Photo elements and design

The goal was to "play" photographer for a day. The only problem was that I already am a photographer who has been published. So it was a challenge to not be too "technical" on the camera.

These photos show examples of the principles of design and visual elements.

All photos were taken with my Cannon 1D digital SLR, with lenses ranging from 30mm to 300mm. Each exposure and f-stop varied. A flash was only used when the ISO reached above 800 on metering.

Each photo was taken in RAW format, and then developed using Adobe Lightroom. No photo was "photoshopped" or otherwise altered, except through the process of development (light, exposure, centering, saturation adjustments).

Those images with people in them are of myself, my wife (Sarah) and my youngest son (Liam), and are used with permission.

All photos were taken by me, and are © David Ashelman, All Rights Reserved.

Color and Emotions

The use of colors has a profound impact on emotions within cultural contexts. For example, the colors Red, White, Yellow and Red represent the concept of peace and unity in Native American/First Nations cultures. Other Native cultures see white as a color of "hope" while purple as a color of despair and social trauma.

Within neuropsychology, we know what happens when our senses are triggering emotions. The colors are processed in the visual cortex, which are then transmitted to the Amygdala region of the brain. The Amygdala then transmits the information to the frontal and pre-frontal cortex, which controls emotional response and reason.

Color though, is more than just a passing light through a prism, and more than just a set of neurons moving around. Regardless of the cultural context of colors, there is one thing that all societies on the plant have in common: the use of color in art, or the use of color as a representation of the world around us binds us together as a species. It represents our politics, our social order, our kin, our connectedness with other human beings. This is the aspect of colors that intrigues me the most as a Sociologist and an artist.

There was a reason why the Soviet Union chose the color red as their background for their flag. Inversely, there was a resin why the United States and France chose Red, White, and Blue. There was a reason why the Tudors chose a red rose for their family symbol, and the Windsors a white rose. These are all social ties that bind.

Within the Feelings video, there was an overarching question from the Enlightenment and art: How far have we come really in being a civilized species? David represented the potential of man while Goya represented the never-ending darkness of man. This is in line with what Enlightenment thinkers of the time were struggling with; thinkers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau  and Immanuel Kant. Kant said that all people had a social contract with one another, while Rousseau was pointing toward the idea that man could still be dark if allowed to be.

All Enlightenment thinkers and artists has ideas on the organization of society. This is reflected not only in their writing, but their art, which INCLUDES writing. These ideas on organizing societies is still debated today. However, colorful art that provokes emotions, is just as important as colorful words and ideas that does the same thing.

"A savage society is one that ignores its own rules when it becomes convenient." Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Origins of Inequality.

"War is politics by other means, and at its most violent." Carl von Clausewitz

These words by Enlightenment thinkers are just as colorful and thought provoking as anything painted by David or Eugéne Delacroix. The art, through it's colors, shapes, and real-word dimensions and scales, allow us to think about ourselves, and our role in Kant's social contract.

The Sociology of Art

There are two ways to look at the Sociology of Art: on the Macro level and the Micro Level. 

On the Macro level, of the major philosophers that thought about aesthetics, the one that I feel has had the most influence is G.F. Hegel. Working in the early 1800s in Germany, Hegel had an underlying philosophy on society that would later become known as the Hegelian Dialectic, also called the Historical Dialectic. The idea was that humanity would engage in a certain social structure, there would be a counter-structure, or discontentment, and then society would reach a synthesis. This would become known as the thesis->antithesis->synthesis model of dialectic. Hegel believed that in his time, society had already reached the synthesis. As such, Hegel believed that art had reached its apex, and no longer applied to humanity.

Hegel identified three stages in the history of art: Eastern (symbolic) art, which Hegel thought was representative of primitive society, classical art, and romantic art. For Hegel, man expresses what he is, and what he may become. The problem for Hegel was that he believed that man had already become all that he could be. Hegel believed that it was through romantic art, that man had reached the climax of his species-being. Because of this, Hegel believed that art did not have to represent anything other than what an individual wanted to express.

It is not just because of Hegel’s ideas that makes him the most influencial, but also because of Hegel’s influence on one of his most famous students: Karl Marx, who had a differing view of art, from a Hegelian perspective.

Marx modified Hegalian ideas. While the Hegalian philosophy was that society had evolved through a process of dialectic consisting of a series of theses, antitheses, and synthesis to the point where synthesis had been achieved, Marx said that social life wasn’t as simple as that. Marx’s idea was that society evolved in stages, each stage bringing a new evolution through the Hegalian dialectic. This lead to Marx’s ideas of Dailectic Materialism; that through historical materialism, changes in human society are caused by the history of how humans produce the necessities of life, including art. Marx believed that art was a necessity for human happiness and fulfillment, as much as shelter and clothing.

For Marx, using the Hegelian principles, art would become a cultural pursuit that people should be free to chase. People would only be “free” to be creative through art in “advanced” societies as represented in communism, socialism, and advanced communism, all of which were evolutionary stages in social life. Marx posed that in capitalism, which was a necessary stage of societal evolution, because of the labor theory of value that Capitalism imposed, people were not free to pursue cultural interests, including being creative as artisans (Das Kapital). Marx believed that alienation in labor was not just about workers being angry at the boss, but also that the very souls (Marx called this “species-being”) of people were being sucked out by capitalism. It was only creativity, art, and “culture” that could fortify people’s species-being for Marx.

In this sense, the principle ideas of Hegel were most influential in art, especially in expressionism. Without Hegel, ideas of art as a “culture,” and something that all people should pursue would not have come to fruition. Marx would not have posed that idea that people’s labor should be creative, and that creativity and art were spiritual pursuits unto themselves. We know that without Hegel's influence on Karl Marx, the history of the world would be very different.

Micro Level Sociology, Neuropsychology, and art:

As Karl Marx argued against Hegel that people have the innate desire to be creative, areas of neuroscience attempt to ask “why.” This suggests that other areas of science also believe that people have the innate desire to be creative.

From the CNN and neuroscience presentations, there is a clear anthropological history in art. What is more interesting however, is the history of communication in art.
Sociologist George Herbert Mead’s “Mind, Self, and Society” poses the idea that while there is a psychological process that happens in all animals, what distinguishes humans from other animals is language. According to Mead, humans use language to establish social patterns – to connect themselves to others, and develop a sense of self based on how others communicate ourselves to us. Mead also posed that it is through language that we are able to place ourselves in other people’s shoes; what he termed the “Generalized Other.” We can only take the role of the other through language.

Within the realm of neuroscience and art shows how Mead was incomplete. It is not just through language that we can take the role of the other, and develop a sense of self, but also through non-verbal communication, such as that presented in art.

In the 1950s, after Mead’s passing, sociologist Herbert Blumer coined the term “Symbolic Interaction.” He expanded on Mead to include the use of symbolism in the interactions of people between each other. He posed that Mead’s concept of the Generalized other was actually a symbolic gesture to help people understand the world around them. Blumer would suggest other “symbolisms” in everyday life that aided in the interaction of people within the social world.

Humans are social animals. We know from neuropsychology that there is an active process in the brain that deals with socialization.

Art is also “symbolic interaction.” Art does not just communicate the message of the artist to the person viewing the art, but also people “interact” with the art. People gain insights into the world around them. People contemplate their social position and the position of the painting in the social world. People contemplate, think about history, and sometimes place themselves into the role of the subject in order to gain insight into themselves. With art, people take the role of the other. This is “symbolic interaction” at its very core. The art is presenting the symbolic gesture that interacts with the people looking at it.

One of the presenters in the neuroscience presentation stated that art creates “Symbolic descriptions and transforms” – This is symbolic interaction.