ku # 1309-13 / diptych # 158 ~ can you hear what I hear? can you see what I see?

tidal mash ~ Stone Harbor, NJ • click to embiggen
surf ~ Stone Harbor, NJ • click to embiggen
same dune - different lenses / light ~ Stone Harbor, NJ • click to embiggen

In yesterday's entry I linked to an essay by JÖRG M. COLBERG in which he emphasized his desire to view pictures which create a "dialogue". That is, by his definition, "... the dialogue someone’s work has (or attempts to have) with everything else."

What I infer from that statement is that Colberg is looking to find a meaning which is implied / suggested beyond the obvious literal observation of a picture's referent - what Roland Barthes deemed as a picture's punctum: the wounding, personally touching detail which establishes a direct relationship with the object or person within it. OR, what I describe as a picture's illuminative quality (as opposed to its illustrative quality).

Much has been written about a picture's meaning, its illusiveness, its malleability, and, in the case of the academic lunatic fringe, its preeminence (meaning over visual) in the act of picture making. While I place absolutely no stock in the ALF's preoccupation / fetish, re: meaning, I certainly agree with notions of meaning to be found in a picture as illusive and malleable.

All of that written, I have a question .... it seems to be a significant part of the human condition to look / search for meaning (why are we here / what's the meaning of life, etc.). In light of that fact, it would appear that many bring that approach to the medium of photography. But the thought occurs to me that perhaps we are asking too much of the medium when it comes to the idea of meaning. Which thought does by no means that I believe meaning in pictures is not possible.

In fact, I still and always will believe that the best pictures are those which, in addition to their visual merits, ask questions and/or introduce the viewer to something (s)he finds challenging and/or thought provoking to at least some extent. How far one can take that idea, re: deliberately creating intended meaning in a picture (the WOW factor really doesn't qualify as meaning), is, IMO, open to very legitimate question (other than pure outright propaganda).

And, of course, no matter the picture maker's intent, meaning wise, the viewer can assign to a picture any meaning (or none at all) (s)he can conjure up inasmuch as what the viewer gets out of a picture is very dependent upon what that viewer brings to the picture viewing table. After all, stupid is as stupid does, and, interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art.

FYI, in the same dune diptych the pictures were made from about the same vantage point but with different lenses. They were made approximately 45-60 minutes apart. The sky over the ocean at the beach can change rather quickly.