Interpretation of images

nathaniel m · Oct 29, 2012

This point is what I tell people all the time. It doesn't have to be flashy or perfect, but if there isn't some visual draw, a typical viewer won't spend the time to really analyze the image.

Not that there isn't a place for more complex images. The inteligencia certainly likes their own stuff, too.

I think of it like Woody Allen movies vs. Chris Nolan movies. Both are artistic. Both are excellent. The Chris Nolan movie has enough 'mainstream' appeal to get the masses into it, and then he gets them thinking. Woody Allen films are also incredibly artistic, but have a much smaller appeal. Only those who want to be challenged and are looking for an 'artsy' film go see Woody Allen movies (a deep knowledge of 1920-1940 jazz also helps).

Daniel74 · Oct 29, 2012

I come from oil painting background and am a relative newbie to photography (~2 years). I don't think it is a good idea to dig trenches and declare that the only worthwhile photos are... People have different aesthetic and there are photos that have immediate appeal because they are beautiful, vibrant and well-composed or show a scene with a broad emotional appeal or resonance and there are photos that are more subtle or appeal to some people but not others.

Just like in art there are many styles and approaches. Some people would like to keep photography down to earth and away from navel-gazing, as well as snobbery and wankery of the connoscenti and I sympathise. But there is no escaping the fact that we have different tastes and different images are going to appeal to different people. And that's OK.

panos_m · Oct 29, 2012

RaajS said:
RaajS wrote:

RaajS said:

panos_m wrote:

RaajS said:

Hello ,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

RaajS 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...

RaajS · Oct 30, 2012

Nich0las said:
Nich0las wrote:

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.

fti · Oct 30, 2012

Dear Raaj,

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Having said that, I just started down this journey of taking a more serious interest in photography. Looking at a photograph is sometimes like looking at abstract art. I know it's supposed to be good; but I just don't feel it. It's more a reflection of my own limitations than anything else. I'm very much aware of that. It's akin to modern jazz music as opposed to the classic stuff for the uneducated/unenlightened. While the former has me pulling my own hair at times (I just can't follow it), I love listening to Ella.

For me personally a photograph has to 'draw' me. I wouldn't be interested in doing anything with a photograph appreciated by many but which doesn't do anything for me notwithstanding all the right esoteric connotations and allusions the photo may have.

I love Janlu's response. As with anything in this life, if you don't do it with passion, don't bother.

Happy shooting.

Paul20 · Oct 30, 2012

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

RaajS · Oct 30, 2012

Paul20 said:
Paul20 wrote:

Raaj,

A good and enjoyable discussion thanks for posting.

However I must take issue with the thrust of this argument - "a good image should be visually compelling".

or in Peter's words:

"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".

Twoddle!

This is too simple. Take the work of Thomas Ruff as an extreme example of photography which needs an understanding of context to be appreciated. He has produced images from enlarged newspaper articles, night vision photographs, highly pixilated landscapes or nudes culled form the internet or even computer generated images from mathematical code. He produces images without the use of a camera.

See this link:

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/thomas-ruff-2602

Thomas' work is often about the production of an image or the limits of what we understand an image to be. His work is not easily accessible, I couldn't really say I like most of the images and its not the sort of think I want to explore. But that's sort of not the point. The work is fascinating.

Sorry if I've come across a bit super-serious but I get excited by this sort of thing!

Best,

Paul

A Guy Platt · Oct 31, 2012

For starting the thread. It makes for interesting reading.

For me there must be a subject, or the illusion of a subject, which interests me. I don't care for cars, or boats, or motor bikes (although I own a couple of each) -- and I can safely add turds to the list -- as subjects, so it doesn't matter how fantastic the colors are, the light is, or beautifully framed the image is, it won't pass my "uninteresting image" feeling.

I'm not an art student, and I'm not looking for hidden meanings in images. I'm looking for images which make me feel better for viewing them, that fill me with energy, excitement and even love. I try and create images which do the same for me. If anyone else gets pleasure from my images that's a big bonus, but it's not my primary goal.

Regards
Guy

Prosophos · Oct 31, 2012

Paul20 said:
Twoddle!

This is too simple. Take the work of Thomas Ruff as an extreme example of photography which needs an understanding of context to be appreciated... I couldn't really say I like most of the images and its not the sort of think I want to explore.

Paul, am I the only one that sees the irony in your post?

Peter.

Prosophos · Oct 31, 2012

Thanks for starting the thread Raaj.

As the author of the post referenced, I feel the need to at least respond to a few things.

First of all, I was very careful with my chosen words. And I stand behind them.

The greatest criticism I've received (in another forum) is that what I wrote was tautological... which implies my argument was vacuous. This, however, also implies that it's logically true, so it can't be refuted. Therefore, it's interesting to see it being refuted by some here.

I'll go further to what I initially wrote and state that explanations, artistic intentions, avant-garde smoke-screens, and even context, are all crutches, when it comes to presenting an image to the world.

Yes, all these things may make us appreciate the image more, but that's a different issue.

This is why so many people get into trouble when presenting images of their family/friends. They know the context, and they erroneously believe that other viewers (lacking this context) will find their images equally interesting.

And for my friend Jeff, from Toronto. You may not like landscape images, but you certainly can recognize a good one when you see one. No?

Peter.

www.prosophos.com

absentaneous · Oct 31, 2012

I do understand your point but at the same time I think you don't realize you are talking about two different things or two points of views, two different worlds. photography can offer both visual and intellectual conceptual (whatever you want to call it) experience. you want to focus on visual experience and that's fine but there are people who can see beyond that.

I saw those two pictures Misha Pedan took and it took me an instant to see the guy is a great photographer. a great conceptual photographer I should add. and your are right, the images doesn't have that instant visual WOW factor in the sense that they don't show some incredible event, some amazing natural beauty or whatever else that would visual strike you but it offers a lot that can be conceptually interpreted. it's not about the image is about the thought behind it. that's what art photography is all about. it's probably not the kind of photography you like, value and probably even understand.

10 years ago I would probably comment on such images in the same way you did but in these 10 years I learned a lot about art photography and how it works, what it is all about, what does it focus on and it's a world apart mainstream photography. there is simply no comparison at all. I am not trying to say one approach is better than the other but that they are just so different that applying values of one way of seeing an image to the other one is just completely missing the point.

I will just give you an example:

http://www.e-flux.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/wpid-1182354222image_web.jpg

now, rate the above image. what would it be 2 our of 10? maybe not even that? of course. but let me tell you something now. the above picture was taken by some guy called walfgang tillmans who is nowdays considered to be one of the best art photographers of last decades. and you might not give a damn about it but that picture you see above is considered a work of art by all major art institutions. this image hung in the most prestigious art galleries all over the world. books are written about it etc. etc. of course for you it still might be just a crappy snapshot anyone could take but there are tons of books explaining the theory behind it that you probably never heard of. that doesn't mean you have to like it but commenting in the way you did you really show nothing much but ignorance.

and then to comment on that blog post you linked. the idea behind that kind of thinking is from the point of art more than 100 years old. art discarded such ideas around the time photography was born. since then everyone who are educated in the field of art knows that art is an idea and not something you can appreciate strictly on the visual level. I mean there is a whole century of art behind us already that makes those words make no sense. no sense at all.

so, I will just finish by saying that not all art (photography) is meant to be "visual". and it makes no sense to judge it for not being "visual" because it wasn't meant to be in the first place. there's not just one right approach to photography. you simply stepped into a world that it doesn't look too appealing to you and that you or don't understand or is just not convincing enough for you.

Stujomo · Oct 31, 2012

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

A Guy Platt · Oct 31, 2012

absentaneous said:
absentaneous wrote:

<snip>

so, I will just finish by saying that not all art (photography) is meant to be "visual". and it makes no sense to judge it for not being "visual" because it wasn't meant to be in the first place. there's not just one right approach to photography. you simply stepped into a world that it doesn't look too appealing to you and that you or don't understand or is just not convincing enough for you.

What? I don't believe that all photography is art, nor that it is (or was) always intended to be so (documentary photography being the first example which comes to mind) but it can be.

A photography not being "visual" is beyond me -- but then I don't know what "visual" is meant to be. I never got the black on black paintings either.

I think I'm safer in the world of visually appealing photographs rather than the art world (especially after looking at the guy in the shorts).

Regards
Guy

absentaneous · Oct 31, 2012

Prosophos said:
Prosophos wrote:

Thanks for starting the thread Raaj.

As the author of the post referenced, I feel the need to at least respond to a few things.

First of all, I was very careful with my chosen words. And I stand behind them.

The greatest criticism I've received (in another forum) is that what I wrote was tautological... which implies my argument was vacuous. This, however, also implies that it's logically true, so it can't be refuted. Therefore, it's interesting to see it being refuted by some here.

I'll go further to what I initially wrote and state that explanations, artistic intentions, avant-garde smoke-screens, and even context, are all crutches, when it comes to presenting an image to the world.

Yes, all these things may make us appreciate the image more, but that's a different issue.

This is why so many people get into trouble when presenting images of their family/friends. They know the context, and they erroneously believe that other viewers (lacking this context) will find their images equally interesting.

And for my friend Jeff, from Toronto. You may not like landscape images, but you certainly can recognize a good one when you see one. No?

Peter.

www.prosophos.com

RaajS · Oct 31, 2012

absentaneous said:
absentaneous wrote:

I do understand your point but at the same time I think you don't realize you are talking about two different things or two points of views, two different worlds. photography can offer both visual and intellectual conceptual (whatever you want to call it) experience. you want to focus on visual experience and that's fine but there are people who can see beyond that.

Thanks first of all for jumping in and adding your thoughts to this discussion. The only question I'd ask to your point above is this - the people that "see beyond" - is that "seeing" something that two or more of them could agree on? Or is it a controlled-substance-fuelled vision that is an "individual interpretation"?

absentaneous said:
I saw those two pictures Misha Pedan took and it took me an instant to see the guy is a great photographer. a great conceptual photographer I should add. and your are right, the images doesn't have that instant visual WOW factor in the sense that they don't show some incredible event, some amazing natural beauty or whatever else that would visual strike you but it offers a lot that can be conceptually interpreted. it's not about the image is about the thought behind it. that's what art photography is all about. it's probably not the kind of photography you like, value and probably even understand.

Great! Let's hear your conceptual interpretation of those two images. I'd love to be educated.

absentaneous said:
10 years ago I would probably comment on such images in the same way you did but in these 10 years I learned a lot about art photography and how it works, what it is all about, what does it focus on and it's a world apart mainstream photography. there is simply no comparison at all. I am not trying to say one approach is better than the other but that they are just so different that applying values of one way of seeing an image to the other one is just completely missing the point.

I will just give you an example:

http://www.e-flux.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/wpid-1182354222image_web.jpg

This image you presented above is not a 2 in my book. It's garbage. Sorry, but just being honest. And I don't care how many books have been written about it. The Emperor is naked.

absentaneous said:
now, rate the above image. what would it be 2 our of 10? maybe not even that? of course. but let me tell you something now. the above picture was taken by some guy called walfgang tillmans who is nowdays considered to be one of the best art photographers of last decades. and you might not give a damn about it but that picture you see above is considered a work of art by all major art institutions. this image hung in the most prestigious art galleries all over the world. books are written about it etc. etc. of course for you it still might be just a crappy snapshot anyone could take but there are tons of books explaining the theory behind it that you probably never heard of. that doesn't mean you have to like it but commenting in the way you did you really show nothing much but ignorance.

As I said above, I don't care about the collective "wankery of the cognoscenti" (Thanks, Daniel74!) If calling out facts is ignorance, so be it. I've been accused of worse.

absentaneous said:
and then to comment on that blog post you linked. the idea behind that kind of thinking is from the point of art more than 100 years old. art discarded such ideas around the time photography was born. since then everyone who are educated in the field of art knows that art is an idea and not something you can appreciate strictly on the visual level. I mean there is a whole century of art behind us already that makes those words make no sense. no sense at all.

Ahh! So now there's a temporal dimension to art appreciation! If that isn't shallow, I don't know what qualifies. Let's bring back the bell-bottoms while we're at it.

absentaneous said:
so, I will just finish by saying that not all art (photography) is meant to be "visual". and it makes no sense to judge it for not being "visual" because it wasn't meant to be in the first place. there's not just one right approach to photography. you simply stepped into a world that it doesn't look too appealing to you and that you or don't understand or is just not convincing enough for you.

Photography by it's very nature is visual. To redefine it as not visual is wankery at best. As to my lack of understanding - yes, you're right - I don't understand and I stated that many times in this thread and others. Having 'fessed up to that, how about you (or any of the folks that "get" those images) help me (and others) "understand" the images. And by the way, if your response is "Go read books and check out art galleries for the rest of your life", sorry but the Emperor is naked and you're in the crowd oohing and aaahing over his fine clothes. Also, love to hear your thoughts on why that picture of someone in what appear to be boxers is so profound.

Cheers!

-raaj

RaajS · Oct 31, 2012

Stujomo said:
Stujomo wrote:

Stujomo 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...

Hosermage · Oct 31, 2012

I think once you get into "Fine Art" in any genre, they sometime require some special goggle, and I think it's safe to say that majority of the population here are just casual photographer or enthusiasts. No one is wrong, until they start to dismiss or put-down the other side. Someone on LUF had a signature of: "Modern Art = I could do that + yeah, but you didn't".

Stujomo · Oct 31, 2012

Hosermage said:
Hosermage wrote:

I think once you get into "Fine Art" in any genre, they sometime require some special goggle, and I think it's safe to say that majority of the population here are just casual photographer or enthusiasts. No one is wrong, until they start to dismiss or put-down the other side. Someone on LUF had a signature of: "Modern Art = I could do that + yeah, but you didn't".

JTori · Oct 31, 2012

RaajS said:
RaajS wrote:

RaajS said:

Photography by it's very nature is visual.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, Raaj! If it's not a visual medium, what is it? If there's a "language" I don't understand or am not fluent in, why then will no one take the time to help me comprehend it. A stranger on the street would do as much. Is there some kind of initiation rite or secret handshake I need to know before I can learn the cipher?

What I take away from some of the "artist" replies is, "I'm better than you. I'm educated, you're not. You're a flatlander, I see the world in three (or more) dimensions you are incapable of understanding."

In the end, these efforts to ascribe such deep and profound meaning to images which appear to be fairly straightforward comes across as inferiority complex-driven rationalization.

Sometimes a picture of a guy lounging in boxer shorts is just a picture of a guy lounging in boxer shorts.

Joe.

absentaneous · Oct 31, 2012

RaajS said:
RaajS wrote:

Thanks first of all for jumping in and adding your thoughts to this discussion. The only question I'd ask to your point above is this - the people that "see beyond" - is that "seeing" something that two or more of them could agree on? Or is it a controlled-substance-fuelled vision that is an "individual interpretation"?

it's both as it's true for visual quality. once you define what is beautiful for example then such definition can be objectively tested but it's still a subjective definition. I was able to recognize the quality in those two pictures because such quality was previously already defined by other artists, by art institutions but yes, it's still subjective. it's like a language that it was invented and some people learned it and can recognize it and some don't.

RaajS said:
Great! Let's hear your conceptual interpretation of those two images. I'd love to be educated.

no problem. I will pick the first image. I guess what you see are objects such as people, tree, houses etc.? these are basically all visual elements that function as parts used to construct an idea. now observe how these elements are constructed horizontally. you have this first element right in the bottom which starts the image. it only takes a small potion of the image and then right after it there is another element that works as a line. now I can bet anything that this is no coincidence and the guy who took the picture "saw it". then you have another element that basically works as a rectangle. then another horizontal rectangle (that part on which kids play). and then three more after it. after that it comes the water part which is again just another visual element in this constitution followed by the element that is formed from the houses and finally there is the sky. now try to visualize this construction I pointed to you and you'll get the idea what the photographer actually saw. what he basically saw was a visual design that serves as the basis. and it basically looks like this:

https://imgur.com/Zrr5a

this is the basic composition. and this basic composition is then "upgraded" or "challenged" by the tree and the kids playing. but again these are just visual elements that interact with the basic design in the way that they kind of deconstruct it. they kind of affect its logic by going against it. and this visual disturbance between these elements is the idea behind the image. it's basically a geometrical construction that expresses some tension between its elements. it's not so much a photograph as it is a design. like something like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Mondrian_Composition_II_in_Red,_Blue,_and_Yellow.jpg

RaajS said:
This image you presented above is not a 2 in my book. It's garbage. Sorry, but just being honest. And I don't care how many books have been written about it. The Emperor is naked.

it's garbage because you can't appreciate it not because it was garbage. I don't like it visually either. what is there to like anyway? but there is an idea behind it. of course if you never heard of tillmans you couldn't really know what his ideas are. but if you knew about his ideas, or saw more of his work then it could make more sense to you. he doesn't doesn't take such pictures because he couldn't take better looking ones but because he wants to express an idea not simply depict a visual fact. these images mean something. they were taken to mean something. whether you care about it or not is again your problem. they still mean something.

RaajS said:
As I said above, I don't care about the collective "wankery of the cognoscenti" (Thanks, Daniel74!) If calling out facts is ignorance, so be it. I've been accused of worse.

whether you care or not doesn't make any difference. not all people take images in the way you do. not all people consider the same things you do or see things in the same way you do. if you ignore all that then that's your problem not theirs.

RaajS said:
Ahh! So now there's a temporal dimension to art appreciation! If that isn't shallow, I don't know what qualifies. Let's bring back the bell-bottoms while we're at it.

I don't think you got me. of course you can claim art is whatever you wish and you can appreciate as art anything you want to but you can't ignore the fact that a certain way at looking at art wasn't dismissed as being the only one possible or right.

RaajS said:
Photography by it's very nature is visual. To redefine it as not visual is wankery at best. As to my lack of understanding - yes, you're right - I don't understand and I stated that many times in this thread and others. Having 'fessed up to that, how about you (or any of the folks that "get" those images) help me (and others) "understand" the images. And by the way, if your response is "Go read books and check out art galleries for the rest of your life", sorry but the Emperor is naked and you're in the crowd oohing and aaahing over his fine clothes. Also, love to hear your thoughts on why that picture of someone in what appear to be boxers is so profound.

there is a brain behind the eyes. people can think. they can reflect. they might not like something just because it looks good to them but maybe also because it means something to them. now, eyes can't see meaning can they? you need a brain for that. and quite a developed one. and some people prefer to take pictures of what means something to them. they don't just want to show what happened to appear in front of their camera (which is something even a cow could do if you placed a camera on her head) but they want to communicate meaning. and when this happens then photography is not just visual but also conceptual.

about books. just get this one http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photography-Book-Ian-Jeffrey/dp/071483937X there are 500 photographs that a explained in there and if you read it then you'll get at least the feeling in what all ways photography was approached through history.

as far as the tillman's picture is concerned you can just go to his website http://tillmans.co.uk/. there's a lot to read there. again, it might not convince you but that doesn't mean there is nothing behind it.

Interpretation of images

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts