When the Viewer Doesn't Get it

<p>A couple days ago, I started a thread asking for examples of shots that you think might be over-analyzed by viewers. It didn't go quite in the direction I'd expected, but lead to some interesting conversation nonetheless and the realization that many do take shots with an intended message or at least hope the viewer will consider something beyond the aesthetic. So, in the converse to that post, I'm wondering what shots netters might have that they tried to send a message with or tell a story with that perhaps viewers didn't or wouldn't get. And, if you've had the pleasure of having work on display that was discussed, how did you feel when the viewers didn't get it?</p>

<p>My example comes from a shot I set up when either I or my wife broke a glass putting it in the dishwasher. I thought it was kind of interesting how it had broken, and wanted to use it in a photo. Below is what I came up with, with the intent of portraying a specific message. Since my 'work' is only displayed in my den, it doesn't get viewership from other than friends and family, but some did comment on it, with at least one understanding my intent. The title would probably give it away if the message isn't already obvious, but even then, viewers come from many different perspectives, so there are never any guarantees. </p><div></div>

Rum. scotch, vodka, on the rocks / Even bourbon and tequila...

 

Photographs, all art really, in most cases works bsy when there is a measure of ambiguity inherent in the work - you need

to leave a little "space" for the viewers' emotions and intellect to engage with the work. The exceptions are those with

propagandistic intent like Picasso's "Guernica"

 

If you are only making your photos for yourself do whatever you like because why would you care what other people

think?

<p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>"The title would probably give it away if the message isn't already obvious, but even then, viewers come from many different perspectives"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My perspective as soon as I saw it before reading... A still life set up to portray some unspecified message. The photo below resonated more as it conveyed something that did not appear to be manufactured to convey something. Even if it was.</p>

<p>Smashed!<br>

My daughter paints for stress relief, and I'm constantly saying, "That looks like ...." or, "What is it?"<br>

Yet when I frame any of my work I am at a loss for a caption. Sunset #1, Mt. Ringo, Eid road , etc., etc, sound so boring. I wish I had the gift of being able to ascribe meaning.<br>

Yet, I believe that photography, much of it, is a search for meaning. A capturing of place and time. Maybe that is why I find it easier to shoot in a place that I'm not familiar with than around home--where I am busy looking for meaning.<br>

I think the search for a label frustrates me, while the search for meaning drives me.<br>

OK, that's enough - I'm only on my first cup of coffee.</p>

<p>I'd generally agree with Ellis regarding leaving some room for interpretation. There's a phrase that comes up often among movie makers, song lyricists and critics: "on the nose". In that context it refers to scripts, lyrics, direction or performances that smack of the handiwork of Captain Obvious.</p>

<p>Visual cues that may have been novel once upon a time - say, when Bruegel or Hogarth used them - eventually become tropes as more artists use the same visual narrative techniques. Not cliches - yet - but familiar visual shorthand for communicating concepts. Eventually, as the public consciousness thoroughly integrates the meta narrative of the visual language, some images do risk becoming cliches, too "on the nose".</p>

<p>A common example is the ironic juxtaposition in street photography: camping out in a spot where a billboard, store window poster or bit of graffiti points toward a spot, and waiting for a passerby to fill the void. The ironic juxtaposition isn't necessarily bad, and often it can be very good. But it's a well trodden path and risks becoming a bit tiresome when, say, the street photographer camps out in front of a store or billboard depicting a beautiful model and waits for a haggard old woman to pass by. At this point in the cumulative shared visual language, it's the equivalent of a Milton Berle joke: "See what I did there? It's ironic. You get it? It's like a joke. For the eyes. Do you get it or are you too dense? Where's my agent, I need a better class of viewer..." <em>(My apologies to anyone who actually thought Uncle Miltie was funny.)</em></p>

<p>Cinematography and directorial choices run the same risk. I'm still undecided, for example, about Wes Anderson's techniques. I'd need to watch <em>The Grand Budapest Hotel</em> before deciding. Much as I admire the Coen brothers for their visual choices, after re-watching <em>Barton Fink</em> this year I suspect that one reason it's not among their critical or popular best is because they hit the visual choices a bit too hard, too obviously, too on the nose. In comparison films with open vistas like <em>O, Brother Where Art Thou, Raising Arizona</em> and <em>Fargo</em> better suit their expansive visual style. And while I find the original German Expressionism films interesting only from a historical perspective, I really like what Coppola did with those tropes in his version of Dracula. Perhaps ironically (oh, yikes, the dreaded "I" word), Coppola's use of iconographic German Expressionism is very, very obvious, very on the nose. Coppola is practically bellowing <em>"Look what we did here. Get it? It's an homage to every great cinematic technique, ever! And we did it all the old fashioned way, no CGI!"</em> Yet it works wonderfully well in that movie, perhaps because it's a nose thumbing drunken revel in those tropes and it dares the viewer not to enjoy it.</p>

<p>I don't wish to discount the value of irony or deliberate use of photographic elements to convey a message, or at least hint at a concept. But I'd reiterate a point I made in the previous related thread:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Photographers always imbue their <em>intentional</em> photographs with some message, however abstract or unformed... Creators are seldom in complete control of their creations. As with involuntary "tells" recognized by poker players and lie detectors, we often add subconscious context to our conscious content in photographs, art, music, writing and anything we create."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Suppose Bill's photo omitted the bottle, but retained exactly the same composition, space and aspect ratio. Just a blank, black space next to the cracked glass. What might viewers make of that? (<em>Hint: the typical photo.net salon style critique would suggest cropping.</em>)</p>

<p>Sans bottle.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Now what does it mean?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My kids are home for the weekend.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm wondering what shots netters might have that they tried to send a message with or tell a story with that perhaps viewers didn't or wouldn't get.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most of photography from what I've seen online and here are not necessarily creating images that intend to tell a narrative or message style story as their primary goal. Most just want to show the viewer how they see the world and what grabs their attention at the same time make it grab other's attention either through their understanding of composition and/or image enhancement and ability to emphasize as I illustrated with the American flag train image in the other thread.</p>

<p>If photographers want folks to get a message seen in their images, they have to be deliberate and not vague about what they want to say or else the viewer will misinterpret and/or become confused just as I did when I saw Bill's image of the broken glass and bottle of liquor I took as it being knocked over breaking the glass. Clumsy drunk drinker who needs to turn on a light so he doesn't knock over objects that might break things? Was that your message, Bill?</p>

<p>The link below was an exhaustive study of how to communicate through imaging from a Famous Artist Course back in the '50's and '60's. It's on composition. These guys had to learn this way back then because before photography they had to draw and paint scenes for advertisers that required they tell a story through images in order to get to the point very quickly and they became VERY good at it. I used some of that image language communication when I shot the American flag train image.</p>

<p>http://animationresources.org/instruction-composition-how-to-make-pictures/</p>

<p>Scroll down to Composition and click on each page which will make it larger so you can read it.</p>

<p>I don't have any pictures that are suppose to send a message. Mine are just to show how I see the world and where I go to view it so I'm not concerned how folks interpret it.</p>

<p>What's to be said anyway that already hasn't been said seeing the media and imaging in general has reached full saturation within the conscious mind of the general public. There's too much to look at that the message, if there is any, isn't getting through because of dilution of public's VERY divided attention.</p>

<p>Gentlepersons: </p>

<p>“When the Viewer Doesn't Get it”. Hmmm...</p>

<p>Wow, does that piss off some artists who then look down on the viewer as ignorant or tasteless. Many times I’ve seen that reaction and been tempted to say to the so called artist “When you thought you were being so cleverly subtle and artistic, you were simply being obtuse.” </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Good one Gup. I can relate.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you are only making your photos for yourself do whatever you like because why would you care what other people think?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the same reason as anyone who creates something they display in their home, on their person, on the web, etc. Just because you create it for yourself doesn't mean you don't like to get the occasional comment about it.</p>

<p>The message I was trying to convey was 'Alcohol can shatter lives.'</p>

<p>Another example is the POW from two weeks ago. I don't know that most would typically get 'pissed off,' but artists can be a temperamental lot. Though if the message isn't coming across, then it's largely the photographer's fault.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What's to be said anyway that already hasn't been said seeing the media and imaging in general has reached full saturation within the conscious mind of the general public. There's too much to look at that the message, if there is any, isn't getting through because of dilution of public's VERY divided attention.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, that's not my experience, except for the web to a certain extent. I'm privileged to live in a city that has a lot of local galleries, independent studios, and still an appreciation for careful looking at photos. So I get to see a lot of other photographers' work, which often is fairly deliberate, and I also get to hear from a lot of people who take the time to focus their attention on a photo more than the quick glances we become used to when we see what people are doing and saying on the web.<br /> ____________________________________________<br>

<br /> I'm with the group that thinks messaging can be fairly nonspecific and left with a lot of ambiguity.</p>

<p>I also find myself sometimes thinking quite specifically about what I'm trying to express but not hoping the viewer will get that. It can just help me focus on my photo and commit to a vision. For me, sometimes having a message clearly articulated to myself and effectively shown in the photo to my own satisfaction (or if not an out and out message, at least a kind of expressive intent) can simply help the photo take on a more significant shape, which I think the viewer is more likely to perceive or sense than specifically understand or interpret as I do. In other words, by articulating to myself a message or expressive intent, I can help imbue a photo with significance. The viewer's having a significant and moving viewing experience will be more important than whatever specific message he or she may get. That being said, I love hearing the messages people get. Their willingness to share something of themselves in exchange for seeing my photo is great. And I can sometimes learn things from their responses, about them, about me, about the photo . . .</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>In other words, by articulating to myself a message or expressive intent, I can help imbue a photo with significance. The viewer's having a significant and moving viewing experience will be more important than whatever specific message he or she may get.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I understand and get your intent behind the photo you posted, Fred, and the significance you imbued it, but it's a different kind of image language most wouldn't know how to articulate or be able to share in your expression and POV. </p>

<p>Your message in your photography is pretty much along the lines of what I said about my intent which simply put says..."Welcome to my world and how I see and feel about it...I don't know if you'll be able to see and feel the same, but I hope so". What message is that? Does it have to be a message? That would be my internal dialog as a message derived from your work. I don't know if others would have the same internal dialog.</p>

<p>I'm going to have to assume that you have a limited audience who'll have the time and sensitivity to see and feel the same and get the message or expression you imbue to your images.</p>

<p>I assumed Bill's intent starting this thread was meant as a general exploration of whether a wide range of folks can share, see and feel the same thing about an image. But thanks for your input and sharing your thoughts on this subject.</p>

<p>I wish I knew how to move this discussion forward so that many reading and contributing could take something of meaningful value concerning communicating with images.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The message I was trying to convey was 'Alcohol can shatter lives.'</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>OH, I GET IT!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

I didn't.<br>I thought the message was to be careful with hard liquor, 'cause it may shatter your glass. Ah well...

<p>I thought the message was, 'sloppy people waste good booze.'</p>

<p>Everything should be in the hands (mind!) of the viewer. The photographer, having done his work, should leave it at that. Bill's photo needs no title, even Guernica could have had an immense message without knowing its title, although the importance (infamy) of the particular attack by the Nazis merits a title in order to target a specific interpretation.</p>

<p>Many viewers don't get my visual messages, but that doesn't bother me. Some get messages that I didn't intend but which are nonetheless valuable for them. That they might find the subject of interest and think about what they are seeing is sometimes quite enough. Nobody can rob me of my own interpretation, which remains nonetheless.</p>

<p>It is interesting that sometimes the most easy to read message by most viewers can be very simple and self-evident,sometimes toi the point of banality or of "déjà vu". That is fine if that is the objective, but much good art is more complex than that and therefore requires an effort to understand fully and can consequently receive different interpretations. "Getting it" or not is not an obligation.</p>

<p> </p>

When people are supposed to get the message, the message should be in a language they can understand. Just like wanting to converse with someone speaking another language requires either you or him to learn to use the other's language, it is required to learn the photographic language.<br>If people don't get the message, wrapped up in a photo they may not speak the lingo, or the message itself is unclear because the photographer has yet to master the lingo. Or both.<br><br>Two things in your post, Arthur, make me scratch my head. If you want to send a message, why does it not bother you that it is not picked up? "Getting it" is the only thing that makes sending out a message worth doing.<br>And where and how does the concept of "robbery" fit in a communications issue?

<blockquote>

<p>I assumed Bill's intent starting this thread was meant as a general exploration of whether a wide range of folks can share, see and feel the same thing about an image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, we probably had different understandings of Bill's question. I took him more literally to mean an actual message, a literal visual communication of something he might put into words.<br>

<br>

In terms of the question as you state it ("share, see and feel the same thing about an image"), that may have been what I was getting at in talking about expressive intent as opposed to a more literal sort of message. I see the sharing of feelings as a little more metaphorical, photographically speaking, and the sharing of messages as more literal.<br>

<br>

To answer your question about wide groups of people sharing, seeing, and feeling the same thing from an image, I'd say it can be and often is done. And it does require what Q.G. is saying, an adept use of visual language accessible to the group being reached. That's why artists talk about symbolism, signs, and referents. I also think gesture is important, gestures that people in a photo may make and gestures that the photographer can make in composing the shot and aiming the camera. These can be key in many people sharing in the feeling of a photo. I may not have a specific message, but if I want to generally convey the sadness of my aunt, I probably will not show her doing jumping jacks in the bright sun. Fog or mist, on the other hand, could help. But most important will often be the expression on her face. Certain perspectives will often affect people a certain way. You shoot up at someone from below, especially with a wider angle lens which will exaggerate the perspective, and you are likely to get a kind of iconic or heroic read on the image. That's not necessarily putting out a specific message like "He's a war hero." It would take a uniform, perhaps, to get as specific as that. But to get the <em>shared feel</em> of awe and respect, of larger than life, a strong perspective shot from below could well do the trick. I'd say, in terms of shared feelings, sharing them is more about being in the same ballpark than quantifying exact similarities.</p>

<p>J"the message should be in a language they can understand. Just like wanting to converse with someone speaking another language"</p>

<p>But why would a Photographer/Artist seek to please others? It is a very nice thought that folks like to please others....but Im not sure how true that is in the real world.<br /> Perhaps adoration is what they are seeking.</p>

<p>Doing their own thing I would have thought most folks do; and if others like it....well, that is nice with the kindness of sharing.</p>

<p>Sometimes I think photography is turning into some sort of popularity contest. The real deal is individuals expressing their natural desires to create Art. Fust for their personal satisfaction... and if others like it well that is nice too.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In the previous conversation I initiated this week, I was addressing the tendency I have noticed at times for viewers to over-analyze an image. I was hoping for some examples from others of images they felt might be over-analyzed simply because I felt it an interesting topic. Few were presented, but the conversation addressed some philosophical thoughts that made for interesting discussion. The notion was presented within that conversation that most images present something beyond the literal view.</p>

<p>So, I thought it would be equally as interesting to have a conversation at the polar opposite, where a message was explicitly intended that we hoped was successfully conveyed. The intent wasn't to specifically discuss my own example image extensively, though I did think that, as images were presented, there would be some discussion as to their meaning if for no other reason than it would be entertaining. Nonetheless, some interesting responses again even if my original expectation was not realized.</p>

<p>The true Artist finds their way only if ,like the candle, they are only their own fuel, consuming themselves.</p>

<p> "have a conversation at the polar opposite, where a message was explicitly intended that we hoped was successfully conveyed"</p>

<p>Okay, perhaps a little bit of imagination is required.<br>

.</p><div></div>

Why would it be a matter of pleasing others, Allen? It may well be a matter of wanting to offend others, or inform, or instruct, or whatever you like. But if that (whatever it is) is what you like, for yourself, it has to be effective. Else you would not even be, uhm... pleasing yourself.<br><br>What is a true artist, i wonder, if he is supposed to be someone who only feeds off himself. Someone completely out of touch, noone would ever think worth their while, except, perhaps as a freak show attraction, as The Incredibly Out of Touch Man?<br>The true artist is someone who doesn't substitute something such as being A True Artist for being a true human being like the rest of us. Including all dependencies, needs, desires to break free from dependencies and needs, etc. Only then is he or she him or herself.

Bill, you were asking the same question both times. So you got the same answers twice.