Task: What challenged and or surprised us and what did we learn? What might affect how we read and interpret photographs. This might include family and social background, upbringing, values and education, exposure to art, literature, philosophies and politics as well as significant life events that may have shifted our perspectives when decoding images?
Unlike the previous week, where I had at some points I felt in unfamiliar or uncomfortable territory for example, within the contexts of what constituted plagiarism, or why creative collaboration was seen as a superior methodology to solo strategies. However, this week I felt like I was on home turf. Well-constructed frameworks allow us to broaden and strengthen our analytical skills, forcing us to explore every nook and cranny of our subject of interest. This week we were provided with a smorgasbord of useful theories, frameworks and analytical tools.
The role of semiotics is not new to me, having a background in advertising planning. However, the explanation by Barthes (1981), in explaining the overt (denoted) and covert (connoted) messages communicated by photographs, was a great jumping-off point for my further research. Furthermore, classifying the components of an effective image into ‘studium and punctum’ has encouraged me to think carefully about which elements within the frame of my images stimulate discussion and engagement.
How the context of a photograph plays an important role in how an image is seen was a relatively new concept for me. My focus has always been the elements contained within the framed image. Historically, that was where my sphere of interest and attention ended. Context as meaning as described by (Walker 1997) and broken down by physical, mental, and circulation immediately challenged this prior behaviour and now forms part of my thinking.
The visual analysis chapter by David Lodge (Lester 2006), was comprehensive and highly detailed. Drawing from the frameworks of David Perlmutter as well as the Gestalt laws of visual perception Lodge, uses a specific image as an example to create a fully detailed image analysis. Although I believe many of the principles explained could be useful, I did feel that some of the ‘denoted’ communication analysis felt laboured and on its own would practice fail to provide sufficient cues as to the connoted meanings communicated by the image. In practice, some of the analysis could be intuitive to the more experienced viewer.
As a fan of the ideas of Bathes, I read the Marie Shukus article Beyond Representation with a great deal of positive anticipation (Shurkus 2014). However, in all honesty, I found it inaccessible and could not draw sufficient meaning from it either at a theoretical or practical level.
With regard my personal influences, I am first and foremost a logical thinker who grew up loving science, enjoying the structure and certainty it brings and used theoretical frameworks for analysis and insight. My educational background at GCSE, A level, and degree level were all science-based. At this stage in my photographic journey, my reading of photographic images was narrow, formal, unimaginative, and determined by a slavish following of the rules.
Over time my cultural horizons broadened and allowed me to appreciate a broader and less structured assortment of artistic influences. At that stage, my interpretation of imagery had begun a journey of being able to evaluate more eclectic images. It was coincidently at this time that my photography also began to improve.
While studying for a Masters’s Degree in Consumer Behaviour and a PhD in psychology I began to understand that there was no such thing as the truth. Perspective was everything and one could reinvent reality through perception. This allowed me to appreciate a far broader range of photographers and artists, shifting my appraisal of images and art towards less structured, less defined, and more eclectic work.
This week, I have enjoyed the seminars, discussions and academic papers immensely and intend to bring portfolio analysis into my practice in the longer-term.
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: MCullin, Don. 1971. Gangs of Boys Escaping CS Gas Fired by British Soldiers, Londonderry, Northern Ireland, New York Times. Don McCullin Is a War Photographer. Just Don’t Call Him an Artist. [online]. Available at: nytimes.com/2019/02/04/arts/design/don-McCullin-tate-britain.html [accessed 18/10/2023]
REFERENCES
BARTHES, R. 1981. Camera lucida: Reflections on photography, Macmillan.
LODGE, D. 2006 ‘Visual Analysis’ In Paul Lester (Ed). Visual communication: Images with messages, 115-132.
SHURKUS, M., 2014. Camera lucida and affect: Beyond representation. Photographies, 7(1), pp.67-83.
WALKER, J.A., 1997. Context as a determinant of photographic meaning. The Camerawork Essays: Context and Meaning in Photography, pp.52-63.
The Photography of David Rosen 