photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
Phil Douglis | all galleries >> Galleries >> Gallery Four: Finding meaning in details > Abandoned Car, Atacama Desert, Chile, 2003
previous | next
25-DEC-2003

Abandoned Car, Atacama Desert, Chile, 2003

The National Geographic Magazine has called the Atacama “the driest place on earth…where the dead live forever and where hope never dies.” I spent a number of memorable days visiting this desert – a place where it never rains and nothing rots. Artifacts such as this old car are everywhere. I did not choose to shoot the whole car. Instead, I got down on my knees in the dust to make this picture because of its detail – a wheel, coated in dusty brown rust, a tire embraced by the sand, and a twig without a hint of life. But the details that struck me most were the thorns on that twig. They are as nasty and unforgiving as the Atacama. If we came back in 100 years, it will all still be here.

Canon PowerShot G5
1/200s f/4.0 at 15.8mm full exif

other sizes: small medium large original auto
share
Phil Douglis06-Jan-2005 22:16
Exactly, Nut. That is what I want this image to say. Nothing that man makes can conquer the Atacama. The Atacama always wins. At last, we agree to agree on this one. See you soon in Bangkok! Phil
nut 06-Jan-2005 13:09
I think you want to show us the conclusion and/or the meaning of this desert. Nothing can beat this Atacama. If it's that so I agreed.
Phil Douglis01-Jan-2005 21:09
Glad you finally agree, Nut. But I want to be sure that you agree because of what YOU have now come to see in this picture. I hope that you don't feel that I have somehow MADE you agree with me must to agree. Because if you do really agree with my reasoning, than that means that you have learned some important lessons here.
nut 01-Jan-2005 07:26
I agreed on this one.
Phil Douglis27-Dec-2004 22:19
Hi, Nut. Still working on this, I see. Thanks for coming back to it and working your brain. I would like to correct what may be a misunderstanding about the sizing of those thorns. I never intended the thorns to appear bigger than the old wheel. I want them to be bigger than you would see them in life. That is why I moved in so close to them to emphasize detail, Nut.

So forget about them "being larger than the wheel." Instead, just look at those thorns as being there with the wheel, yet sized big enough so we can see that detail. One of the most important factors in using detail, Nut, is the sizing of that detail. We must get close enough to it so that it appears large enough in the picture so the viewer can see it easily. And secondly, the picture itself must be sized large enough so that detail can continue to be seen with ease.

As for your question about telling the truth with scale, i do not try to tell tell the literal "truth" in terms of scale. I use scale to emphasize or stress the point I am trying to make in the picture. You seem to grasp this point by your references to scale in my Buddhist Temple shot. You have been there, so you have seen this Buddha statue and its relationship to the buildings, and you know exactly what I have done with my close vantage point there to stress the scale of the statue and relate it to the other structures, which are much larger. You also have correctly interpreted my use of scale in the Fin Flipper picture.

I am sorry you still have trouble with the coloration of this image, Nut. That was one of my points. The desert is this color and its blowing dust paints everything in it. So the merging of color is part of nature, and it is intensified in this picture as well.

As for my comment under this picture, words are very important to me in expressing my ideas, Nut. I have always believed in presenting pictures and words together, since I am essentially a travel photojournalist. And photojournalists are story tellers. Words do what they do best. And pictures do what they do best. They do not repeat each other, but they give each other important context for meaning. You are right when you say that it is important to have the context I give you in words in mind first, before trying trying to read this picture by itself. Some artists on pbase never use words with their pictures. But as a teacher, as well as a photojournalist, I always depend on words to strengthen the meaning of both my picture and my lesson.

In one of your comments below, you sum up the meaning of this image beautifully, Nut. You tell me that the thorns are an abstract symbol that expresses the meaning of the desert to you. You say I use vantage point to contrast the now lifeless wheel with the still lifelike (although long dead) thorns -- and that the desert "beat both of them and this will tell me how terrible" it must be to be in this desert. That is the whole point of the picture, Nut, and you understand it and appear to appreciate it. As for those human values you mention, is not abandonment a human value? And what about fear? Terror? Death? You would have to deal with all of these very human beliefs and emotions if you were lost in this desert.

And finally, your last comment is also appropriate, if I am reading it correctly . There really is no difference between the thorns and the wheel. There is, as you say, "no gap between them." They are both in this terrible thing together. Both are symbols ,and each express their own ideas, but together, these symbols express still another idea -- the idea of this terrible environment itself. The great Atacama desert.

So it seems to me that we finally agree on this one, Nut. Thank you for giving it so much thought. I hope you learned much in the process.
nut 27-Dec-2004 07:09
But if you want to tell me the same final destination of the wheel and the thorns when they are in this desert then you don't have to make a gap between them. Then I do agree for that.
nut 27-Dec-2004 06:47
Without your comment under this photograph then I might don't know this is the desert. How can you tell me about this? You might need have your context in mind first, then come up with abstract and/or incongruities. You are using the "Details" in this photo to express the specification of desert , using an identity of the thorns to express the meaning of this desert in term of abstract (but not all because you still leave some information here), using the vantage point to lead my brain to explain the function of desert to the lifeless thing (the wheel) and lifelike (the thorns) so I can say that this desert beat both of them and this will tell me how terrible to being here, in this desert.

If "Human Values" can bring all of us to understand and share the feeling in the same way. They photo might need "Human Values", if not then it's up to the point of viewer, right?
nut 27-Dec-2004 06:30
Even if you put your focus on the thorns and took this photo closed to these thorns, I still don't think they are bigger than the old wheel. When I see something, my eyes always give me the whole part of what I saw then scope and/or zoom in to see more in detail. This is how my eyes are working. When I saw this photo, I checked in the original size but I don't feel these thorns are bigger than the old wheel in term of physical and/or logical. Then I checked the small size, now I can see what do you mean about the "Abandoned Wheel", because in this small size I can see the whole thing in this frame are all together and I can see the faded outer of this wheel so that why it's the 'Abandoned Wheel".

If scale is determined by where we are with camera, in term of our perspective and distance from the subject as you said. Then do we have to lie our feeling about the truth that we know exactly what it is and how is it? For this, I think this photo as below is explain me some of what you said about the scale.

http://www.pbase.com/pnd1/image/20794930

In "Buddhist temple", I have no question about the scale. I knew the real scale of the golden Buddha figure but your vantage point gave me no dumb about this. Your vantage point here also beat the truth against what I knew about the size of the golden Buddha figure.
And the "Fin Flipper" (www.pbase.com/pnd1/image/25459517) told me how small fishes can beat (more important to me) against a big man. The gap between the fishes and a man told me what is in the Focus and What is trigger my eyes to look at it. My eyes catch at these fishes all the time.

In here "Abandones Car", my eyes can't see the different between the shade of rust and it seem nothing in front of the old wheel when I saw in the original size. But there are the thorns located in front of the old wheel when I saw in small size. It look like they merged together by color. The throws and the old wheel here is look like I paint the dinosaur by yellow color on the yellow paper. When I see the dinosaur then I don't feel how big it is. I mean with this large and full background with less depth (different gap between foreground and background) merge two layers in one.
Phil Douglis27-Dec-2004 01:40
The size of the symbol must be looked at in relationship to the position of the camera, not its actual size, Nut. Since I am shooting these thorns at a very close vantage point, they actually appear to be larger than life in this picture. I think these thorns are big enough to easily see, provided the picture is also sized large enough on the computer screen, or as a photographic print. In photography, scale can be critical to meaning. Scale is not only determined by the real size of the subject -- it is also determined by where we are with the camera, in terms of our perspective and distance from the subject.

Both the thorns and the wheel together symbolize the desert climate by showing its effects. Once again, we are not describing or showing the actual desert here. We are only symbolizing its deadly effect on both life and the work of man. Does this help, Nut?
nut 26-Dec-2004 21:14
I understand some. But I am not agree about the size of sympol that you said it doesn't matter. But if you drive then you have to see the traffic sign or sympols. I think it might be good if sympols are big enough to see.

If the thorns is represent the "living object" and the wheel is represent the "object" then what can be the one, who represent this desert.
Phil Douglis26-Dec-2004 20:05
Nut, think of these thorns and the dead branch symbolically, not literally. You are right -- they represent the desert. They may be small compared to the vast desert, but the size of the symbol here does not matter. Rather, it is the meaning of the symbol that is important. The thorns do represent pain and death and suffering. These thorns never forgive. They only hurt. Nature created them as a defense for the plant that bore them. As Clara said, that twig used to be alive. But now it is dead, destroyed by this very desert. Yet its thorns remain as reminders of pain. The rusted wheel symbolizes abandonment, and what nature can do to the work of man. Nature eats us up and spits us out. I want you to fear the desert because of its pain and dryness and heat and its ability to eat you up and spit you out as will. Do you see now how these symbols work, Nut?
nut 26-Dec-2004 19:34
I don't think the thorns are nasty and unforgiving. They didn't choose to be in this way. But you chose to put them here in front of the old wheel for a reason. To me, I think these thorns is represent this desert, right? Normally the thorns always hurt human, so you get hurt and maybe bleeding. Something like in the hand of the death (the thorns might be the nails of the death). And how is gonna be in the hand of the Death is how the wheel look like in this photo. But the thorns are so small compared with this desert. If I am not afraid of the thorns, it mean I am not afraid of this desert or not?
Phil Douglis11-Dec-2004 20:30
This is probably the most uncomfortable place you could be, short of the Polar regions. The Atacama is the driest desert on earth. I was looking for a juxtaposition of detail that said this, and this is what I found. You grasped the meaning instantly, Clara. This is a hell on earth, and that dead twig with that thorn is a symbolic detail that acquires even more meaning contrasted to the rusted wheel. And yes, the wheel represents abandonment in the face of impossible odds. Discomforting? I should hope so!
Guest 11-Dec-2004 19:40
Certainly is an image discomforting (to me, at least), of an unwelcoming place. If there's a hell must be close to this. The twig means some life must be there, but even then is hurting, it carries no love... the thorns turn you away. The abandoned wheel of a car (or an abandoned car, anyway) talks of human presence that had to give up trying to build anything there or intending to survive there. Disintegration, death, ... enthropy.
Phil Douglis24-Oct-2004 17:58
Right again, Zebra. You learn quickly and you learn well. It is indeed the juxtaposition of that dead, dangerous branch and that rusted dirty wheel that gives this picture its meaning.
Guest 24-Oct-2004 16:26
The branch is the key.
No the branch,it would be a generic photo.
Phil Douglis25-Mar-2004 20:45
Thanks, Karen, for your lovely analysis of this image. It was my intention for this photo to ask the kind of question you have asked yourself. To me, the mark of a substantive photograph is its ability to ask questions and demand answers from its viewers. I am delighted with your response to this image. It made it worth kneeling in that dust to get this picture.
Karen Stuebing25-Mar-2004 11:39
A very emotive image. It speaks to me of melancholy and goes even farther and makes me ask what is man's place in this desolate place. And then a line from a poem read long ago pops into my head: "We are the hollow men.."

So I'd say it definitely works. :)
Type your message and click Add Comment
It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest.
Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help private comment