When the Viewer Doesn't Get it

<p>Very interesting discussion from a simple request to see some of the works that had an intended meaning. I know with certainty that I am not the only person to ever take a photo in an attempt to convey a message. A number of POWs chosen over the course of this last year have clearly done that by the admission of the photographer.</p>

<p>I do fully understand the notion that it is more challenging and comforting to the viewer to allow him the freedom to invent his own meaning, but that doesn't mean it is wrong for the photographer to try to convey one. I imagine the first ever shot (and all subsequent ones) of a tree standing alone in a field was meant to convey a message. Viewers might have had different interpretations (isolation, loneliness, individuality), but that doesn't mean the photographer didn't have something specific in mind. The question posed wasn't asking if it is right or wrong for the artist to try to convey a message, but was asking if you've ever tried to convey one, and how did or would you feel if the viewer didn't get it. While most didn't specifically answer it, the conversation has nonetheless been very enlightening and entertaining. I don't know that I even answered it myself.</p>

<p>I keep asking myself where viewer responsibility is in all this. Beethoven's "Moonlight" Sonata was given its title by a publisher, not Beethoven. Whether Beethoven was inspired by moonlight or not, I don't know. He never discussed it, to my knowledge. I have never pictured moonlight when hearing the Sonata played. I don't translate such music into pictures or a verbal narrative. Whatever information I learn about a piece of music, a painting, a photo can add to my experience or not, depending on the information and how it strikes me. "Moonlight" has become a sort of appendage to the work, but has never had an undue influence on me. For me, it's like a charming little aside. No one can rob me of the possibilities inherent in good works of art, not a critic, not a framer, not a curator, not a book publisher, and not an artist who chooses to give his own work a title. A writer may throw in tangential sentences, which may give me clues to his personality or may add character to his writing. But it doesn't rob me of anything. It adds texture. If I just want to skim and get the "main point," that's what I do, knowing full well I would be <em>robbing myself</em> of the texture and color in the writing. Does the composer or photographer who gives his work a title rob the viewer or might the viewer develop a stronger sense of imagination and individuality and, more importantly, a more open mind so as not to allow himself to feel robbed by such things? Nothing gets presented in a vacuum. We hear and read about the lives and inspirations and influences of artists. Does that rob us of some purity of experience we might otherwise have? Just how isolated, solipsistic, or ideal a world do we want art to exist in? Isn't art <em>shared</em> between artist and viewer and among viewers and communities and eras? The artist has already imposed something on the viewer by showing her the photo or getting her to listen to the symphony or putting a painting within view. Part of art is actually the willingness to let our perceptions be imposed on, and let that imposition mingle with our own emotional lives.</p>

<p>Line, thanks for your response. I hope it wasn't just a matter of language. I sense there's a healthy substantive disagreement here and, therefore, a challenge for all of us.</p>

<p>The "Moonlight" sonata is a good example of what I was saying in an earlier post in regard to later appendages of titles to works. I am really with Line on this topic and see little use in most cases for any descriptive or narrative title, which I assume in some cases to be a crutch of the artist, to direct my thoughts where they might not normally go because the artist has not dome his work. Those titles that I usually like are the least invasive ones, like a simple indication of the place or time of the image, or so called trick titles that don't relate obviously to the meaning or symbolism portrayed by the work, but are there to tease us to better contemplate it.</p>

<p>Once our work is finished and framed we should let it go and have some confidence that the viewer will understand it, or at the very least least something that bears some relation to our perception and creation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Once our work is finished and framed we should let it go and have some confidence that the viewer will understand it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't square this with my own art-has-no-rulebook and the-artist-shouldn't-be-tethered approach.<br /> <br /> Many artists title their work before they frame it and then let it go. I imagine some artists start with the title. In my reading about Debussy, there is evidence, though not really stated outright, he may have actually done that. So it could have nothing to do with letting it go after it's done. <br /> <br /> IMO, once "our" work is finished and framed, we should each treat the work we made and our viewers however we like. That makes for a great diversity in art and artists.<br /> <br /> I can't really relate to seeing Debussy's title <em>La Mer</em> as a crutch. Seems more like an acknowledgment and a tip of the hat. Possibly, he's aware that much non-programme music is not narrative in nature and he wanted his audience to have a distinct literal picture (or at least a vague idea) in mind to go along with his music. That's the journey he wanted to take us on. I also assume he had enough confidence in his music to assume that few viewers would be so distracted by a title as not to be able to appreciate the music.<br /> <br /> What about music that accompanies slide shows, text that accompanies visual documentaries, showing Man Ray's letters, giving much insight into his ideas on his photograms, in an exhibition of his work? Those can all be liked or disliked and critiqued on an individual basis without creating a general rule that something accompanying the base work is often being used as a crutch.<br /> <br /> Why not take what the artist provides in its fullness and deal with it? I choose to make and present my photos a certain way and I'm happy to experience other different ways that photographers choose to present theirs. I've been to photo shows where a dance troupe accompanies the viewing, where music accompanies the viewing, sometimes determined by the photographer himself. I'm certainly not going to say that shouldn't be done, even if I wouldn't care to do it myself (which I would do, btw). I find it not stifling but liberating to remain open to being led to all kinds of different places in all kinds of different ways, including with a title, a caption, an essay, or a complete diary if the artist wants to publish it.</p>

<p>__________________________________________________</p>

<p>My own experience with <em>La Mer</em> is that sometimes, when I'm listening, I think of the sea and even direct myself to do so. Sometimes I think of Debussy wanting me to do that and sometimes not. Sometimes, I picture a colorful garden. Sometimes, I picture children. And sometimes, I listen very abstractly. I appreciate these different experiences with the music. The music and Debussy have given me endless possibilities.</p>

Quite right, Fred. The word "share" is indeed important. And nothing is made in a vacuum indeed.<br>Things aren't made so that the viewer can make of it whatever he or she likes. Assuming it is anyway, taking the liberty, that "freedom", is robbery. It ignores the artist and the reason the artist made the work.<br>Sure, people can do that anyway. It is not impossible. And noone will come after them when they do (well, considering these two threads, maybe Bill will). And it may even be pleasing to enter that solipsistic world of our own making, where you rule and noone else gets a say in anything, forgetting about the one you are fleeing from. Very imaginative. But that has very little, if anything at all, to do with art and understanding art. Quite a lot with entertainment and consumerism.<br>Share. Respect the artist and his/her art. Do not impose irrelevance on the artist and the art by assuming it should be completely up to the viewer what they represent.

<blockquote>

<p>well, considering these two threads, maybe Bill will</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not so QG ;>]. I should be so lucky as to ever have a photo I took discussed and analyzed in depth. I would hope to move the viewer in some way regardless of the direction, but would be especially pleased if I was trying to send a message and someone received it. </p>

<p>Like most, I take photos of things that strike me at the time as interesting, with no clear intent other than to record the moment and make of it what I will afterward. In most cases, I have no intended direction for the viewer and merely hope they enjoy a shot either purely because of the aesthetics or because it stirs an emotion (hopefully a pleasant one (now let's not get into a philosophical discussion about that - I know some would just as soon make the viewer uncomfortable). So in short, I just wanted to see some danged message photos purely out of curiosity, but this has proved entertaining regardless.</p>

<p>Fred,<br /> It is not just a question of language. It is indeed a matter of opinion. My daily work probably influence how I understand and where I stand in the debate. I do data visualization in marketing analysis.... In my work if I have to give the viewer directions, I have failed! And dealing daily with analyzing marketing, I see clearly how labeling has an impact on perception and appreciation.... so, my view may be skewed but without knowledge of the intent behind a label I think it is a valid point of view...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I appreciate these different experiences with the music. The music and Debussy have given me endless possibilities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely! And that experience has nothing to do with a title. Without the title i can easily think of the sea, but I can embrace many others images that somehow correlate with the music, in small part or in large fractions of the whole work.</p>

<p>I don't know enough about Debussy's desire or not to title his works, as it has been the music that most interests me. "La cathédrale engloutie" is the same. An underwater symbolism is very apparent. For those that want or need labels, the title is fine. It in no way adds very much, I believe, except some narrative form of romanticism that may make the work more accessible to some, but in many cases the titles are not very useful to an in depth appreciation of the art.</p>

<p>It is heartening to be able to take away a differing impression of something that is otherwise too well packaged even if popular so.</p>

<p>The appeal of labels is everywhere. My more serious work distinctly avoids them. When I sell my more pretty and accessible pictures at popular events like Christmas markets the title is useful. It often adds to the marketability of the image. But it is not an approach I use in the photography that means most to me. I want the viewer to think about the image without any desire on my part to direct his response, to "hold his hand". It is a type of neutrality and honesty that most interests me. The enigmatic title is a different case, which I previously spoke to.</p>

<p>It is my view that the purpose of most things is to create experiences in such a way that I need to enjoy these experiences in order for the makers of the experiences to claim success in their effort, so "getting it" is a consequence of "liking it" - if I didn't like something first, I will less likely invest the effort into extending my depth of abstraction to "understand" it. <br>

<br>

On the other hand, it's possible to "like" something after it has been explained thereby "getting it" evolving into "understanding it".<br>

<br>

I "get" disco and "Gangnam Style", but I'll need a little help in order to (maybe) "get" bagpipes; whatever their respective equivalents are in photography. </p>

I think there are now two debates running, and it helps keeping them separate.<br>Whether a work manages to convey the intended message, how effective it is, is a matter of quality. Making use of other forms of expression, like putting words to music, or simply giving it a title, is not necessarily a sign that one of the forms involved fails.<br>Whether a work has an intended message, and feeling we should ignore that message (or even feeling that we are robbed of something) because we feel we should be free to read in it whatever we, not the artist, wants is a matter of essence and of egocentrism, egotism. Is the work of art what the artist intended, or is it whatever we think it might be.<br><br>Bill, the message may not be intentional, but when we take pictures because we think some things interesting, we show these pictures to others because we think they are worth watching just because of that interest, and the intent is to share that. Those pictures are a statement of what you find interesting (or pleasing, or disturbing, or whatever) in our world.<br><br>Pure aesthestics... As per request, no long philosophical debate (for now ;-) ) : what people find beautiful is largely the same, but will also differ from one person to the other. So there must be a reason why some people like something and not another thing and vice versa. There always is that pesky question "why?", why do you think it is beautiful? Or (same, in other words) why do you think it important, of value, something to remember, something to keep, etc.?<br>So it's the same discussion. 'Pure' aesthetics does not exist (is, in my humble view, a form of the cop out that applying a title to a work because it failed to convey the message by itself could be).

<p>Michael, do you enjoy <a href="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/02/article-2441235-18759B3700000578-68_964x615.jpg">THIS</a> photo? Do you get it? Understand it?</p>

<p>I don't enjoy it (wouldn't say I like it either), I get it, and it's taking me decades still to try to understand it.</p>

<p>I think it was and is a successful photo.</p>

<p>Fred, to me, that particular picture is a documentary photo with little more than presenting the facts akin to a security camera, and I react to it accordingly knowing the circumstances under which it was shot, and for those reasons, I don't gawk at its award-winning attributes instead take it at face value. </p>

<p>My reaction might be skewed by my interactions and experiences with Boat People as many came to Canada to start a new life. I've heard enough stories of first-person accounts of the inhumanities and suffering that makes those types of pictures more a romanticized Western view of that particular war. <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_boat_people">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_boat_people</a></p>

<p>Q.G., yes, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' (I just made that up ;)), but the discussion I wanted to avoid is in regards to the emotion we hope to stir with out photographs. I typically want the viewer to have pleasant thoughts, but I know some aim to make the viewer feel a bit uncomfortable, perhaps because they think that makes for a more powerful photo, perhaps they feel it's more 'artsy,' or perhaps they feel it gives the shot more significance - or none of the above. (And having just looked at the photo Fred linked to, I can see why). Well, now I've done it...</p>

<p>Michael, I don't think you have to like something to 'get it,' but I understand the notion that if, upon first glance, it doesn't appeal to you, you may not invest any more time in it.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>some aim to make the viewer feel a bit uncomfortable, perhaps because they think that makes for a more powerful photo, perhaps they feel it's more 'artsy,' or perhaps they feel it gives the shot more significance - or none of the above</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I vote for "none of the above" being often the case. An artist or photographer may just be authentic and express what he feels. Making an uncomfortable photo can have mostly to do with the photographer's own feeling of discomfort or angst or ambiguity or hatred of things or emotional upheaval and they're expressing that through their photography. Not everything is done in order to manipulate and not everything powerful that's done is done with a specific intent to make a powerful photo. Sometimes it's an actual genuine outpouring of emotion or showing of something troubling and the viewer and audience play into it very secondarily. The intent may be, "this is what I'm going through now and how I'm seeing the world right now" (and it's not always a bed of roses). The act can be a matter of "I have to take this picture." And the translation from photographer's emotion to photo to viewer does not have to be literal. It can and often is metaphorical.<br /> <br /><br /> _________________________________________________<br>

<br /> <br /> Michael, that doesn't really answer the question. You claimed you "need to enjoy" it to get it and then understand it. You seem to have an understanding of this photo which you also seem to think goes well beyond the understanding of many others, which it certainly may. Did you arrive at that understanding because of your <em>enjoyment</em> of the photo? If not, then your claim about the significance of enjoyment is in doubt.</p>

<p>BTW, Michael, your response mentions that the Nick Ut photo is documentary. Not sure if that's a disqualifier to the enjoyment aspect, so <a href="http://www.americansuburbx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Nan_goldin-Custom-4.jpg">HERE'S</a> one by Nan Goldin that I'd also ask if you enjoy. And <a href="https://120pearls.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/rogerballentwinslg.jpg">HERE'S</a> one by Diane Arbus. It's possible that a viewer might "enjoy" either one of these, but then each viewer might pick another photo that he doesn't enjoy but feels is successful and understandable.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I enjoy many good photos and many works of art. But there are many other significant things other than enjoyment I get out of art and that lead toward a successful photo and that help me understand. Entertainment is something who's purview I might put more strictly in the category of "enjoy." (Though, even there, some depressing movies would be considered entertainment, though I don't necessarily enjoy them.) The main thrust of a lot of photography and art, IMO, is not enjoyment.</p>

<p>This discussion will be stuck forever if we apply same values to conceptual photography (original OP's image) and documentary war photos - they have nothing in common but the medium used to create them. In my opinion photography is too broad to try to find common ways of making or receiving it. I consider any writing which accompany a photograph a context, not inherent part of it. And it's presence can alter my perception of a given work. I enjoy Van Gogh's work more after reading his biography, Giorgio de Chirico's autobiography was a big disappointment to me, now I try to forget it when looking at his works.</p>

All photos (should) have one thing in common: a reason why we should spend (a bit or lots of) time having a look at them.<br>If you would say there are many that don't have that, i alas have to agree. But whether art, decorative or documentary: they must, essentially, be something that is looked at, must be something that is taken in by someone, and not ignored.<br>Photos share that with all sorts of art, decoration and documentation. So they share much more than just the medium with other photos, much more too with other utterances.<br>Photography isn't too broad, but as was discussed (though perhaps not said explicitly) too narrow: adding other forms of expression can extend what photography does into the realm of what it alone can't.<br>And i'm not saying that photos need help from additional media, or that every work of art should be a Gesamtkunstwerk. But adding something from other fields can indeed add something. Photography is, like other arts, limited when restricted to itself. Maybe (well: certainly) such additions are not photography as such. But - unless your aim is to make a photograph, i.e. make the medium and strict adherence to some rule that says what is and what no longer is a photo the beginning and end of the work you're creating - that is of very little importance. And i rather look at something because it is interesting to look at, has something to offer besides being a sample of use of one particular medium, than at something because it is a photograph. (I know you can have both, but as usual oversimplification might help bring the point across. So my apologies for oversimplifying.)<br>So yes, writing not only can, but will alter your perception of the work. That's the power available to us in something as simple as adding a view words. Wonderful, isn't it?

<p>A photograph should say something, mean something, do something....a communication of some sort.</p>

<p>Yes, a photo of a piece of string has some deep meaning for the sad and lost...perhaphs, they should take up knitting which which would be more of a communicate for their Art. Knitting has its own Art more practical for some.</p>

<p>Hey, everybody i have taken a photo of a light bulb can you see the Art in it? Okay. perhaphs not....but it could still be Art.</p>

<p>Wiping my arse could also be Art. I wonder if I could get an exhibition of this profound moment.</p>

<p> </p>

The profundity lies in understanding that 'it' (whatever you want to call it) does not have to involve anything profound. A photo of a piece of string may be a piece of an interesting larger story. Or it may be nothing but a testament of the fact that someone got bored.<br>Whether it also could be art depends on more, such as relevance.<br>When people could give a sh!t (pardon the language, but i'm trying to keep this in line with the example) about you wiping your behind, Allen, it could indeed be art. (Though i rather doubt it). It could also be something else, like inadvertently happening upon the yearly outing of the Scatological Society of Greater Manchester. So the fact that someone shows an interest alone does not necessarily mean it is something that is possibly art.<br>If that photo of a piece of string fits in the life of some people (for whatever reason), you may find them sad and lost because it doesn't fit in your life, but that says nothing about the photo and the way it functions for those you then think sad and lost.<br>Or, in other words, you or i are not the measure of things. A joke is a joke when someone finds it funny, even when you or i would not. And vice versa: it is one when we find it funny and other people do not.

<blockquote>

<p>a photo of a piece of string has some deep meaning for the sad and lost...perhaphs, they should take up knitting</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Reminds me of Cartier-Bresson's ill-advised put down of Adams and Weston. <br>

<br>

<em>"The world is going to pieces and people like Adams and Weston are photographing rocks</em><em>!”</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<p>Guess he showed them! Beware the holier-than-thou.<br>

<br>

Some very significant artists throughout history have been sad and lost . . . and harnessed those emotions to create wonders.<br>

<br>

It all depends on an ability to see possibilities anywhere.</p>

<p>While we're on the subject . . .</p>

<p>Duchamp's <a href="http://www.toutfait.com/issues/volume2/issue_4/interviews/hirschhorn/images/09_big.jpg"><em>16 Miles of String</em></a></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The world is going to pieces and people like Adams and Weston are photographing rocks</em><em>!”</em><br /> Guess he showed them! Beware the holier-than-thou.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Knowing what I know now of the way the world works with respect to current technologies (especially in the fields of forensic science in knowing just how bad people can be toward one another) I believe Cartier-Bresson was speaking as someone with a POV developed from having a limited knowledge base in his time.</p>

<p>As complicated as it is today and as more educated the general population has become, I don't believe you can effectively communicate the way Bresson espoused with just a still image. The general public today have become more aware that the world isn't as simple as they thought. They don't want to be preached to or sent a cleverly veiled and somewhat vague message on how to think about world issues.</p>

<p>The use of anti-establishment styled image language that was prevalent in visual communication venues in decades past is now considered old hat. More folks want the facts and evidence in the form of surveillance cameras, DNA, police records, background checks, etc. to tell them how the world is working, not just cleverly crafted still images by some "art" photographer.</p>

<p>I'm surprised political cartoons are still made.</p>

I don't think that HCB was talking from limited knowledge at all, Tim. He was talking from a firm believe that there are more important things than 'pretty pictures of pretty landscapes', i.e. that AA was working as if <i>he</i>, AA, was ignorant of that.<br>Remember that after having first gone through and then having learned about the full horror of WW2, people did know very well (probably lots more than people today, despite the state the world is in right now), how bad people can be to one another. It doesn't get more complicated than that. But HCB, people generally, knew very well how the world works, even though we now may be more accustomed to world wide violence as they were back then and even though people today are still struggling to really understand what happened then. No limited knowledge base in his time.<br><br>I also don't think people are more educated today. There is no evidence of that. Quite the contrary.<br>And they do want to be 'preached to', do gobble up all that is put before them by journalism, advertising and entertainment industries. It's quite numbing, for instance, to see how many people go through life with a mobile phone permanently attached to at least one of their hands, spending their time doing rather important things like playing candy crush or letting the world know they saw a funny eight second film on YouTube. Without ever questioning why they do that or whether there isn't something better to waste their time on.<br>The general public knows that there is a lot to get angry about, and that they don't like anyone disturbing 'their' way of life. It isn't more complicated than that today.<br><br>The lack of use of anti-establishment styled language is a symptom of that. It is not considered old hat becaue people got a more sophisticated and complex understanding of the world. But because people just can't be bothered to feel more than a general anger and switch off (return to updating their facebook page and playing angry birds or warcraft) when they have to think about the complexity of what their anger could be directed at.<br>There is a litmus-test i call the "Das Kapital test". Irrespective of whether you would agree with what the two volumes of that not uninfluential book say (it is of no importance to the test), would it still be possible to have the same impact that book had when it requires that people work their way through a multipage tome like that? I don't think many would get past the first two pages. People do not have the patience, nor interest, anymore for long spelled out possibilities, for long considerations, for a complex treatise, for things they have to think about. Deep Thoughts must be expressed in eightteen minute TedX talks or even two minute elevator pitches, and if they cannot they cannot be something worth listening to. If it can't be said in a Tweet, it is too complex, "old hat". "Sad and lost".<br><br>That's why even in a direct medium like photography some styles now wouldn't work anymore. People can't be bothered. Instead of being intrigued about an image of a piece of string, when they do not get that instant hit, it cannot be anything.<br>But as Fred put it: "It all depends on an ability to see possibilities anywhere." That is what is lost to people who "want facts" "to tell (!) them how the world is working". They want to be told, do not want to think about that, let alone have to see possibilities.<br><br>Now having said all that, HCB was wrong because he didn't see possibilities AA perhaps did. Because there isn't just one way - his, compared to AA, more direct way - of showing the world we all share.

<blockquote>

<p>Remember that after having first gone through and then having learned about the full horror of WW2, people did know very well (probably lots more than people today, despite the state the world is in right now), how bad people can be to one another.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You missed the point.</p>

<p>I take it the smartest people on the planet during WW II (the Germans-US took most of their technology and scientists after the war) weren't smart enough or sophisticated enough to figure out their leader was exterminating 6 million people. So much for intellectualism and sophistication. Where was HCB with his poignant and introspective photos to sway folks about that instead of criticizing AA for shooting rocks?</p>

<p>By comparison to today have you noticed there now aren't crazy dictators that are capable of killing that many people in such a short time and get away with it? Notice there aren't that many successful assassination attempts on heads of states? You can't get away with it and it's REALLY, REALLY hard to pull off nowadays. I would say we're much smarter now than back then.</p>

<p>Could it be because we are a more connected mass society considering modern world wide communication such as cell phones and the internet that attempting to send messages to these well connected <strong>adults</strong> with sophisticated, compelling and suggestive subjects and compositions in the form of HCB styled still images just ain't gonna sway these folks as much.</p>

<p>We are a more aware and factual based <strong>adult</strong> society. I'm not talking about teens and "twenty somethings" with their face constantly staring down at a cell phone and who don't really make or influence government policies.</p>

<p>Have you ever watched closely how forensic science finds who the bad guys are? I have and I can say with confidence that level of sophistication and knowledge wasn't available during the WW II era and HCB's hey days. Today's adults want to be preached to with facts and logic. Suggestive imagery is old technology.</p>