life in pictures # 6b ~ wild at heart - re: reading a photograph
Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 08:43AM 
Wild At Heart ~ v3 • click to embiggenThanks to one and all who took the time and made the effort to comment on life in pictures # 6/6a. Your comments were helpful to me in clarifying a number of issues that I had regarding both pictures.
That said, the most clarifying comment was left by Paul Maxim who stated:
... Even if it's only in the imagination of the viewer (of the photograph), the people in the image need to be seen as being 'connected' to the display itself. There has to be something that links the people in the mall to the display. Otherwise I'm left to wonder whether I'm supposed to be looking at the people or the display. There has to be a connection.
In photo # 1, I must admit to having been visually seduced by the little girl in pink but bothered by the fact that she was interacting with the window display. In photo # 2, I both liked and disliked the fact that there were 2 sets of eyes making eye connect with the viewer of the picture but, ultimately, I was bothered that the 2nd set of eyes (on the passerby) was too dominate.
That said, and what I appreciated about Paul's comment was the fact that Paul got it so completely and utterly wrong. His notion that "the people in the image need to be seen as being "connected" to the display", at least so on a visual level, is actually quite antithetical to my concept behind the life in pictures pictures - the fact that so many people are not consciously aware of the ubiquitous, pervasive and, perhaps, ultimately deleterious presence that advertising images play in their daily lives.
If one had taken the time to click on the "life in pictures" link under the Journal Categories section of the sidebar as part of his/her opinion-forming exercise, it should have been readily apparent that none of the pictured "participants" in the pictures were interacting / connected to the eye-contact marketing / advertising referents in the pictures. They were, in fact, seemingly unaware / oblivious to - again, on a conscious level - the eyes of "big brother" that were upon them. Which, of course, is the point of this series.
Thanks to Paul, by having thoughtfully reminded me of that concept (by totally missing it), I have removed the girl in pink picture from the life in pictures works. However, that left me with the dilemma of the 2 sets of eyes in picture # 2.
I actually like the passerby eye contact with the camera - it actually denotes a sense of being observed (as opposed to being oblivious about one's surroundings), if not by "big brother" (advertising wise) then at least by the eye of camera - which makes things really interesting (IMO) because now the viewer of the picture can contemplate (as Paul states, "to wonder") the idea of, not 2, but 3 sets of eyes. Or, even more accurately, 4 sets of eyes when one includes the eyes of the viewer of the picture.
And, that's a big part of the concept behind the life in pictures series - cognitive observation, or, the absence thereof.
However, as mentioned, I was bothered by the visual dominance of the passerby's eye contact with the eye of the camera. Eventually it became clear to me that, with the addition of another passerby and the shifting of the eye contact with the camera closer to the edge of the picture, that eye contact became less dominate and more "complimentary" to the proceedings.
So, with my apologies to the "purists" in the crowd, I put the couple into a third variation I had made - one with just one passerby. A picture that I had previously rejected because it was too un-peopled. IMO, that little PS slight-of-hand balances the picture out quite nicely.
And, Paul - FYI, the point of the life in pictures pictures, especially when viewed as a body of work, is to leave viewers "to wonder" about the connection between the people depicted therein and the eyes of "big bother" that are upon them. So, since the picture left you wondering, you at least got that part right (insert smiley face here).
Reader Comments (4)
The people or the window or both in one photograph?
I like it all together here because it's a good photograph.
But I have to say though, I'm here to take a look at the window display :-)
I guess it's a matter of personal choice.
I will post a link on my Twitter.
Thank you for sharing your work.
Removing picture 6a is not allowed, it is part of the body of work. You can instead explain that you meant to illustrate the principal that people are too preoccupied by thier consumerism and materialism, and only children still notice the ever present viewer.
Or you could start another of body of work: fantasy in pictures of real life in pictures. The girl in pink with mom (?) is an example.
Yes, Mark I was "aware" of your intent, although I have to say that your initial explanation was, at best, fuzzy. Nothing new there! Anyway, it's still just "your intent". Your interpretation. As I said recently on another blog, once you put it out there for public view, it belongs to me as well (at least with respect to interpretation). So I didn't get it "wrong" - except in your mind which matters not at all to me (place smiley face here).