Context is vital

[ch1]

Hey Joe,

Is that the sound of "last call" I hear?

C-H

 

[desmo]

good idea copake, the horse is dead; lets stop flogging the poor thing

Hey Joe,

Is that the sound of "last call" I hear?

C-H

 

[ch1]

good idea copake, the horse is dead; lets stop flogging the poor thing

Agreed - but you did "shame me" into putting some "verbiage" on my uploads tonight! 😀

G'night

 

[desmo]

No shame at all copake, i've looked at some of your pics and commented too. thanks for the context
I have to go shoot an Indian celebration thing now so i'm outta hair (oops, that was a freudian slip)

have a good night yourself

Agreed - but you did "shame me" into putting some "verbiage" on my uploads tonight! 😀

G'night

 

[jlw]

Although I agree that examining the significance of context in photographs is fascinating, and important, I must warn you that it can make you very unpopular!

I once nearly got shouted off a photography site when, during a discussion of Eddie Adams' famous Vietnam street-execution photo, I opined that most of the reverence we display for this photo comes from what we've been told about it, NOT for any "greatness" in the photo itself.

To prove it, I said, imagine that you'd never seen or heard of it before -- and when you were shown it, it carried the caption, "Colonel Loan fools another of his buddies with his novelty cigarette lighter." Obviously, if that was all you'd been told about it, you'd say this was just a trivial, poorly-composed snapshot and not a photojournalistic masterpiece, right?

Even though it should be obvious that the "back-story" plays a big role in our appreciation of most photographs (and other things, as author James Frey just learned the hard way on Oprah Winfrey's couch) for some reason the little mental exercise I proposed made several people furiously angry. It's as if many people not only don't recognize the role that context plays in assigning value to photographs... they don't want to recognize it!

I think it's an interesting challenge to try to identify what I call "transparent" photographs -- ones that don't require any special knowledge other than what you can get just by looking at what's within the borders of the image. (I use the word "transparent" because I like to think that you can "see through" such a photograph without any contextual assumptions obscuring your view.)

But in trying to do that, I've come to the conclusion that most such photographs aren't very engaging! Like it or not, the thing that defines photography as something other than a rather expensive way of making marks on paper is the ease with which it represents things, allowing those things to bring their emotional context along with them.

Maybe relying on this is just cheap emotionalism -- but since I want to like my photographs, and want other people to like them, and want them to like me as a consequence, I'm happy to take advantage of cheap emotionalism if it works!

 

[jlw]

PS -- Having bloviated the above, I still have to stay that TOO much reliance on context is also a bad thing.

Back when I used to write art criticism occasionally, I'd sometimes subject artworks to what I called the "vacant-lot test": if you found this object in a vacant lot, would you realize it was a valuable artwork? It's surprising how often the answer is no! (Although to be fair, in some cases that's the artist's whole point in creating the thing.)

 

[ch1]

Although I agree that examining the significance of context in photographs is fascinating, and important, I must warn you that it can make you very unpopular!

I once nearly got shouted off a photography site when, during a discussion of Eddie Adams' famous Vietnam street-execution photo, I opined that most of the reverence we display for this photo comes from what we've been told about it, NOT for any "greatness" in the photo itself.

To prove it, I said, imagine that you'd never seen or heard of it before -- and when you were shown it, it carried the caption, "Colonel Loan fools another of his buddies with his novelty cigarette lighter." Obviously, if that was all you'd been told about it, you'd say this was just a trivial, poorly-composed snapshot and not a photojournalistic masterpiece, right?

Even though it should be obvious that the "back-story" plays a big role in our appreciation of most photographs (and other things, as author James Frey just learned the hard way on Oprah Winfrey's couch) for some reason the little mental exercise I proposed made several people furiously angry. It's as if many people not only don't recognize the role that context plays in assigning value to photographs... they don't want to recognize it!

I think it's an interesting challenge to try to identify what I call "transparent" photographs -- ones that don't require any special knowledge other than what you can get just by looking at what's within the borders of the image. (I use the word "transparent" because I like to think that you can "see through" such a photograph without any contextual assumptions obscuring your view.)

But in trying to do that, I've come to the conclusion that most such photographs aren't very engaging! Like it or not, the thing that defines photography as something other than a rather expensive way of making marks on paper is the ease with which it represents things, allowing those things to bring their emotional context along with them.

Maybe relying on this is just cheap emotionalism -- but since I want to like my photographs, and want other people to like them, and want them to like me as a consequence, I'm happy to take advantage of cheap emotionalism if it works!

The problem with your "scenario" is that you have taken Eddie Adams photograph out of the very "context" desmo is taliking about.

It was published during the Viet Nam war as a "real time" atrocity. That is what gave it it's "currency" such that it required no "contextual commentary". The "commentary" was all around at the time.

I know that this will not convince you - because you are "certain" in your "abstraction".

But you know what? So what? The picture's relevancy at the time is all that mattered. It was part of the overall turning point and so had great impact.

Which of your pictures has ever done so?

 

[varjag]

I am 100% with Frank on this: if you need to explain the shot, you've failed already.

To an extent photojournalism is exception, but even there an image should be telling and evocative on its own. In a series, other shots may serve as context, or a brief cutline, or common knowledge if the event is big news.

When you touch the artsy side of photography though (street shots included), you do not need the informative part, the content, the fabula. It's the fine balance of harmony and asymmetry, of tonality or color, the language of forms that you shall look at. Of course any shot will certainly evoke a cloud of associations, but they are not important for the purpose, it's just the content following after the form.

What's great about the puddle shot of HCB? The man leaps over the puddle (probably failing at that), but what's great about that? Or is that his shape, symmetric vertically to his reflection, also reflected horizontally by ballerina on a distant poster?

 

[matti]

This discussion got me thinking.

I often want to know more about even the best of shots. Maybe it would distract or disapoint me, I don't know. But first the good photo grabs me and only in a later stage will I search for more information to explore the picture further. This second look at the picture with more background information lets me find things I didn't notice the first time I looked at it.

Newspapers often use pictures to grab the attention of the reader. The descriptive short text under the picture is often the thing people read the most (yes, more than large headlines) when you analyze eye-movements from people reading newspapers.

/matti

 

[varjag]

Correct, good shots sometimes come with a story attached. However a bad shot with a story attached is still a bad shot. For a curious viewer, the context might indeed be interesting, but it is worthless for art criticism, as it is not related to aesthetic qualities. In photography, form prevails (and sometimes creates) the content: the effect of form on human cognition is scientifically repeatable, statistically measurable and hence objective, while a hundred people may come up with a thousand different (subjective) explanations for nearly any photograph.

 

[desmo]

But photography is quite often not merely pretty pictures, it is a communication medium.
If the photographer has a message to convey, is it wise to leave the interpretation up to the viewer who has no idea of the context?

I choose light over darkness, I want to know the message not to guess and screw it up.

 

[FrankS]

Photography is both a communication medium and an art medium. Sometimes one or the other, sometimes both together. You are probably approaching photography from the communication aspect, whereas my bias is the art aspect of photography.

The Mona Lisa painting does not require a context to be appreciated as art. Neither do good art photographs.

If photography is being used for communication purposes or for documentation, then yes, a verbal or written explanation enriches the photograph.

 

[desmo]

Yes Frank, that's been my position all along as well.

I have specifically said that I consider many photo genre to have no need for context to be appreciated but that photojournalist style pictures almost always need context to be understood correctly. I extend that to street shots to a large degree too since ignorance leads to misperception and the 'truth' within a picture is lost to our own personal bigotry and bias.

A lovely mountain scene needs no contextual info but a shot of a body probably does.

Why is the body there? Who or what killed it? Where is it? What were the circumstances of it's death? etc

Man Ray images can be appreciated as art without the artist proposing any 'meaning'.

Robert Capa shots are all about context.

Photography is both a communication medium and an art medium. Sometimes one or the other, sometimes both together. You are probably approaching photography from the communication aspect, whereas my bias is the art aspect of photography.

The Mona Lisa painting does not require a context to be appreciated as art. Neither do good art photographs.

If photography is being used for communication purposes or for documentation, then yes, a verbal or written explanation enriches the photograph.

 

[matti]

It is very hard for me to distinguish between what you call communication medium and art medium. Sometimes I can look at pictures that was not ment to be art in the first place and have a deeper experience than just some sort of documentation. And the context might be what starts it, even though it might be a universal context, and not only something that I can understand (like a family shot).

(Ok let's not go too far into the what is art discussion.)

The more I think about it, the more divided I feel about this issue, though. Like Frank, I do believe that the picture that tells it all is something to aim for. But when I see a picture that falls into this category, I find myself still wanting more!

When I was a kid we had this TV-program in Sweden that zoomed in and panned on an old photograph and told the story about it. (Oh, the TV was fun in Sweden in 1977 🙄 ) And even thought it could be a real masterpiece of art, it was still interesting to know more.

/matti

Photography is both a communication medium and an art medium. Sometimes one or the other, sometimes both together. You are probably approaching photography from the communication aspect, whereas my bias is the art aspect of photography.

The Mona Lisa painting does not require a context to be appreciated as art. Neither do good art photographs.

If photography is being used for communication purposes or for documentation, then yes, a verbal or written explanation enriches the photograph.

 

[desmo]

"When I was a kid we had this TV-program in Sweden that zoomed in and panned on an old photograph and told the story about it."

Wow! What a wonderful concept. I wish that were on today in my country. I'd even be interested in seeing the old series since the examination would still be valid today but perhaps a clearer view of events at the time might offer deper understanding.

I understand that my yearning for meaning and clarity is not everybody's cup of tea. Each to their own: this is not an argument thread, it's an opinion thread.

Thanks for yours and thanks Frank for yours too.

It is very hard for me to distinguish between what you call communication medium and art medium. Sometimes I can look at pictures that was not ment to be art in the first place and have a deeper experience than just some sort of documentation. And the context might be what starts it, even though it might be a universal context, and not only something that I can understand (like a family shot).

(Ok let's not go too far into the what is art discussion.)

The more I think about it, the more divided I feel about this issue, though. Like Frank, I do believe that the picture that tells it all is something to aim for. But when I see a picture that falls into this category, I find myself still wanting more!

When I was a kid we had this TV-program in Sweden that zoomed in and panned on an old photograph and told the story about it. (Oh, the TV was fun in Sweden in 1977 🙄 ) And even thought it could be a real masterpiece of art, it was still interesting to know more.

/matti

 

[FrankS]

Good discussion!

I'm thinking that any genre of photography including street, if its intent is to be art, does not require explanation. It is often the intention of the (photographic) artist to raise questions in the viewers of a work. Art can have different purposes. It may be to soothe and satisfy a viewer, or it can be meant to disturb and raise questions.

 

[desmo]

Yes, but we cannot know the photographers intention then without he/she providing some information.
I believe that very few images of that genre 'say it all'.

Yes, it is a good discussion, very interesting comments from many people and places.

Good discussion!

I'm thinking that any genre of photography including street, if its intent is to be art, does not require explanation. It is often the intention of the (photographic) artist to raise questions in the viewers of a work. Art can have different purposes. It may be to soothe and satisfy a viewer, or it can be meant to disturb and raise questions.

 

[desmo]

"Although I agree that examining the significance of context in photographs is fascinating, and important, I must warn you that it can make you very unpopular!"

Yes, that is often true and I find it very heartening to see the maturity that this subject has been approached with here.

 

[varjag]

I have specifically said that I consider many photo genre to have no need for context to be appreciated but that photojournalist style pictures almost always need context to be understood correctly. I extend that to street shots to a large degree too since ignorance leads to misperception and the 'truth' within a picture is lost to our own personal bigotry and bias.

I respectfully disagree. A good street shot doesn't have to possess 'truth' of any kind, it is simply the beauty of a mundane moment caught with a camera. There isn't much subjective factor to the beauty of a moment, other than photographer's or a viewer's failure to spot one. That might explain why most snaps of homeless people suck: people try to find drama, to accentuate the conscious, social and emotive aspects, while the eye perceives and links tones, shapes, proportions and distances, and that fact is totally disregarded.

As of photojournalism, the work there have to have informative aspect, but the best PJ shots have solid aesthetic grounds. Thousands of people cover wars, famine, earthquakes and tsunami every year, yet precious few of the output is worthy of comparison to worldpressphoto winners.

 

[FrankS]

We're a pretty mature group. Very few yahoos here at RFF.