civilized ku # 2202 ~ reading a picture

Morning sun, oil tank, and other stuff ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack Park • click to embiggenAt the risk of beating a dead horse, I wish to state for the umpteenth time that I consider a picture, in the best of cases, to be more than just a visual record / representation of what is. As Graham Clarke writes in his book The Photograph:

Whenever we look at a photographic image we engage in a series of complex readings which relate as much to the expectations and assumptions we bring to the image as to the photographic subject itself. Indeed, rather than the notion of looking, which suggests a passive act of recognition, we need to insist that we read a photograph, not as an image, but as a text. That reading (any reading) involves a series of problematic, ambiguous, and often contradictory meanings and relationships between the reader and the image. The photograph achieves meaning through what has been called a 'photographic discourse': a language of codes which involve its own grammar and syntax. It is, in its own way, as complex and as rich as any written kanguage and ... involves its own conventions and histories. (all emphasis by the author)

Now, if, for you, all of that reads like academic art theory BS and (again, for you) a picture is just a picture, I have no problem with that. You're not stupid or an idiot - you have just decided to view (not read) pictures according to your likes and dislikes. And, in a sense, consciously or not, you have decided not to learn how to read a picture. Again, I have no problem with that.

I mean, hey ... some people take the time and make the effort to learn how to appreciate a fine wine, a fine bourbon, a fine cigar, or good literature. For some, booze is just a means to get to an altered state and a story is just entertainment. That's fine with me. As I have stated again and again, to each his own and whatever floats your boat - as long as no innocents were harmed in the execution of your choices.

However, for who are interested in expanding their horizons and challenging their expectations and assumptions, it is best to understand that the learning of how to read a picture is an individual / personal endeavor. That is so inasmuch as how much / how in depth one learns about the conventions and histories of the medium and the codes of the language of 'photographic discourse' will influence one's fluency in that language. That said, IMO, however far one digs, some fluency is better, by far, than no fluency at all.

That's because, IMO, when encountering a picture it's much richer to be active in reading it than it is to engage in a passive act of surface-only recognition. Since there is a relationship between a reader and an image and, in large part, because the depth and complexity of that relationship is dependent upon the expectations, assumptions, and, I might add, the knowledge one brings to that encounter, I believe, without a doubt, the picture viewing experience is greatly enhanced by adding the notion of reading to one's picture viewing kit.

I might also add that the act of learning the active act of reading a picture is, in and of itself, a pleasurable endeavor. While it might rightly be considered an academic undertaking, it is by no means a dry and complex area of learning / study inasmuch as doing so involves: looking a lot of pictures (crawling before you walk, perchance to run), both present and past; reading what others have to say about those pictures (to include, when available, what the picture makers themselves have to say about their making); investigating the history of the medium, its practitioners and its movements; and, all of that in relationship to the arts in general and its movements as a whole.

It is also helpful in reading, understanding, and finding meaning in a picture to have knowledge about the era/time in which a picture was made. As an example, consider the New Topographics movement. I find it adds much to my understanding, appreciation, and derived meaning of the pictures (past and present) made under that banner to be aware the cultural and societal era in which that movement had its origins.

IMO, the making of pictures which questioned and ultimately altered the manner in which many approached the making of pictures of the landscape was very much a cultural / societal product of its era. That is to state, the nature-as-a-venerated-'god' pictures of, say, an Ansel Adams, gave way to a more paradigm challenging nature-as-man-altered way of seeing by, say, Robert Adams, hot on the heels of the question-everything era of the 60s and early 70s.

Is it a sure thing to state that the New Topographics movement may not have happened at all where it not for the temper of the times? Maybe. Maybe not. But, in either case, it's worth considering the question and understanding how the temper of that time influenced the making and new found appreciation of such pictures.

And, I can state, without equivocation, that my reading, understanding, and appreciation of the New Topographics pictures, past and present, are significantly enhanced by recognition of the impact and influence exerted by the cultural and societal paradigm in effect in that era and how that influenced the making of such pictures. For me, my eye and sensibilities, and my way of reading a picture, that recognition is also why, in large part, those pictures are much more than mere records of the referents that they depict.