Without which it is impossible picture?
Wait, do not hurry. The question is not so simple. And the one who asks, is of sound mind. In our time, quite ordinary sounding words about music that does not sound; about painting, you can not see, about books, in which not a single word, etc.
Where is the pass that line of common sense in regard to photography? Which is a prerequisite (or element) to the object can be called photography? Is a picture without an image as such?
For example, Igor Savchenko, revealed to the world “textual image” that is, the photo presented in tabular form, without any specially created in material form an image. (See “Other Projects” at the site I. Savchenko.) In fact, this photo provided only under the signatures of images. That’s all. Of the photographs is not in sight.
Not very original … Though … Maybe it really?
On the other hand, it’s not the focus: to come up with something that will generate in the spectator personal visual association. Well, for example, we can say that the proposed signatory enough lapidary (and therefore too restrictive flight of thought), and offer, for example, something like this:
1.)!
2.) …?
3.)? ,? ,,
4.).
etc.
Or you can replace the pictures as such the names of chords:
1.) Am
2.) Dm Dm
3.) E Am
4.) Dm Am E Am
etc.
You can even hang on the wall instead of the photos button. You come up, put on headphones and harvest of a button. Sounds musical phrase. Trying to recreate a visual picture in my head.
You can place photographs hang on the walls of the gallery automatic dispenser, which will give “viewers” (if they even can be called such) tubes with different solutions. Drip into his mouth drop – and produtsiruesh visual images on the basis of taste. The funny thing can happen, by the way, if solutions are hallucinogens …
Or can be projected on the wall of arbitrary color spots and call it “bunches of color as an excuse for a photographic image.”
And here’s another: why not put the so-called spectator in a chair and begin blow it out of the system cleverly placed fans and tubes. So blows – one image generates, in another blow up – totally different images in the viewer there. Something like: photography as a stream of air jets at a moment of awakening to the spring bear. Why? The normal idea, I think, n’est-ce pas? There is still a possibility and the smell of play …
You can experiment more with other sensations, perceptions, iron things, and damn chepuhovinami. But you never know with what? Delov something! But in photography everything is, in my humble opinion from the lobya, attitudes have not. After all, you will agree, it would be strange, ordering in a restaurant chop, get in the face of an outbreak of green spotlight and hear the first notes of “Moonlight Sonata”, and after that hear the words of the waiter: “Here it is our firm chop! Since you € 35! ”
In a sense, the adherents of photos without images reminiscent of characters in paintings by Pieter Brueghel the Fall of Icarus “. Icarus falling – but no one notices! Was there a boy? And with text photo: no sign of photographs we have not seen – but we did not notice, all in unison begin to understand by a photograph something else entirely. But why?
If anything, the discussed topic is similar to the naive question: is it possible to replace the word say the word spoon hook? “Can something, maybe you can … But what is the meaning of this terminological confusion? Let too photograph is called something that we have traditionally used to understand by that word.
Picture can be anything, but anything can be a photograph.
And so … why not?