Context is vital

[matti]

I completely agree with you here, of cource. It would be completely ridiculous to write texts to explain, for example, abstract photos.

And, even though I said I want more information, I still think it might be wise for the photographer not to give it to me.

Think, for example, about a street photograph where the 7 year old boy Jean-Luc, is carrying two bottles of wine home to his mother to be used for the dinner with the grand parents. He is proud, because it is the first time he was allowed to go to the store to buy wine. Then take away this information. Now the picture is about pride, happiness and childhood!

/matti

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 varjag, the pic might indeed be the 'beauty of a mundane moment caught with a camera' but in the original photo that prompted this thread much misperception is available BECAUSE no context is provided.

The shot was taken in Russia and could be interpreted as a very negative one of the country, the people or the photographer themself. With context we are less likely to form incorrect negative stereotype perceptions of the culture and actions contained within the image. I prefer some supplied context for that reason.

thanks for your contribution, please do continue. It really is a pleasure to have this kind of discussion without ego and anger ruining it.

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.

 

[varjag]

Yes varjag, the pic might indeed be the 'beauty of a mundane moment caught with a camera' but in the original photo that prompted this thread much misperception is available BECAUSE no context is provided.

The shot was taken in Russia and could be interpreted as a very negative one of the country, the people or the photographer themself. With context we are less likely to form incorrect negative stereotype perceptions of the culture and actions contained within the image. I prefer some supplied context for that reason.

OK, with art critic hat on 🙂 That particular photo to a great extent works because of all the bare hands of people in the frame (plus bare feet of one woman near the pump), i.e. strong, repeated relationship of shape, tone and to lesser extent perspective formed by them. The perspective leads us from the background to the woman in front of the camera, since the eye follows the trail left to right: this is preferrable than reverse, flip the shot in your image editor and compare. The mist conveniently hides unimportant background; people at right don't contribute at all, just cover them with your hand and the shot would only improve.

I personally fail to see why context is necessary here, the caption says it all. It is a routine occurence in a Russian province, and this shot was taken, selected and published by the author not for its importance or perceived hidden meaning.

 

[jano]

Very cool discussion 🙂

I view the "context" in 3 ways:

1. artist wants total control of how the viewer sees the image, therefore, provides a detailed context. Several reasons for this: a) artist is pretentious and doesn't feel the audience will understand b) specific context required to help appreciate the subject c) artist doesn't know any better

2. artist leaves it to the viewer to make his/her decision

3. artist doesn't care or has no idea

The above takes me back to college days when I was taking a course on screenwriting (writing movie scripts). When a character in the movie has dialogue, the author has the option of adding HOW the actor is supposed to deliver the line (e.g. "sighing" or "quickly" or "recalcitrant" or whatever). In writing my first screenplay, I stuck a qualifier with nearly EVERY piece of dialogue.. because I wanted the reader/actor to deliver the line the way I SAW IT. In other words, I was putting on hat of the director. As I got deeper into the course, I understood the roll of the writer was to simply portray the story, and allow the actors and directors and movie studios to interpret the language, and it was their decision how to convey the story to the audience.

Now.. photography is a bit different, but we have similarities with film 😀 This comes to the point of how much context is necessary. Perhaps that's another part to the phtographic medium the artist must choose.. not just exposure, development time.. but also the amount of context 😕

Ah, cool discussion, nonetheless 😎
jano

 

[desmo]

The photographer does not need to overexplain the image, all I desire is enough context so that I do not form misconceptions of the content.

so in addition to your explanation i would add these two:

"the photographer wants to send a message and does not want it misinterpreted but they also wish to leave some mystery"

"the photographer has a certain amount of moral obligation not to promote misunderstnding between cultures/peole and may need to provide context in order to achieve this"

Very cool discussion 🙂

I view the "context" in 3 ways:

1. artist wants total control of how the viewer sees the image, therefore, provides a detailed context. Several reasons for this: a) artist is pretentious and doesn't feel the audience will understand b) specific context required to help appreciate the subject c) artist doesn't know any better

2. artist leaves it to the viewer to make his/her decision

3. artist doesn't care or has no idea

The above takes me back to college days when I was taking a course on screenwriting (writing movie scripts). When a character in the movie has dialogue, the author has the option of adding HOW the actor is supposed to deliver the line (e.g. "sighing" or "quickly" or "recalcitrant" or whatever). In writing my first screenplay, I stuck a qualifier with nearly EVERY piece of dialogue.. because I wanted the reader/actor to deliver the line the way I SAW IT. In other words, I was putting on hat of the director. As I got deeper into the course, I understood the roll of the writer was to simply portray the story, and allow the actors and directors and movie studios to interpret the language, and it was their decision how to convey the story to the audience.

Now.. photography is a bit different, but we have similarities with film 😀 This comes to the point of how much context is necessary. Perhaps that's another part to the phtographic medium the artist must choose.. not just exposure, development time.. but also the amount of context 😕

Ah, cool discussion, nonetheless 😎
jano

 

[desmo]

The photographer does not need to overexplain the image, all I desire is enough context so that I do not form misconceptions of the content.

so in addition to your explanation i would add these two:

"the photographer wants to send a message and does not want it misinterpreted but they also wish to leave some mystery"

"the photographer has a certain amount of moral obligation not to promote misunderstnding between cultures/peole and may need to provide context in order to achieve this"

😕 😕 😕 😕 😕

Very cool discussion 🙂

I view the "context" in 3 ways:

1. artist wants total control of how the viewer sees the image, therefore, provides a detailed context. Several reasons for this: a) artist is pretentious and doesn't feel the audience will understand b) specific context required to help appreciate the subject c) artist doesn't know any better

2. artist leaves it to the viewer to make his/her decision

3. artist doesn't care or has no idea

The above takes me back to college days when I was taking a course on screenwriting (writing movie scripts). When a character in the movie has dialogue, the author has the option of adding HOW the actor is supposed to deliver the line (e.g. "sighing" or "quickly" or "recalcitrant" or whatever). In writing my first screenplay, I stuck a qualifier with nearly EVERY piece of dialogue.. because I wanted the reader/actor to deliver the line the way I SAW IT. In other words, I was putting on hat of the director. As I got deeper into the course, I understood the roll of the writer was to simply portray the story, and allow the actors and directors and movie studios to interpret the language, and it was their decision how to convey the story to the audience.

Now.. photography is a bit different, but we have similarities with film 😀 This comes to the point of how much context is necessary. Perhaps that's another part to the phtographic medium the artist must choose.. not just exposure, development time.. but also the amount of context 😕

Ah, cool discussion, nonetheless 😎
jano

 

[desmo]

I was unable to sleep last night and got up at 2am New Zealand time.

You folk are a pleasure to discuss this with and I'm glad I am tired.....................

;-)

 

[FrankS]

Let me add this statement to the discussion:

An artist can/should not be held accountable for the prejudices and biases of art viewers. It may in fact be the purpose of a work, to epxose those very things.

BTW, I love a good discussion without ego and anger too!

 

[matti]

"the photographer wants to send a message and does not want it misinterpreted but they also wish to leave some mystery"

The power of the message is stronger if the reciever discovers it herself. But sometimes artists leave things open because they are lazy or not brave enough.

/matti

 

[desmo]

gotta go make caffeine, strong caffeine

see ya all later and thanks again

i have only been here for a short time but already i love the RFF

 

[ch1]

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.

I think Frank has raised some good points - I was thinking this AM about the Mona Lisa - would civilization for the past 500 years have been better off if Da Vinci had provided commentary? Hasn't part of the fascination of that picture over the centuries been what is left for us to speculate upon? Namely, who was she and what are the thoughts behind her enigmatic smile?

Some photos cry our for commentary - although I do not think that commentary can make a banal photo suddenly a great one.

A few weeks ago I started a thread about a PJ photo of the first anniversay commemoration of the Tsunami victims in Thailand. The image itself was a very powerful one and could stand alone. However, the commentary with it was also very stong - because while the "context" was obvious from the image - the reasons why the commeration was being done in this particular way benefitted from additional information.

It's never a either/or choice. As said, some images can stand on their own and need no words (and words might, in fact, diminish them - we know what Eddie Adams was saying to us by the context of when and where the image was taken) others can benefit from either additional explanation or to provide the viewer with the "end of story" questions that might arise upon the viewing.

In this latter situation I am thinking of the picture some years ago taken during the Ethiopian famine. It showed a vulture standing and staring at a young girl who was clearly famished. The picture was powerful and made you want to scream "Somebody help this child". The photographer did note in the text of the story it came with that after taking the candid shot - he picked up the girl and brought her to the relief camp. I think that was helpful to the viewer.

Anyway, nice discussion, desmo et. al.

 

[desmo]

Agreed as far as it goes but Frank, I don't consider myself an artist when I post the photojournalist/slice of life type images: i am a reporter, a communicator

I therefore DO believe I have a responsibility to supply correct context

that some may find my work worthy of being labelled 'art' is flattering but i'd rather they understood my message

Let me add this statement to the discussion:

An artist can/should not be held accountable for the prejudices and biases of art viewers. It may in fact be the purpose of a work, to epxose those very things.

BTW, I love a good discussion without ego and anger too!

 

[FrankS]

Yes, I think we are arguing a different point. You're saying a social documentarian/PJ needs to provide context to aid in understanding an image, and I'm arguing from the photo-as-art standpoint. We're good.

 

[desmo]

Perhaps a different tact:

Thinking of Geert Hofstede's famous communication taxonomies and his explanation of context, maybe it is a personal cultural imperitive to desire or not desire a context supplied by the photographer?

"High and low context---Research has found that people in high context cultures tend to be more implicit in verbal codes, perceive highly verbal persons less attractive, tend to be more reliant on and tuned into non-verbal communication, and expect to have more non-verbal codes in communication. "

Low-Context Culture

1. Overtly displays meanings through direct communication forms.

2. Values individualism.

3. Tends to develop transitory personal relationship.

4. Emphasizes linear logic.

5. Values direct verbal interaction and is less able to read nonverbal expressions.

6. Tends to use "logic" to present ideas.

7. Tends to emphasize highly structured messages, give details, and place great stress on words and technical signs.


High-Context Culture

1. Implicitly embeds meanings at different levels of the sociocultural context.

2. Values group sense.

3. Tends to take time to cultivate and establish a permanent personal relationship.

4. Emphasizes spiral logic.

5. Values indirect verbal interaction and is more able to read nonverbal expressions.

6. Tends to use more "feeling" in expression.

7. Tends to give simple, ambiguous, noncontexting messages.

 

[desmo]

Yes, I agree.

Actually, we're all good. We are of course all offering opinion and philosophy not cold hard fact. We each desire different things from what we are viewing.

Yes, I think we are arguing a different point. You're saying a social documentarian/PJ needs to provide context to aid in understanding an image, and I'm arguing from the photo-as-art standpoint. We're good.

 

[FrankS]

I think you must be trying to apply your university knowledge to the real world and over-rationalizing this issue. 🙂

 

[RML]

Cool discussion but I see that there are actually two "monologues" at hand: one "defending" the PJ point of view, the other the artist point of view.

Even though a PJ can provide context, this might be lost on future generations. An artist might not provide context but a viewer will make his own interpretation. IMO context is only important if the it serves a purpose, and even than it might only be a perceived context. Even PJs don't always know the greater story and often history reveals truths and insights unknown at the time of the shot being taken. Furthermore, different cultures might interpret the same image in different ways. An added explanation might not make sense to them at all simply because the explanation goes against cultural notions.

The image that you provided showed to me people from a small Russian community probably in the act of collectively burning something. No fear or angst, I read from the image. Having travelled through Russia and Siberia, I can tell you that many women actually look exactly like you see in the image. Are they farmers, peasant, industrial workers? All and none of the above most likely. Context is often not necessary to clarify cultural differences. They miss the mark quite often as they have to generalise to be brief. Only personal experience can bring a clear cultural understanding and prevent cultural biases.

Just my $0.02.

 

[jlw]

"the photographer wants to send a message and does not want it misinterpreted but they also wish to leave some mystery"

Similar take from poet (and insurance executive) Wallace Stevens, in Portrait of a Man Carrying Something:

The poem should resist the intelligence
almost successfully.

I like the idea of trying to make photographs that resist the intelligence almost successfully -- avoiding both the obvious and the hopelessly obscure.

It's getting the "almost" that's the hard part!

 

[desmo]

Wonderful: I popped into the Photography Dept of my local Technical Institute today and on the board in big letters I saw this (paraphrased since I didn't jot it down verbatin):
"No photograph exists without context: all images are political in their time and place contexts."

That nicely sums up the reason I desire some supplied context when looking at many photos, particularly images of people and human constructs

 

[smiling gecko]

...contax is vital !! (and canon, leica, nikon, minolta , mamiya, pentax, et alli)

...i just had to throw in some of my mumbo-jumbo tangent leaping hoohah & wahoo here ( a nod to frank)...i'm too pooped tonight to add anything of substance to this thread.

...seriously desmo, draco, rj, joe friday, frank, et alii , there are some valid ideas and thoughts on this topic - pro & con - and was struck by something akin to a mental version of the python "silly walk"...

hasta la vista, adieu, dasvidanya,,fino al prossimo tempo, auf wiedersehen, and later y’all
kenneth
___________________________________

"...patience and shuffle the cards" miguel cervantes
"nothing can be learned" herman hesse
"everybody knows everything" jack kerouac
"some memories are realities and better than anything" willa cather
" doo-wacka doo, wacka doo" roger miller
"We have see the enemy and they is us !" pogo