Reading Photos

[Dave H]

Lifted from Slate.com’s Quote of the week,

“In relation to my images, many are complex to a point that some people in the pictures don’t always understand the context in which they appear. It is stunning to see how very few people actually know how to read a photograph – something that goes beyond the surface.” Carl De Keyzer. (Magnum Photographer)



Now I’ve read this quote several times and I cant quite grasp the first half of it, mainly, because I suspect that most people in his photos probably will never see themselves “in print” anyway.

It’s the second half of the quote about his perceived “illiteracy” of others that concerns me. Is he conceited? Is he guilty of seeing things in his own photos that others do not, simply because he has his own emotional attachment to them? Emperors New Clothes? If he believes that the majority cannot read his photos is he failing as a photographer?

I myself, am one of the Plebs, and tend to look at all Magnums Photographers images in awe, although sometimes I can’t “see it”! Would a crash course in “reading images” ultimately make me a better photographer, as I would be able to pick out the best images to shoot in the first place.

How do members here “read” images, or do we just form instant “like / dislike” opinions and don’t bother to “read” images at all? Thereby not doing the photographer justice.


Dave H

(or is it all Arty Tosh anyway?)

 

[remrf]

I would have to say that if a photo requires skilled "reading" then it probably did not convey much of a message. I think the reverse is true. When your basic person on the street can look at a photograph and get the meaning then it is a good photograph. The "skilled" observer might see how technically the message was communicated to a greater depth than the casual observer but that is why we as photographers look at lots of photos and discuss techniques of capture. In order to integrate known methods of visual communication into our work.

Thinking about "reading" photographs reminded me of an incident that happened during my tour as a photographer/lab man in Viet Nam(69/70'). It is not really the same as what the above quote was getting at but it was reading the photograph and it was kind of spooky at the time.

On occasion we would get photographs to be copied and enlarged obtained when a VC was captured or killed. Usually it was S-2 (The Intel folks) who wanted the copies so they could apprehend one or more of those in the photo.

I had done this job on a number of occasions but in one particular instance I was almost completely done with the job. I had copied the original photo and made several enlarged copies of it. I was pulling them out of the washer and got the first really good look at the content of the photo. On the surface it was just a snap shot of five Vietnamese people. One woman and four men. The woman was sitting in the foreground with one young man. Even in very worn dirty clothing and a few days from the last bath or wash up she was lovely. She sat with a lithe grace and dignity and a tiny bit of a Mona Lisa smile. Her left hand was entwined with the hand and sitting on the thigh of the young man next to her in a subtle but without a doubt possesive manner. For his part the young man had a look on his face that communicated his amazement that this lovely girl had picked him. He was blissfull and too young and innocent to be smug about his situation. Astoundedly quietly joyful would be more on the mark.

Three men stood behind them. First on the left was a young man who was slightly older than the young man in front or the girl. He was looking down at them and he was not happy. The jilted suitor. If I had been the young man in front I would not get this man behind me in a firefight. In the middle of the back three was your basic Vietnamese version of G.I. Joe. He was just happy to be here in this moment instead of the alternatives all of which were either dangerous or nasty in the extreme. The last man of the group was somewhat older and he looked to me to the the "sargeant" of this band. His eyes and expression said that he was watching the young triad drama with care and that he would not let harm befall the besmitten young man in the front. Or any of his charges. There was steel as well as bemusement in his eyes.

And as I stood there "reading" this photo I realized that in order for me to be looking at it one or more of these people had to be dead or captured and the rest had a fair chance of getting that way in the near future.

Sometimes the job really sucked.

 

[FrankS]

Great story, remf. Very perceptive and sensitive on your part. And I agree with you about how a good photo can be appreciated/read by almost anyone. If it can't be, then it isn't a good one. (By my definition.)This Magnum guy was just blowing his horn, IMO. Like Dave said: arty tosh.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

You need to be taught to read an image.

Many years ago when I was unemployed I used to go to art galleries in London.

I'd pass by a Mondrian or a Dali and think I'd seen it.

Then I found out about the free lectures every afternoon. Typically an hour at the Tate Gallery in front of one Turner with a lecturer who really knew their stuff.

 

[jano]

Consider this: unless a studio or some kind of model shot, the likelihood is that the photograph was taken "spur" of the moment. In other words, the photographer probably didn't sit around thinking about the various elements that someone will be "reading" in the photograph. It was a sporadic choice to take the picture. Then later, the viewers can look at it and study/read why the photograph works or not (I agree with Frank S' definition).

So yeah, the guy's tootin' his horn 🙂

What I'm trying to say: I doubt the majority of photographers were able to "read" their photo before taking it.. which is quite a bit different from other artforms (music composition, nude modelling, sculpture, painting, even sports...). A unique aspect indeed 🙂

 

[varjag]

There is a visual language, and reading that language is an acquired skill. Proof is all the numerous folks not getting HCB.

 

[Bertram2]

It is stunning to see how very few people actually know how to read a photograph – something that goes beyond the surface.” Carl De Keyzer. (Magnum Photographer)

Sounds arrogant to me. "Read" and "Photo" is a contradiction per se anyway.
His photo means something to me or it does not. And if it does not this has something to do with his photo, not with my ability of "reading" photos.
This guy is on the wrong train, to say the least.

bertram

 

[varjag]

There's a school of thought that assumes there's more to aesthetics than just superficial "meaning". Otherwise impressionists and surrealists wouldn't make any sense (and indeed to a lot of people they don't).

So is photography can be not just about sunsets, beggars, dying people and kissing couples.

 

[FrankS]

Any particular work of art, a photograph included, may or may not reach out and grab individual viewers and resonate within them. It all depends on what the viewer has "brought to the table" with him, based on his life and cultural experiences to date. Different works will be appreciated by different people. That's okay. Art is not absolute or universal.

I really like the way Jano explained: "I doubt the majority of photographers were able to "read" their photo before taking it.. which is quite a bit different from other artforms."

 

[varjag]

Frank, the "life and cultural experience" part is exactly what I've been arguing against. A truly good photo may not rely on cultural experience of viewer. Culture vaires across time and continents, but the language of shape and form remains fairly universal among human beings. It however takes an effort and willingness to recognize it, to dive beyond the real or perceived "meaning" of photos.

 

[Nick R.]

rem, I think your story kind of proved his point. Your knowledge of the context of the situation led you to read into the photo a deeper meaning than a mere snapshot of four men and a lady --something that a less informed viewer would never see. Your story, or educated view as it were, gave the photo a deeper meaning. Why can't that apply to other photos in other contexts?

 

[FrankS]

Okay, I can understand your point, Eugene. But I disagree and still believe that Art is not absolute in that sense. I think that intellectually we can appreciate art form different times and cultures, but it will not resonate.

 

[Bertram2]

So is photography can be not just about sunsets, beggars, dying people and kissing couples.

This was was surely not the assumption behind my words.
bertram

 

[varjag]

Bertram, that was a reference to the alluded meaning in photographs, not choice of subjects in particular. Sorry if it came out poorly worded.

The point was that people (and other objects) in art photography can serve just as oddly-shaped blurbs of various size and tone, not having any social or other contextual meaning attached. A sunset shot can be great just becasue there's right proportion of red, blue and green, not because it shall remind viewer their recent vacation at Hawaii; a knelt beggar, say, can make an image interesting if he contrasts to a similarly shaped statue - not because he's poor, homeless and begs for money.

 

[FrankS]

This is interesting. Is art absolute, or relative? Is a "good" work of art appreciated by all, or does it matter what the viewer brings to the table in terms of experience, personal and cultural? Any Art theorists out there? I'm just speaking off the top of my head, based on my heart, or gut feeling.

 

[f/stopblues]

An arrogant statement, yes, but the second portion does have a valid point. Most people accquire an eye for photos much the same as others accquire a taste for wine or sushi, or an ear for more challenging music, or an appreciation of good films. It's all by investing some time into your respective interest.

I can remember not so long ago, when I was just starting to learn photography, thumbing through photo books at Barnes and Noble and not understanding HCB, or why Ansel Adams' photos were so much better than photographer X's. I can see why they're great now, cause I have a trained/experienced eye.

Last week I found the www.ball-saal.com website and was incredibly impressed so I emailed the link to four friends, none of whom are photographers. None of them understood why these stood out so much to me. "Eh, there's some good ones." is what I mostly heard.

I wonder how much of this stems from the very fast click click click mentality that a lot of us seem to have settled into. Have we become so glazed over that the masses only respond to photos that immediately grab?

 

[varjag]

I'm not an art theorist, so don't take my ramblings as finished or absolute statements.

It's just my feeling that every photograph evokes both conscious, contextual associations (the meaning) and lower-level, cognitive response (the balance, symmetry or assymetry, tones, shapes). The former accounts for emotional impact, but the latter is largely responsible for our sense of aesthetics. Our eye seeks for harmony and our mind mercilessly sorts and classifies things out; when image is harmonious in several aspects we recognize it as striking. Similarly, if emotional impact of the image is severe enough, it is also striking, but that's an experience of totally different nature.

Here is one of worldpressphoto winners that illustrates both points. The grimace of horror we all can relate to, and combination of red blood and red flowers on the dress.

 

[jano]

Chris, I'll agree with you about the first part.. the more you know/invest into a particular thing, the more you can appreciate whatever it has to offer for you. And this applies to all artforms out there (yes, I'm big on this aspect of it.. mostly because through photography I learned how to isolate my subject -- which has helped me isolate the melody and improved my classical guitar dramatically, and I'm very happy about that 😛 ).

I understand what you're saying about the second part, and yeah, a lot may have to do with the clickety-click. That's what I was sort of saying earlier.

Actually.. I'm simply trying to convey that a lot of the "complexity" that's read into a photograph happens AFTER the fact and the majority is not pre-determined. I'm sure this is perhaps one of the reasons why many people look at a photograph and sort of discount it relative to other artforms. Read that stuff on luminous-landscape.. the authors there all brag at just how many photographs they take, and with how few keepers they end up with. Sort of like throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks...

In other words, does it really make sense to read a photograph so thoroughly when the artist didn't necessarily consider all that's being conveyed in the picture?

I don't know the answer to that, and often struggle with it myself. I'm at the point where photography as an art doesn't necessarily stop after you press the shutter release, so there is some deliberation in "creating" the photograph.

Then again, there are myriads of people for whom photography isn't necessarily for artwork, but more so for simply a keepsake. And I bet this has an effect on how people percieve photography as well.

jano

 

[Bertram2]

A sunset shot can be great just becasue there's right proportion of red, blue and green, not because it shall remind viewer their recent vacation at Hawaii.

Well I think nobody here will have another opinion about this sunset..
And If he , as you assume, just meant any meanings below the surface of the visible reality that's o.k.
But if he meant reading = decoding his personal code in visualizing emotions then I find it arrogant . He should not blame others for the prob that they do not understand him.
It was that "people don't know how to...read his complex pics" which bothered me in the same way as it bothered David.

bertram

 

[f/stopblues]

Jano, very valid point. I think we need to give credit to what's happening subconciously in the photographer while he's watching a scene come together. After a good deal of experience, I think a lot of photographers don't walk around and think "ok, these lines are converging and this man is about to hit an intersection." etc etc. We watch and react so something that's been ingrained in us from experience. "Chance favors the prepared mind."

It's not all innate of course.. that's just a portion, but one important enough to give credit to I believe.

EDIT: This isn't meant to excuse the photographer who is quoted. I still find it high-browed and distasteful. He should bear in mind that those people in his photos and the audience of his work are what made him.