Leica M6 – Ilford HP5 – Rodinal 1:50
I’ve not gone to a gallery in a while. However, when I do, one of the first things that I try to do is look at the photographs and get a sense of what they might mean to me personally, if anything.
The same goes for visiting blogs that include both text and images. I like to look at the image first, to see how I see, with all of my personal baggage, beliefs, etc. Then, if the photo is associated with the text in anyway, get an additional bit of context to lend even more meaning to the photo.
In response to Saturday’s post, Exploring Something New, Juha said:
For some reason, I was so fixated on looking at the bench that I didn’t see the background (and the mill) at all, until I read your posting. Strange how this image works, now it seems to be very different from the first impression.
In that photo, before reading my words, that bench held some significance for him; however, after reading my words, it resulted in a change of perception. I find that very interesting how that can happen. We can use words to change perception and focus (no pun intended) on what is important.
I think that it would be a very interesting thing to hang a set of photos, say 10 or 12, include no captions, or context of any type, and survey some number of individuals from different countries, walks of life, etc, to see what they got out of it. It would be similar, I imagine, to our futile efforts in high school English Literature class where we had to read a story or a poem and try to ‘understand’ what the author was really trying to say.
In a way, a photo without a caption or text is a lot like a Rorschach inkblot test, except in the case of a photograph, we know what the items are; that is clear, but the underlying understanding or meaning, is very subjective and dependent upon the psyche of the individual.
No related posts.
9 Responses to “Context”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Well argued! Now that I have the context (“paper mill”) it was rather easy to understand the (excellent!) image you posted here. But I’m wondering how long it would have taken to “read” the image otherwise. I suspect it contains a non-trivial visual puzzle if you don’t have that additional information.
I saw the concept in practice on my photoblog last week, i posted a picture of a chair by a window and i talked about the difference between my experience of the scene at the time, and what i think when i look at the picture and how different they are. And a few people came along and shared their little imaginary scene based on the picture, and they were all different…
Julie: I’ve often wanted to do that as a creative writing exercise. I wish that you had included a link, but I’m sure that I can find it. Perhaps I’ll go and have a look at the photo and write my own story before I look at the comments.
well … thats how we grow ? … the more we look at other works and the more we take photos (paint and see) the more we grow … if we only ever looked at the bench and not consider the mill we may never see any more than the bench …
and so, the more we stretch ourselves in our visual imagery the more we too grow …
Finding what is meaningful to you in a photo in a gallery is a good starting point … however, do you ever stop at a piece that is challenging to you and wonder about its meaning to the artist ? i mean, you would recognise technically proficient works but if they dont fit your way of seeing or working, go against the rules or whatever, do you give it any credence ? … just curious … really curious about ways of seeing and determining what is ‘good’ , as subjective as it is …
enjoying your blog >>> Gina
http://ginaseye.blogspot.com/
Hey, Gina. Thanks for chiming in. I think that the bench was important, as well. If he noticed it, probably because of the light shining on the back of the bench, then it was important to him. It’s certainly possible that he would have never come to find what was important to me because, in that photo, the plant was very well hidden, not so much so in this photo.
If I see a photo that doesn’t work for me, that I don’t get, or that confuses me, I really don’t spend much time looking at it. Perhaps it’s instant gratification at work and I don’t want to dig for it. However, if I do find a piece that really pulls me in, I like to probe a little deeper and try to understand why it affected me that way. Just because I don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it is bad. Just because I don’t like it, doesn’t mean it’s bad. I am not the keeper of universal truths.
I must admit to being one who after quickly looking at an image to just as quickly move along to the title or context supplied with an image. I think it would be a good exercise to find a gallery and allow the images to speak to me and not read the fine print. I do admit there are images that just captivate me and hold me tightly, no titles or text needed.
I do not own a TV or go to movies because I feel it is better to read the book and allow our minds to create all the scenes rather than allow Hollywood to do that for me.
What? Another guy that doesn’t own a TV? The universe has become unbalanced! I really like to read, but I also like to go the the theater and watch the occasional movie. I don’t miss television, though … except for House, which I can catch on Hulu.
The need for words to go with your photos must be something you think about a lot. You have posted a variation on this several times. I think at times the context and words detract from the purity of the message or story in the image and at times it is needed to make the image worth looking at. My personal preference is for the former.
Ray: I don’t think about it a lot, but there are triggers that cause me to think about. Perhaps it’s because I really like photojournalism, which combine the words and the photos, or perhaps sound and photos to enhance or direct the experience. No one way is right and we each have our preferences. As the idea pops up, I explore it here.