Perhaps we read too much
Starting this course and reading the book 'the photograph' has really helped my understanding of photography and its language. It has taught me the importance of being able to translate my images into words when it is required.
That being said, there also a cynical side to me which thinks that perhaps we read too much into images and there supposed meaning. I am going to use this blog post to explain along with an example image.
In the book this image is read as though it were a fantastic and deliberately well crafted photograph:
"Emptiness overwhelms the eye - the sky (which occupies a third of the photographic space) is devoid of any significant presence. It has been emptied of effect"
Perhaps the author of the book is reading too much into the composition of the image. Its not that I am trying to argue that it is not a well composed and balanced image, more that the emptying of the sky was down to the limitations of the camera equipment at the time and not due to some well thought plan.
I'm not saying that all contextual thoughts about photography and art are nonsense, just that we can often search too hard for a concept or meaning that isn't always there.
Also, photography is a hobby to many people that have no knowledge of how the camera works and also those who simply point and shoot in auto mode. This does not mean they can not take a fantastic image but I do think it limits what can fairly be said about the concept behind the image, as there was no real thought before the shutter was triggered.
That being said, there also a cynical side to me which thinks that perhaps we read too much into images and there supposed meaning. I am going to use this blog post to explain along with an example image.
 |
| 'Cape Horn near Cello' 1867 by Carleton Watkins as seen in Graham Clarke's 'The Photograph' 1997 |
"Emptiness overwhelms the eye - the sky (which occupies a third of the photographic space) is devoid of any significant presence. It has been emptied of effect"
Perhaps the author of the book is reading too much into the composition of the image. Its not that I am trying to argue that it is not a well composed and balanced image, more that the emptying of the sky was down to the limitations of the camera equipment at the time and not due to some well thought plan.
I'm not saying that all contextual thoughts about photography and art are nonsense, just that we can often search too hard for a concept or meaning that isn't always there.
Also, photography is a hobby to many people that have no knowledge of how the camera works and also those who simply point and shoot in auto mode. This does not mean they can not take a fantastic image but I do think it limits what can fairly be said about the concept behind the image, as there was no real thought before the shutter was triggered.
Comments
Post a Comment