urban ku # 39 ~ meaning
Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 09:33AM 
"...we have assumed that photographs produce meanings independently of language; this is an abiding assumption ... but it is seldom, if ever, the case." - Steve Edwards, Photography: A Very Short Introduction, Chapter 5 - Apparatus and the image, pg. 109 in the section on Narrative.
John Szarkowski curated an exhibit at MOMA - From the Picture Press - in 1973 which consisted of press photographs presented without captions/text. It was said that the photographs seemed strangely ambiguous, which supported Szarkowski's claim that photography was not a narrative form and that photographs lacked an immediate legibility. According to Szarkowski, photography was 'an art of details and fragments and not an art of storytelling' - that meaning is simply not in the image.
This notion stands in stark contrast to the conventional wisdom that 'a picture is worth a thousand words', the idea that complex stories can be told with just a single still image, or that an image may be more influential than a substantial amount of text. 
To the contrary, I have always felt that a picture needs a thousand words.
Consider the famous "napalm girl' documentary photograph from the Vietnam War. Without captions and/or text it is obviously a picture of some scared kids in a war-like setting. Other than the general time-tested idea that 'war is hell', little else can be known. In order to grasp the full horror which image represents, words are a must.
So where does that leave 'art' photography? What does, as an example, urban ku # 39 mean?
click on photo to embiggen itAgain, Steve Edwards; "Photographic art ... typically abjures words, or employs elliptical text in order to leave the image open to associations and intrepretations. For art, vagueness or ambiguity are often the preferred modes."
OK. I know that sometimes a picture is just a picture. You can just look at it, revel in its visual and formal beauty and let it be exactly what it appears to be - a picture of whatever it is a picture of. Good enough, but I am beginning to feel that, without some immediately apparent semantic reference or other pertinent contextual knowledge on the part of the viewer, a picture is indeed just a picture.
Featured Comment Ian P wrote; "I have been recently mentally toying with the idea that, as a work of art, a single photograph ('picture') on its own is problematic.
If the meaning is, as you put it, simply not in the image, then the appropriate 'unit' of art should perhaps consist of more than just the image itself.
In a certain simplistic sense this would mean, for example, that if a title of a picture is a required element for conveying or exploring whatever idea it is that the artist has, then the unit of art would be 'image and title'. If a caption is required then the unit would be 'image and caption'. Following this idea out further, if a series of images are integral to the interpretation of any one image in the series, then the appropriate unit of art is the whole series of images..."
publisher's comment: As Monty Burns says - "excellent"
Reader Comments (2)
I have been recently mentally toying with the idea that, as a work of art, a single photograph ('picture') on its own is problematic.
If the meaning is, as you put it, simply not in the image, then the appropriate 'unit' of art should perhaps consist of more than just the image itself.
In a certain simplistic sense this would mean, for example, that if a title of a picture is a required element for conveying or exploring whatever idea it is that the artist has, then the unit of art would be 'image and title'. If a caption is required then the unit would be 'image and caption'. Following this idea out further, if a series of images are integral to the interpretation of any one image in the series, then the appropriate unit of art is the whole series of images, which I think fits into your thoughts on producing photo books. In a sense I think that in some ways photo books are often a more appropriate unit of art for photographs than single images. (There are other forms for series of images of course, but photobooks are the most practical).
This is not to imply that all or most photo books are art, the vast majority are simply collections of individual images. But we have reached a stage now with custom photo book printing that a series of photographs presented in a book form as art is practical.
cheers
Ian
Also the the viwer seeks to provide their own caption, narrative, to the image - creates a context - attempts to create a context - and this is also done through language - even if it is unspoken.
It would be helpful if you provided the page number from Steve Edwards book! I can then read the relevant section before posting..
Best, Sean.