Reading mode: Light Dark

Interpretation of images

Go to last post
R

RaajS

Veteran Member
Messages
6,651
Solutions
1
Reaction score
1,455
Location
Ann Arbor USA, US
On a previous thread there was an interesting discussion around some images that a fellow forum member posted - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3286980 . It was suggested that folks who didn't "get" what the images were about should go get an education in critical theory, semiotics etc.

I've often seen a lot of what frankly appears to me mostly pyschobabble in discussions of contemporary images - studium, punctum, denotation and other weighty concepts are tossed around with an air of knowing that can leave folks feeling bewildered and lost. If you don't get or like the work of an "artist", it is implied (or blatantly suggested) that you're a country bumpkin when it comes to art, someone who may well have to spend the rest of their life learning and still not get it. I beg to differ. A good image should be visually compelling, otherwise it isn't a good image. Period. My friend Peter has written a piece on his blog that I believe gets to the heart of the matter - http://prosophos.com/2012/10/29/a-good-image-should-grab-you/ and should be required reading for all "artists".

Cheers,

-raaj
 
Hi, I think I agree with that only 80%. Part of me feels that's a bit "shallow", for the lack of a better term. I do love to look at stunning photos that grabs me, like looking at a beautiful woman (or a gender of your choice). But, I wouldn't say that a beautiful woman must be head-turning attractive, or a good book must have an attention-getting intro... etc, the analogy goes on.

I do think that a photograph has its intended audiences, so it must appeal to them, and maybe only to them. Once in a while, I do come across photographs that I don't understand from the first viewing, but there's something about them that bring me back, or spark me to search/read more to better understand them. When I finally do get them, I find myself enjoying them more than if they were just a pretty photograph.

Just some thoughts...
 
Last edited:
RaajS said:
RaajS wrote:

On a previous thread there was an interesting discussion around some images that a fellow forum member posted - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3286980 . It was suggested that folks who didn't "get" what the images were about should go get an education in critical theory, semiotics etc.

I've often seen a lot of what frankly appears to me mostly pyschobabble in discussions of contemporary images - studium, punctum, denotation and other weighty concepts are tossed around with an air of knowing that can leave folks feeling bewildered and lost. If you don't get or like the work of an "artist", it is implied (or blatantly suggested) that you're a country bumpkin when it comes to art, someone who may well have to spend the rest of their life learning and still not get it. I beg to differ. A good image should be visually compelling, otherwise it isn't a good image. Period. My friend Peter has written a piece on his blog that I believe gets to the heart of the matter - http://prosophos.com/2012/10/29/a-good-image-should-grab-you/ and should be required reading for all "artists".

Cheers,

-raaj
Click to expand...
 
RaajS said:
RaajS wrote:

On a previous thread there was an interesting discussion around some images that a fellow forum member posted - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3286980 . It was suggested that folks who didn't "get" what the images were about should go get an education in critical theory, semiotics etc.

I've often seen a lot of what frankly appears to me mostly pyschobabble in discussions of contemporary images - studium, punctum, denotation and other weighty concepts are tossed around with an air of knowing that can leave folks feeling bewildered and lost. If you don't get or like the work of an "artist", it is implied (or blatantly suggested) that you're a country bumpkin when it comes to art, someone who may well have to spend the rest of their life learning and still not get it. I beg to differ. A good image should be visually compelling, otherwise it isn't a good image. Period. My friend Peter has written a piece on his blog that I believe gets to the heart of the matter - http://prosophos.com/2012/10/29/a-good-image-should-grab-you/ and should be required reading for all "artists".

Cheers,

-raaj
Click to expand...
Hello :-),

I am not a Leica owner but I visit and read the forum often because I find interesting images and discussions here. As this one.

As much as I generally like the photography of Peter (prosophos) I will have to completely disagree with the quote from his blog:

"If you have to read a book, or attend a class, or visit an art gallery in order to appreciate the image before you, then it has failed."
I read books, I attend classes and seminars and visit galleries the last 20 years in order to start appreciate the work of many great photographers, work that was "invisible" to me in the beginning.

The work of some photographers is multilevel. They can grab everyone but its difficult to dig inside. Others have only a very deep level which can pass easily unnoticed.
 
...but it takes none to shout it out to the world.

All joking aside, thanks for linking Misha's thread I would have otherwise missed out on some really great photography.

RaajS said:
On a previous thread there was an interesting discussion around some images that a fellow forum member posted - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3286980 . It was suggested that folks who didn't "get" what the images were about should go get an education in critical theory, semiotics etc.

I've often seen a lot of what frankly appears to me mostly pyschobabble in discussions of contemporary images - studium, punctum, denotation and other weighty concepts are tossed around with an air of knowing that can leave folks feeling bewildered and lost. If you don't get or like the work of an "artist", it is implied (or blatantly suggested) that you're a country bumpkin when it comes to art, someone who may well have to spend the rest of their life learning and still not get it. I beg to differ. A good image should be visually compelling, otherwise it isn't a good image. Period. My friend Peter has written a piece on his blog that I believe gets to the heart of the matter - http://prosophos.com/2012/10/29/a-good-image-should-grab-you/ and should be required reading for all "artists".

Cheers,

-raaj
Click to expand...
 
Your arguments are not only shallow and primitive but actually rather naive. I don't believe anyone who actually "understands" photography will agree with you or your friend. I definitely think that Peter guy takes pretty pictures, as I'm sure you do too, but they carry no meaning except the obvious.
 
my username was already taken said:
my username was already taken wrote:
Your arguments are not only shallow and primitive but actually rather naive. I don't believe anyone who actually "understands" photography will agree with you or your friend. I definitely think that Peter guy takes pretty pictures, as I'm sure you do too, but they carry no meaning except the obvious.
Click to expand...
So with all this talk recently about all of this "meaning" in the photos of Misha, could someone who has this profound art background and insight please explain them? Or is it so profound that there is no language to explain it. Everyone commenting on the hidden meaning, the subtleties but not one person, including the photographer is willing/able to explain. Good grief, what a bunch of pompous, nutty people that you find in the arts community.
 
my username was already taken said:
my username was already taken wrote:
Your arguments are not only shallow and primitive but actually rather naive. I don't believe anyone who actually "understands" photography will agree with you or your friend. I definitely think that Peter guy takes pretty pictures, as I'm sure you do too, but they carry no meaning except the obvious.
Click to expand...
Very creative moniker you have here - congrats!

Thank you for your compliment. I didn't think I created pretty pictures but I'll take it.

"Shallow", "primitive", "naive", "no meaning except the obvious"? Really? If you say so, but then in that shallowness and naiveté, I might find myself in the good company of Jean-François Millet, Chardin, Corot and others of that ilk that were clearly painting "pretty pictures" which carried "no meaning beyond the obvious" by your standards.

Cheers,

-raaj
 
Hosermage said:
Hosermage wrote:

Hi, I think I agree with that only 80%. Part of me feels that's a bit "shallow", for the lack of a better term. I do love to look at stunning photos that grabs me, like looking at a beautiful woman (or a gender of your choice). But, I wouldn't say that a beautiful woman must be head-turning attractive, or a good book must have an attention-getting intro... etc, the analogy goes on.

I do think that a photograph has its intended audiences, so it must appeal to them, and maybe only to them. Once in a while, I do come across photographs that I don't understand from the first viewing, but there's something about them that bring me back, or spark me to search/read more to better understand them. When I finally do get them, I find myself enjoying them more than if they were just a pretty photograph.

Just some thoughts...
Click to expand...
 
panos_m said:
panos_m wrote:
panos_m said:
Hello :-),
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
panos_m said:
I am not a Leica owner but I visit and read the forum often because I find interesting images and discussions here. As this one.

As much as I generally like the photography of Peter (prosophos) I will have to completely disagree with the quote from his blog:

"If you have to read a book, or attend a class, or visit an art gallery in order to appreciate the image before you, then it has failed."
I read books, I attend classes and seminars and visit galleries the last 20 years in order to start appreciate the work of many great photographers, work that was "invisible" to me in the beginning.

The work of some photographers is multilevel. They can grab everyone but its difficult to dig inside. Others have only a very deep level which can pass easily unnoticed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Raaj,

I agree with you. I don't 'get' Misha's 2 images that you linked to. Personally (and photography is arguably entirely subjective) I don't find them appealing or interesting at all - in terms of colour, composition, contrast etc...

I also don't find this shot interesting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...s-Rhine-II-the-most-expensive-photograph.html

I think it's a drab scene of absolutely no interest. BUT it's the most expensive photograph ever sold. I would much rather hang a family snap, pleasant landscape or wildlife photo on the wall than a drab grey picture of the Rhine. But it's entirely subjective. My comment would be to whoever bought it that money doesn't buy taste. However each to their own. It's very much similar to the art world - some abstracts just look like a child has thrown paint on the canvas with complete disregard. Someone else comes along and thinks it's a masterpiece. Go figure.

I think Misha's attitude (and others) in that thread in replying to your critique was disproportionate and dismissive. You gave honest feedback. If you can't take constructive criticism then don't post images here. No matter how experienced or acclaimed you are as a photographer there is always something new that you can learn, and often what I think is a 'great' image many others find 'mediocre'. I enjoy reading other photographer/viewer comments to understand how others perceive my pictures.

At the end of the day though I take pictures for my own enjoyment, and if others also get enjoyment out of them then that is a bonus.
 
I have been passionate about photography for more than 40 years. During this time, I have read innumerable magazines, essays and books, and I have visited countless exhibitions. The work of others, I believe, has informed my perspective. On certain occasions, the work I have seen has influenced my approach.

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that the most successful images are those which move me. This idea is one that applies not only to the photography I most admire but the images I make. Most often the only reason I can ascribe to a photograph I take is the fact I was compelled to shoot it. The compulsion cannot always be explained. Most often it's because I liked what I saw; some intrinsic quality of the scene made me want to stop and capture it. Some scenes are ironic, some funny, some stirring, some pose an interesting juxtaposition, some are melancholy, etc.

Rarely was some deep concept the catalyst for making the photograph. That is not to say some images are not conceived and aimed at conveying an idea or emotion. Some are. Often, however, I marvel at the deep philosophical concepts which are ascribed by artists and critics to art and photographs. Not everything is that deep. I'm convinced that while the some ideas are deep, the majority are not. I believe it is most often an aesthetic or emotional quality which drives us to make or appreciate an image.

Joe.
 
I don't agree with Peter's assessment. Just because I don't get grabbed by a photograph, doesn't mean it's not good.

I'm not a fan of landscape photography. If I'm not grabbed by an image in that genre, does that mean it isn't good? Of course not. Similarly, Alec Soth's distant and cold portraiture is not something I respond to (we are of two different temperaments), but I acknowledge that his photography is darned good and that he has a sensitive and thorough understanding of his craft.

We define what is good according to ourselves. For me a good photograph is strongly composed across the frame; it contains mystery and a story; it has emotional content, and the deeper the emotion is felt, the more I like it. With my definition, I may be able to include beneath that umbrella images that I don't like, and those that don't "grab" me. Landscape photographers - and Alec Soth - can rest comfortably.
 
If you show your pictures at different audiences or at different level of society you will get very different feedbacks .....

My goal is not to become a great photographer but rather to make feel better the people i love more.... :)

No love , no passion ....no fun...... this is not my case , good or not.... ;)

Best, Gianluca
 
Last edited:
RaajS said:
RaajS wrote:

But, would you agree with me that for us to put in that effort, for us to be drawn back to the image, there has to be something in the image that is visually arresting is some way?
Click to expand...
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I just want to say that I'm fairly new to photography, and there are a few images from HCB that I still don't get at all. But since people seems to gush over them, I feel that there must be something I'm lacking. This one I still don't get: http://mediastore2.magnumphotos.com/CoreXDoc/MAG/Media/Home1/a/d/0/8/PAR45845.jpg

Maybe you can enlighten me :) But my point is... when I see something I don't get, I don't dismiss it right away. I'll come back, read what others are saying, and re-evaluate again. As many pointed out, Misha had plenty of great photos in his website, and a few did like the images he shared. So that makes me question what is Misha trying to express by sharing these images and to question about my own understanding... the images are definitely not there just to show a pretty scenery, so I needed to dig deeper. Kind of like the way I'd feel if someone told a joke that was funny to people around me, except me. So, I went to looked at more of Misha's photos, and I started to pick up some of his muted expressions in them.

--

David Young
My journey into Leica: http://leicalux.com
 
Hosermage said:
Maybe you can enlighten me
Click to expand...
David:

France designated an annual day-off for the nation's workers, and on the first day of that holiday, Cartier-Bresson took the photograph you linked to. It shows two couples luxuriating along a river, enjoying a picnic. The women are holding food in their hands, seemingly caught in mid-thought. The man in the foreground is pouring a glass of wine; everyone is in their own world, enjoying the day, and the fact they aren't working. That they are all pleasantly plump signifies (at that time) a certain comfort in their station, and where they stood in the class structure.

Voluptuousness, luxury and calm, caught on film here by HCB, is also the title of a famous painting by Henri Matisse. It signified a time in France's history where the middle-class was growing and the future seemed worthy of optimism.

That is just the historical context of the image. More importantly, and the major strength of Cartier-Bresson's work, is that the viewer feels as if he has become part of the situation. We feel as if we are there, peering through HCB's eyes. We share the moment with the four people in the picture; we share their optimism for the future.
 
Thank you so much, Jeff! Now I can enjoy the photo a bit more :)

At first, my instinct was to focus on the empty boat, but that didn't get me anywhere.
 
my username was already taken said:
my username was already taken wrote:
Your arguments are not only shallow and primitive but actually rather naive. I don't believe anyone who actually "understands" photography will agree with you or your friend. I definitely think that Peter guy takes pretty pictures, as I'm sure you do too, but they carry no meaning except the obvious.
Click to expand...
Can't remember who it was that said something to the effect (I ain't that smart if you must know) that the homosapien is the greatest meaning making being ever to walk this Earth.

Funny when you think about it - we go to war over some construct that is surely and purely of our own creation and we create a relationship to it based on some kind of truth that we are prepared to die for.

And in here, we are only talking about taking pictures for crissakes!

Meaning? For crying out loud, we are a little too precious aren't we!!
Just have fun - I think Samuel Butler said something to that effect.

David
Melbourne
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top