual idea. It can be in us because of our society. However, that doesn't mean we can always articulate it. This is the primitive sense. People chose the images with the left to right flow just because it appealed to them without necessarily knowing why.

I went down primitive roads to go caving this weekend. But they were made by someone recently, and someone is maintaining them, just not very good

Very appropriate response. I was looking to subtly infer questions of morality into a discussion of archtypes by implying foreknowledge is akin to aworld without original sin. My post failed miserably because it was just so vague. That said, I stand by my statement that humans do not have insticts, though I do think the true misunderstanding lies in how we are defining the word instinct.
I have not seen any studies to suggest Human beings have instincts. I have not taken an in depth interest in phsychology since the early nineties, so I have not read any studies since then.
A human baby does not somehow find the nipple and suck. Quite the contrary, a mother must hold the baby up and expose the nipple. A wonderful man with the last name Skinner showed a particular (peculiar?) interest in conducting tests on very young children, his and others work (much breakthrough work was conducted during WWII regarding newborns and their mothers, such studies will never be recreated (at least I certainly hope so)) has conclusively proven that a human infant will not survive on its own. A human infant is adept at calling attention to itself, but cannot feed without help.
In any discussion of instincts, the only valid reference is from newborn children. When the subject acquires more experience it becomes a discussion of environment and habituation. The truth is that instincts have a broader meaning to society than the clinical phsycologist. This undoubtably leads to the most common misperceptions.
Instincts are information present at birth, that helps an organism survive. Humans do not have them. I can say this confidently because the discovery of instinct in humans would be akin to discovering a new moon around the Earth. Environmentally induced probabilities regarding reaction to stimuli or behavioral patterns of adaptation are learned and thus can not be considered when discussing instict. Human babies do have a focal range that is the average distance between a mothers breast and face, and human children go through a phase where the speech center of their brain aquires language (any language) at an accelerated rate. These issues have been studied at length and they do not qualify as instincts because they do not positively effect the childs survival probability.
Personally, I think that the human condition and experience leads certain visual datasets to have a deeper impact than others. The reason I reference the Sabbatier effect in some of my shots is because I feel that was the point in time when photography became an art form as valid as painting. I do believe it was only the second time in human history that the sun was portrayed as being black. The depth and breadth of the reaction engendered by this technique suggests more of a common experience than instictual response.
I understand the reference to Jung and feel that there are literary as well as pictoral themes, or archtypes that are recognizable to a larger segment of humanity, due more to probability than anything else. Photographically, they speak to memories we have, we recognize the image as familial, from memory. Show a picture of a boat leaving one side of a large body of water, headed to another to a desert dwelling tribesman, and he will not recognize the scene at all.

[drg]

Decades of neuro-biological research have demonstrated that normal (not damaged, diseased,or altered) mammalian brains do respond predictably to stimuli. The MRI (NMR in earlier literature) has provided trememdous amounts of information in 'real-time' as to what is occuring in the electro-mechanical sense in organisms including humans.

Are these instincts? It is a semantical argument perhaps. Different species respond more or less in different areas, but humans do have areas of response and outward reactions/behaviors that do not require extensive/external training.

I'd recommend to anyone seriously interested in this topic to read current literature in neurology and even child behavior, and avoid the religious zealotry that demands a pseudo-intellectual lock step dogmatic interpretation.

The educational poverty demonstrated in the continuing vicious repeating of urban legend and agenda driven mistating of Skinners work is appalling. Whether I agree with his political life, not unlike the careers of Chomsky or Spock, the nature of his work should stand on its own and not be filtered through a narrow moral compass that resorts to hyperbole and demonstrable untruths to vilify him. A group continues to associate Skinner with behavior he was not involved with even now in the 21st Century. A highly controversial book late as 2004 continued to repeat stories about the abuse and resulting suicide of his daughter. The only problem is that his daughter came forward at the time of the publication and was very much alive and well. Even this has not deterred a group who seem to misunderstand both needs and requirements of a moral philosophical stand.



This discussion is about photographic representations that humans respond to universally. If you are not comfortably with 'baggage' associated with the Jungian or Freudian archetypes, I can appreciate that distinction. Archetypes are not limited to those restrictions as I laid out initially in the introductory portion of the post.

In the original blog I wrote some months past, my experience with the 'photographs that everyone takes' encompasses multiple cultural backgrounds as displayed over years of looking at other photographers works. Some of these photographer's even exposed indigenous people to the results in isolated areas such as the edge of the Great Simpson Desert and the Orinoco to name two, with surprising reactions. These were images they had no 'cultural or learned' reference to relate to and yet they were demonstrative to some 'element' in the imagery.

I am still interested in what common themes you, as a photographer, employ artistically to make your photographs show something to the observer.

If you wish to characterized them in a broader sense such as an archetype, fine, if you prefer to just think of them as photo of a person or a pet, or a landscape that is o.k.

The goal remains the same to see what we think about visually and how our use of it impacts what we select to photograph.


Eventually I do want to return to this topic and talk about the Visage. There are a tremendous number of examples of how we respond to a 'face' or the shapes and proportions that comprise that recognizable 'archetypical model'. Doesn't even have to be person or living thing. Statuary, natural phenomena, etc. that fits with in certain bounds also makes this 'happen'.

Looking forward to your contributions to the catalog!

[reverberation]

Decades of neuro-biological research have demonstrated that normal (not damaged, diseased,or altered) mammalian brains do respond predictably to stimuli. The MRI (NMR in earlier literature) has provided trememdous amounts of information in 'real-time' as to what is occuring in the electro-mechanical sense in organisms including humans.

Are these instincts? It is a semantical argument perhaps. Different species respond more or less in different areas, but humans do have areas of response and outward reactions/behaviors that do not require extensive/external training.

I think it is a semantical argument. I take instincts to mean inherited behavior that increases an organisms probability of survival.

I'd recommend to anyone seriously interested in this topic to read current literature in neurology and even child behavior, and avoid the religious zealotry that demands a pseudo-intellectual lock step dogmatic interpretation.

The educational poverty demonstrated in the continuing vicious repeating of urban legend and agenda driven mistating of Skinners work is appalling. Whether I agree with his political life, not unlike the careers of Chomsky or Spock, the nature of his work should stand on its own and not be filtered through a narrow moral compass that resorts to hyperbole and demonstrable untruths to vilify him. A group continues to associate Skinner with behavior he was not involved with even now in the 21st Century. A highly controversial book late as 2004 continued to repeat stories about the abuse and resulting suicide of his daughter. The only problem is that his daughter came forward at the time of the publication and was very much alive and well. Even this has not deterred a group who seem to misunderstand both needs and requirements of a moral philosophical stand.

I love these two paragraphs, and admire how passionately you defend your position. Actually, I agree with you on Skinner, but feel Freud was a mediocre clinician who hurt more people than he helped. Jung was a genius. I had to press that button (Skinner) because I was essentially arguing against humans having a soul. I wanted to know where you stood because for me this fact has more to do with art than any scientific definition of learned response. The writing was excellent, I love that bombastic style and adopted it myself after reading the poetry of Geoffrey Hill. I have read all his books, but my favorite spoke in the colors of fall and actually had a line about some sort of vapours eminating from a darkroom.

This discussion is about photographic representations that humans respond to universally. If you are not comfortably with 'baggage' associated with the Jungian or Freudian archetypes, I can appreciate that distinction. Archetypes are not limited to those restrictions as I laid out initially in the introductory portion of the post.

In the original blog I wrote some months past, my experience with the 'photographs that everyone takes' encompasses multiple cultural backgrounds as displayed over years of looking at other photographers works. Some of these photographer's even exposed indigenous people to the results in isolated areas such as the edge of the Great Simpson Desert and the Orinoco to name two, with surprising reactions. These were images they had no 'cultural or learned' reference to relate to and yet they were demonstrative to some 'element' in the imagery.

I am still interested in what common themes you, as a photographer, employ artistically to make your photographs show something to the observer.

The goal remains the same to see what we think about visually and how our use of it impacts what we select to photograph.
!

I am glad you have focussed your question because people who are not as intellectually gifted as yourself find it easier to respond to specifics rather than generalities. I had a hard time figuring out exactly what you were asking after reading your response to my first post. I was thinking along the lines of literary themes, the noble savage, etc. I employ the same themes that writers have used for years. Maybe someone who is better at photography than I am could answer your question more fully. I am thankful that you took the time to respond to my posts and I will eagerly await reading responses from more accomplished photographers.