civilized ku # 3083 ~ aboutness

2nd Ave traffic ~ Manhattan, NYC, NY • click to embiggen

A recent essay on Conscientious Photography Magazine addresses the topic,Why does it always have to be about something? iMo, it's a good question and a topic on which I have ruminated and festered for years. More accurately, I would think if fair to write that I have ruminated and festered on the topic of meaning to be had in a picture. Upon reflection, it seems to me that meaning has a connection to aboutness in a picture but that, in fact, they are not same thing.

As Colberg writes in his essay, a picture at its most basic level is simply about what is visually depicted. On the other hand, what a picture is about has been stretched to the breaking point by the new breed of photo curators / artists who write / speak about aboutness using gratuitous amounts of pretentious art speak which, most often, is employed in the cause of trying to create meaning for rather mediocre pictures. Or, as Colberg puts it' "if a group of stellar pictures are “about” something, that’s very different than a group of mediocre pictures that are only being held together by aboutness. And the latter is something you see a lot."

What Colberg is pining for is:

... not so much the idea of pictures being about something or not. I’m really more interested in photographs being given the starring role, and not any of the mumbo jumbo surrounding it, their aboutness being maybe the most prominent aspects. I want to get the task to unpack what might be going on, instead of having it handed ... As long as a group of pictures add up to something, without necessarily being about this or that right away – that’s great.

Bravo. I could not agree more.

When I view a picture, the first thing I notice is what the picture looks like with a emphatic emphasis on its graphic qualities - the arrangement of shapes, colors, tones (highlight and shadow) on its 2-dimentional surface as well as its photographic qualities, re: color and tonal range. The perusal / recognition of these qualities (or lack thereof) is rather instantaneous - no longer than a second or two - and then I move on to a picture's content - that which it depicts, aka: the referent.

It is at that point that I start to deal with the idea of what the picture is about. Is it about just what the depicted referent looks like? Is about something more than just what is pictured? Is it about both?

iMo, the best pictures are about both. Both what is illustrated and what illumination it brings to the fore about what is illustrated. Say like, if it's a picture of ant, does it depict (illustrate) merely what an ant looks like (end of story) or does it also tell me something (illuminate) about the idea of ant-ness? And, does it do both in a visually interesting manner?

FYI, above picture made by sticking hand (w camera) out of car sunroof while driving.

Comments

[John]

So you went through the roof!

I like the reflections in the windshield which creates almost a fish eye view.

Perhaps when I post, if the post contains words, I include too much description of the referent. I admire how your pictures often seem to support your writings but tangentially, which is a more sophisticated approach.

It may be that you just have more to say.