urban ku # 40 ~ meaning # 2
Wednesday, March 7, 2007 at 09:12AM 
Considered together, urban ku # 39 and # 40 might be understood to mean that I have developed an attraction to tow trailers parked in yards. Truth be told, 'round these parts tow trailers of all stripes are rather ubiquitous and they might be rich fodder for a body of photographic work with meaning, but that's not where I'm headed.
Where I am headed with this thread is to attempt to drive a nail in the coffin of the stupid notion that, because photography is a visual medium, a photograph that needs words to 'explain' it is a failure. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. I might also add 'dung'.
At best, photography employs a 'language' of visual symbols - something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible (Amer. Heritage Dictionary). Literally, a photograph represents something else - its 'referent'. Figuratively, a photograph implies a 'connoted' - the 'invisible' meaning.
This is not about trailers #2 • click on photo to embiggen itBUT, because symbols are ambiguous - their 'interpretation' depends on so many variables which the viewer brings to the table - the connoted meaning is also ambiguous. IMO, the only definitive action that can mediate and restrict (not eliminate) the range of ambiguities is an addendum of words.
IMO, 2 recent comments on The Landscapist bring this into focus; #1) Ana wrote; "...it's about discourse: in the art world, it's the discourse surrounding the work that defines it as art." #2 Ian wrote; "...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 (publisher's emphasis) would be 'image and title'."
To which I would add - All hail the Artist's Statement.
Featured Comment Sean wrote: "This is touching on semiotics. You could then look at a 'language' of visual symbols' in the following manner:
symbol: an arbitary or purely conventional sign (the spoken/written word).
icon: a sign that resembles or imitates that which it depicts (a painting).
index: a sign directly connected (a photograph)."
Reader Comments (7)
This is touching on semiotics. You could then look at a 'language' of visual symbols' in the following manner:
symbol: an arbitary or purely conventional sign (the spoken/written word).
icon: a sign that resembles or imitates that which it depicts (a painting).
index: a sign directly connected (a photograph).
An excellent web site on the subject is: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.html.
Best, Sean.
That coffin deserves screws. Whatever meaning you think a photograph has, there's no reason not to enrich it with accompanying words if you so choose. Another possibility is enrichment via other photographs, i.e. the under-appreciated diptych, etc.
Sequences of photographs - diptych, triptych - are facinating. Even those that are random - especially those that are random - facing pages for instance, in the case of the diptych.
On the diptych the following is interesting: http://www.utebehrend.de (link from http://jmcolberg.com/weblog)
Best, Sean.
I like these from a flickr friend ...I like how they compliment human and nature...both in colors and somehow in expression.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/melography/sets/72157594567011797/detail
Well I guess I am dumb, dumb, dumb.
My feeling is that if I need to write an essay telling people what to look for, what I mean, where to look, and how to feel about a picture, then I should sell my camera gear and buy a typewriter.
I do not expect to communicate something literal to a viewer, but I do expect to communicate something. I do expect that something to be different for everyone that looks at a picture. If I need to explain myself to hold their attention, then I do believe I have failed for that person.
"I do expect that something to be different for everyone that looks at a picture."
Would you not have a preferred interpretation/reading? If a photograph is taken to promote a certain view, say against homophobia, and is then used to promote, or reinforce homophobic atitudes - how would that effect a relinguishing of the authors intention? Is intention no longer relevant once the image is released to a public?
If I need to explain myself to hold their attention, then I do believe I have failed for that person."
Or is it that, as the above indicates, you would prefer a certain interpretation and if this is not affected the image fails at some level?
I would assume that you do have certain intentions in mind when making photographs - is it not permissable to make these known if asked - to provide context?
What, exactly, is the image posted in'meaning #3' about? I would not regard textual information as an indication that the image has failed as an image.
Best, Sean.
Scott,
I don't think anyone is saying that every photograph MUST have accompanying words, only that there is no requirement that a photograph MUST stand alone. Some photographs would gain, some might well lose, especially if the words are not so well chosen. It seems to me this is up to the photographer. If you wish your work to be image only, that's more than fine.