Reading mode: Light Dark

Interpretation of images

Go to last post
Raaj, it is not necessary to understand the intent of the artist to appreciate a particular work. Quite often his thinking-through the intention of the work may be incredibly simplistic, or it can be deeply complex. Either way it can easily escape the viewer's understanding. It most often does.

This might be a generalization on my part. It is: If the viewer is unaware of the presence of intention then the work fails him. It is a delicate distinction between what you quoted above in bold, and the conclusion you drew immediately after. Don't worry about whether you get the intent or not - it doesn't matter. If you feel there is no thoughtful statement (held silent) behind a work then it fails for you. But if you understand there is intent, even if you can't figure out what it might be, then the fun comes from trying to infer interpretations and associations from the work - the artist's original point of departure be damned.
 
jeff hladun said:
jeff hladun wrote:

Raaj, it is not necessary to understand the intent of the artist to appreciate a particular work. Quite often his thinking-through the intention of the work may be incredibly simplistic, or it can be deeply complex. Either way it can easily escape the viewer's understanding. It most often does.

This might be a generalization on my part. It is: If the viewer is unaware of the presence of intention then the work fails him. It is a delicate distinction between what you quoted above in bold, and the conclusion you drew immediately after. Don't worry about whether you get the intent or not - it doesn't matter. If you feel there is no thoughtful statement (held silent) behind a work then it fails for you. But if you understand there is intent, even if you can't figure out what it might be, then the fun comes from trying to infer interpretations and associations from the work - the artist's original point of departure be damned.
Click to expand...
 
Raaj

I've always respected your views and critiques but I have to disagree with you on the original premiss. You seem to take some exception to the visual art of the conceptual photographer.

What I think is vital surely is context... a childish painting of a butterfly on it's own may not be considered art but if it was painted within a concentration camp in 1945 using simple colours from soil or even blood does it not add some meaning and emotional response to the piece. Likewise a pile of bricks in the Tate may seem like a load of old pretentious claptrap until you realise that the main reason the artist was doing it was to go against the rich establishment of filtering through a gallery, looking at framed pieces and to make the viewer have to think about his/her relationship with what gallery space is.




Art is subjective but I think it's no good saying art is bad... surely either one finds it either interesting or not?




best




Howard
 
Howard Shooter698074 said:
Howard Shooter wrote:

Raaj

I've always respected your views and critiques but I have to disagree with you on the original premiss. You seem to take some exception to the visual art of the conceptual photographer.

What I think is vital surely is context... a childish painting of a butterfly on it's own may not be considered art but if it was painted within a concentration camp in 1945 using simple colours from soil or even blood does it not add some meaning and emotional response to the piece. Likewise a pile of bricks in the Tate may seem like a load of old pretentious claptrap until you realise that the main reason the artist was doing it was to go against the rich establishment of filtering through a gallery, looking at framed pieces and to make the viewer have to think about his/her relationship with what gallery space is.

Art is subjective but I think it's no good saying art is bad... surely either one finds it either interesting or not?

best

Howard
Click to expand...
Some valid points, and I think people should be willing to keep an open mind. Should the artist have some responsibility for explaining the intent or motive if he/she is wanting to be taken seriously? If the artist piles bricks in the middle of an open gallery without explanation, are we all to meditate on the intent, each coming away with speculation? Does this create the problem that this thread is discussing?

As I interpret your post, your suggestion is that the art is heavily dependant on the intent or situation rather than the visual result, and hence without that intent or situation being explained, the viewer is left with something that is lacking a substantial ingredient.

If I apply this logic to anything else in life, I find that I come up with an unsatisfactory result. For example, if a baker were to make a loaf of bread without yeast and the resulting bread was a lump of hardened dough, should the consumer of this then speculate on the intent and hence justify the unpleasant outcome as a masterpiece? If it were communicated that the loaf of bread was made in a concentration camp without any of the proper facilities or ingredients, one might appreciate the effort and possibly a profound meaning, but at the end of the day, it is still a lump of hardened dough that most would not enjoy consuming.

Kevin
 
RaajS said:
RaajS wrote:

Couldn't agree with you more, Jeff. Thank you for your insightful comments. Perhaps Peter and I did not express ourselves as well as you have above, but I think this brings us back to our thesis: that the image has to visually "grab" us in some way and compel us to further explore. Otherwise it fails.
Click to expand...
As I intimated in my prior post, sometimes that "grab us" happens only after you see a range of work by a photographer and understand the aesthetic intent better. Not every great image is going to grab everyone instantly.

It seems to me that you want to exclude anything other than relatively high-profile attention grabbing photos from being good. I think that's just wrong—there's a place in photography (and art) for studied subtlety that takes time to appreciate.
 
To reply to your bread analogy,.. Art fits into, reacts to or provokes historical or political context so that often the interest in a piece is ultimately only contextualised after the artist has died or an event has passed. If we take the example of almost any now famous 20th century artist at the time their work was misunderstood and they died somewhat penniless. The real artistry was in their passion and brave disregard for commercial and social acceptance. Obviously some exceptions are true but mostly they were recognised afterwards in context with history. This is true of artists like Lowry, Van Gogh, Miro, etc.... food could be used as an analogy, Sushi in the 70's was regarded as a strange part of Japanese culture ... Who would want to eat raw fish... The Lebanese eat raw liver ... Time and context changes mass tastes and social acceptance. Visual taste alone in my opinion is not enough. E.g Sunsets are pretty but are mostly boring in my opinion and have little social context... Can you think of an iconic colour sunset photograph?
 
RaajS said:
RaajS said:
a
Click to expand...
I strongly believe that when we start ascribing motive and intent, the drivers, behind an artist's creative urge in judging his/her work we've moved into the realm of what my friend Daniel so eloquently terms the wankery of the cognoscenti. Leave my belief aside, as I am admittedly a philistine. If we begin to judge photographs by what we believe was the photographer's intent, we've moved into the realms of voodoo - there is no repeatability, no common language and therefore no communication.

Cheers,

-raaj
Click to expand...
But, like most art, photography is voodoo. That has to be understood from the outset. Otherwise anyone could do it, right? Without intention there is nothing but chance. And the idea of intentionality does not contradict the idea of repeatability and communication in art or photography.

Sorry to comnent on this so late in the day.
 
to take your point a bit further. If we can agree that Art is a form of communication the for the artists to be successful he must communicate with his intended audience.

to do this in images we use a common language which includes but is not limited to organizing of the light and dark color shapes and lines in a given image. which will hopefully resonate with the viewer'

However as is often the case with artists their work is not always appreciated until long after the image was made.

bottom line its not the maker who determines if a work is art but rather the audience.
 
bosjohn21 said:
to take your point a bit further. If we can agree that Art is a form of communication the for the artists to be successful he must communicate with his intended audience.

to do this in images we use a common language which includes but is not limited to organizing of the light and dark color shapes and lines in a given image. which will hopefully resonate with the viewer'

However as is often the case with artists their work is not always appreciated until long after the image was made.

bottom line its not the maker who determines if a work is art but rather the audience.
Click to expand...
 
photography is unique in that its the only art form in which the lens captures all of what its pointed at, the elimination of and guidance towards what it is you as and artist want me to see would be the back bone so to speak of the language of photography,

I as a photographer must understand how you as a viewer see and I must if I am to communicate use the devices and artifacts and techniques which will better convey my thoughs feelings ideas and understanding of what I want you the audience to see
 
bosjohn21 said:
photography is unique in that its the only art form in which the lens captures all of what its pointed at, the elimination of and guidance towards what it is you as and artist want me to see would be the back bone so to speak of the language of photography,

I as a photographer must understand how you as a viewer see and I must if I am to communicate use the devices and artifacts and techniques which will better convey my thoughs feelings ideas and understanding of what I want you the audience to see
Click to expand...
 
Tungsten Nordstein said:
RaajS said:
Tungsten Nordstein said:
a
Click to expand...
I strongly believe that when we start ascribing motive and intent, the drivers, behind an artist's creative urge in judging his/her work we've moved into the realm of what my friend Daniel so eloquently terms the wankery of the cognoscenti. Leave my belief aside, as I am admittedly a philistine. If we begin to judge photographs by what we believe was the photographer's intent, we've moved into the realms of voodoo - there is no repeatability, no common language and therefore no communication.

Cheers,

-raaj
Click to expand...
But, like most art, photography is voodoo. That has to be understood from the outset. Otherwise anyone could do it, right? Without intention there is nothing but chance. And the idea of intentionality does not contradict the idea of repeatability and communication in art or photography.

Sorry to comnent on this so late in the day.
Click to expand...
 
bosjohn21 said:
to take your point a bit further. If we can agree that Art is a form of communication the for the artists to be successful he must communicate with his intended audience.

to do this in images we use a common language which includes but is not limited to organizing of the light and dark color shapes and lines in a given image. which will hopefully resonate with the viewer'

However as is often the case with artists their work is not always appreciated until long after the image was made.

bottom line its not the maker who determines if a work is art but rather the audience.
Click to expand...
 
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