The Shaping of Opinions

[joe_jackson4]

<p>In what ways can we attempt to shape the reaction/opinion of a viewer, regarding either our own photography or that of another photographer...?</p>

<p>Thoughts...?</p>

<p> </p>

[rnt]

<p>Beyond the image itself I've always thought that captioning is a underestimated way to lead a viewer to a particular conclusion. Imagine a photograph of the face of a woman screaming. The caption says "Woman reacts to the death of her child" or "Woman reacts to winning the lottery". The caption crystallizes an understanding (one of many, granted) out of the ambiguity of the image... I happen to like leaving some images ambiguous and letting the viewer create the dialog, but on others captions can be quite powerful.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Context. Is the image being shown as part of a series? In a gallery that is known for a particular idealogical position? On a greeting card in the "Sympathy" section? In an understated, simple frame and mat, or in a baroque monument to rectangular lavishness?<br /><br />How and when people encounter the image makes a huge difference. </p>

[jtk]

<p>"reaction" is not the same as "opinion." </p>

<p>"Reaction" typically implies something with biological overtones ("I'm angry" or "I love it") unless one specifically uses the word as if it meant some sort of genuine curiosity about response: "What's his reaction?" The word often suggests someone isn't comfortable with or responsible for his own thoughts or emotions. "Kneejerk."</p>

<p>"Opinion" is typically expressed as if it was a "right," or is as often denigrated as "only an opinion." Or it means one wants to say something and doesn't want to take responsibility ("Just my opinion"). Either way, it's usually a distraction because it is typically an either-or kind of idea...indicates crudeness.</p>

<p>IMO neither word is useful if one is looking for perceptive responses (as from photographically well-experienced viewers..who are, after all, the ones that count :-) ..I think one learns more by saying "tell me about your responses" ... simply asking in an open ended way for comments.</p>

<p>I don't think many of us consciously try to shape responses to our photographs..beyond calling them art, growing beards, editing resumes, dropping names, mentioning mentors, denigrating rivals, disparaging alternative attitudes, serving champaign and muchies :-)</p>

[nicolerenee]

<p>There are certainly tried and true methods of creating reaction that artists have used for years. Warm colors vs. cool and our physical reaction to them, complete compositions that leave the viewer at ease vs. unbalanced compostitions that create tension, high key vs. low key contrasts to create mood, soothing s-curves and jagged sharp lines... so on and so forth. I think the mastery of these things and knowing when and how use them and to bend and break them can go a long way in ensuring a response of a certain kind and that is all before the editing process is finished. Paul and Robert would also be right IMO, another step in the process of getting ready to bring the photo to the attention of the viewer. Advertizement agencies have all this stuff down pat.<br>

.</p>

[don_e]

<p>It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. That may be true of language spoken; we can hear yet not listen, but it is not true of written language (text). If we are reading, then we have read. What we have read has joined our thoughts. I agree with Robert regarding "captioning", and other text-cards.</p>

<p>One can also create images that are intended to be "read" -- images as text, or a system of signs. This is effective in influencing reaction/opinion. For example:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/7573451</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_stemberg]

I remember a quip about this sometime ago. It went something like this ...<br><br>'If a picture is worth a thousand words... what's the harm in adding a few more?'

[aplumpton]

<p>Two quotes from the art world:</p>

<p>Regarding shaping opinion: "Never explain - your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway" (Elbert Hubbard)</p>

<p>And from that talented but somewhat lately recognized Black American photographer, and regarding what one should do: "Enthusiasm is the electricity of life. How do you get it? You act enthusiastic until you make it a habit" (Gordon Parks) </p>

<p>Those are probably two good thoughts related, directly or indirectly, to "shaping" opinion.</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>"How and when people encounter the image makes a huge difference."</p>

<p>Matt, yes, I agree. For example, when I encounter images on this site the context includes Photo.net. Given the <a href="../gallery/photocritique/filter">nature </a> of this site, this is generally unlikely to have a positive influence on my reactions... :)</p>

<p>"Advertizement agencies have all this stuff down pat."</p>

<p>Hmm, well that's open to debate, Nicole, but I can certainly see similarities between the corporate world and the art world... ("It's a Sony", "It's a Picasso", and all that brand stuff...)</p>

<p>When presented with photographs, paintings and whatnot, I often like to ask myself (and other people...) "What's being sold here...?" In the case of photographers, the obvious answer may be "pictures", of course. Perhaps for overtly commercial reasons (newspapers, magazines, books, product packaging, etc...), or perhaps for some less openly-expressed form of private gain.</p>

<p>But what else are people offering, besides the pictures themselves, hmm...? How about conversation, friendship, understanding, affection, romance, sex...? Some nice comments on another photographer's online gallery, perhaps...? :) And, if we consider the wacky world of celebrities and "the art world" and suchlike, I guess exposure/fame/respect/business (by association) often enters the equation... :) This is all rather amusing to me, particularly when I consider the methods employed, both by myself and others... :)</p>

[nicolerenee]

<p>Paul, I hope that comment was taken in context and that I was clear in saying that advertisement agencies have a good grasp on nuturing certain reactions to what they are selling through tried and true methods with the knowledge of how people react to visual stimuli.</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Nicole, yeah, I understood your point, but I think advertising is often primarily concerned with simply raising awareness and gaining attention, because getting exposure for a product is often half the battle... There are many advertising agencies out there, staffed with people of various abilities, and judging by the resulting advertising campaigns many rely on sheer volume and repetition rather than any particularly sophisticated insight into people's psychological reactions.</p>

<p>I raised this topic with more personal questions in mind, but the advertising of art as a product to the general public is also an interesting subject in itself. In the art world, it seems that names are often given great importance. For example:</p>

<p><a href="http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/kandinsky.jpg">http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/kandinsky.jpg</a></p>

<p>We often see a similar thing happening in this very forum, of course. Names are bandied about left, right and centre, as if I should care... :) Erm, show me the product, and I'll decide that for myself thanks... :) For example, in the case of Wassily Kandinsky, I came to the conclusion that 99.9% of the stuff on display was laughably pretentious garbage. It was however, well worth the price of admission to mock and ridicule the work itself, the way it was presented, and the many mock-contemplative faces typical of the attendees of such exhibitions... ;) Anyway, some of the other stuff on display was OK, and I got a nice new fridge magnet out of it, which is often all that "famous name" art is useful for (to me)... :)</p>

<p>Getting back to my original question, and some of the responses so far, I agree that words are often used to add "significance" to pictures. Pictures themselves - be they photos, paintings or drawings or whatever - are often of very limited interest without some supportive marketing spiel... :) The real trick in the art world, of course, is to get others to do the writing for you... If you can somehow bullshit your way into the right critic's column in the right publication, you could be well on the way to fame and fortune... :) On a more personal - and potentially more embarrassing - scale, you could try to get your peers on this site to add supportive words to your pictures, by means of "critiques"... :)</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>One of my favourite examples of using words to add "significance" to pictures was by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich">Kazimir Malevich</a> , with his "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprematism">Suprematism</a> " thing... And people wonder why many folk don't take "art" all that seriously... :)</p>

<p>The thing is, you can sometimes see something similar going on (albeit on a somewhat less ludicrous scale...) with people's photography, not only by the photographer himself but by those who comment on their work... To me, it's just good old-fashioned hype and tripe, and is easily dismissed as such. Hats off to anyone who can get away with it though... ;)</p>

<p>Of more interest to me is, as John put it, "...simply asking in an open ended way for comments". This is generally my preferred approach (at least with people I don't know...), but even then, all the peripheral chatter/clutter has to be taken into account. The perceived hype can come in many indirect forms, after all, including our words on forums such as this... :) And yeah, it can be interesting to play with these things sometimes... :)</p>

<p>Also of interest to me is to let the intended viewer be the subject of the photography, so I/we can influence the context directly - in innumerable ways - before, during and after the picture-taking process... I've found that this can be very effective if you happen to have a close relationship with that person. The only "significance" to the pictures may be that the viewer is in them and I took them, but that's very often more than enough to make the resulting pictures vastly more interesting to both parties than any "big name" photographer's stuff.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>It is usually a waste of time for a photographer or artist to try to shape the opinions of others. Their opinions have their own shape, which is both innate and acquired (influence of society and experience). All you can normally do is address your work to a public that might be receptive to the type of art or photography that you undertake.</p>

<p>There is some possibiity of influencing society as a whole, but that usually requires public educators (as opposed to art college educators) or well-known or respected artists or gurus of taste, who are willing to give of their time to that task (e.g., Kenneth Clark's "Civilisation" series on TV several years ago, some documentaries that explore art trends for the public, etc.). Most of the influence destined for the public comes via commercial publicity and the photography and art used therein, which is often mediocre at best.</p>

<p>The serious artist or photographer should operate in his or her own world and not waste time trying to influence the opinions of others. Yes. by all means, have publicisers of your work, and actively seek them out, but don't take any time from your creation in trying to shape the opinion of others. The work will live or die on its own.</p>

<p>Last year was the 7th year of my short art gallery season (summer, 3-4 months) and has shown over the years the works, sometimes highly imaginative, of some 20 contemporary arists, including my own humble efforts. You can make potential buyers aware of the nature and qualities of someone's work, but the choice they make is virtually always influenced by their particular subjective response and the opinions they had upon entering the gallery.</p>

<p>Making the public more aware of their surroundings (architecture, art, environment) is appropriate, however. I am preparing a small conference for next autumn's library talks which will have a theme like "Art, architecture and the happy life". The subject is not new, but maybe I will be able to convince a few fellow citizens of the positive effects of all art on their life and well-being, including the contemporary art and photography that is often more difficult (for the general public) to comprehend and adapt to.</p>

<p> </p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>"The serious artist or photographer should operate in his or her own world and not waste time trying to influence the opinions of others."</p>

<p>Arthur, that's up to each individual picture-making person concerned (serious or otherwise...) to decide for themselves.</p>

<p>You may also wish to consider that the conscious act of trying not to shape the opinion of the viewer (or to attempt to give that impression...) is, in itself, likely to shape the reaction/opinion of the viewer to both the artist and his work. It can often provoke a powerful questioning response, for example... In addition, a very "low-key" approach by the photographer or artist can be interpreted as a way of seeking respect of one form or another. This can, of course, be counter-productive if this is interpreted by the viewer as yet another marketing gimmick.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"The conscious act of trying not to shape the opinion of the viewer (or to attempt to give that impression...) is, in itself, likely to shape the reaction/opinion of the viewer to both the artist and his work. It can often provoke a powerful questioning response"</p>

<p>Possibly, Paul, if you are dealing with superficial art media, or superficial viewers, or popular commercial art! Most serious art viewers want to judge a work based upon their own criteria and their aesthetic and emotional baggage. To attempt to shape their opinion is insulting to them. Equally, anyone who questions, like you say, the fact that an artist is not trying to shape his or her opinion, outside of the effect of the work itself on the viewer, is I think completely "out-to-lunch."</p>

<p>It is absolutely foolish of the artist to think he can or should shape the opinion of others, like working some piece of wet ceramic material which has no distinctive initial shape.</p>

<p>The only opinion of value is the artist's own. Van Gogh did not have an audience in his lifetime, but that did not prevent him from creating. He did not market his work and did not try to shape public opinion. However, it is questionable that he could have done the latter, even if he tried. The public wasn't ready for his genius.</p>

<p>I suggest that artists stay true to themselves, doing what they like to do and forgetting about shaping opinion. There may not be many who may understand your work, but you will at least be spending your time where it counts. If you have a partner or wife or agent that will do the legwork in marketing, that is about the best you can expect, or the most you should devote your time to.</p>

<p>Much popular art is a product of shaped opinions. Therefore it is what it is ....period. Nothing better to say about it. Most serious art needs no such popular opinion movement to make a statement or to access the eye of the discriminating viewer.</p>

<p><br /><br /></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>As John Kelly recognized, there are differences between "opinion" and "response."</p>

<p>I get more out of others' photographs when I accept them rather than judge them. I prefer being a viewer to being a critic.</p>

<p>When I do consider the viewers of my photographs, it's less and less about their opinions and more about their responses. A negative emotional response will often be as gratifying as a positive one.</p>

<p>My photographs are a means of expression and also a means of communication. Regarding communication, the shaping of responses can be significant. That seems to take place both unconsciously and intentionally . . . to varying degrees. Sometimes that shaping is quite specific, using a certain photographic tool with the intention or at least the result of eliciting a fairly specific response (blur to suggest motion, sepia to recall an era, and, of course, more nuanced tools beyond those). Sometimes it is much more loose, even ambiguous, and the ambiguity can be quite intentional as well.</p>

<p>Often this shaping takes place when the camera is tucked away and my head's on the pillow moments before sleep. Somehow, the next day when I'm shooting, it comes together . . . without my necessarily standing there and thinking about it when my finger's clicking the shutter.</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>"Equally, anyone who questions, like you say, the fact that an artist is not trying to shape his or her opinion, outside of the effect of the work itself on the viewer, is I think completely "out-to-lunch." "</p>

<p>Arthur, I think it's very common for the viewer to ask "What kind of thing is the artist trying to communicate here...?", or "Pfft, why the hell should I care about this crap...?", or "Is this meant to be serious art or some kind of 'arty' <a href="http://www.nycgarbage.com/home.html">joke</a> ...?", or "Is the artist trying to sell this junk, or what...?", or "What kind of person would present this stuff as 'art'...?. I know I do.</p>

<p>Without some form of contextual "guidance" as to what the nature of the intended response is meant to be, the viewer may often be left with more questions than a photograph or other picture can answer in itself... This may well be what the artist intended, of course, as it can be a very easy way to get people to look at a few pictures for a little longer than they may otherwise be bothered to do. (It's my experience that most photos/paintings are evaluated in a matter of seconds, not minutes, so a brief period of confusion can certainly be a useful tool...) On the other hand, the questioning process may also lead to a reaction that the artist may have liked to avoid... :)</p>

<p>The nature of the "guidance" may come in many forms... Perhaps it could be written titles/desciptions of sorts, or simply the nature of the viewing environment, or some aspect of a web site's design/text, or some familiarity with an artist's previous work or perceived reputation... It may also come from any associated publicity material, including the graphic design of an exhibition poster/leaflet, any selected quotes from a review or two, or a brief note about the artist and his work, or a photo of the artist, and so on... In addition, the "guidance" can include any associations that the artist has made with galleries and/or other artists... All are likely to influence the reaction/opinion of the viewer, one way or another, and I suspect that most artists are well aware of this.</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Arthur, would you consider <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audrey_Kawasaki">Audrey Kawasaki</a> to be a "serious artist"...?</p>

<p>And whether you do or not, do you think there is anything on her website or blog that may be attempting to shape the reaction/opinion of the viewer, other than the pics of the work itself...?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.audrey-kawasaki.com/">http://www.audrey-kawasaki.com/</a></p>

<p><a href="http://i-seldom-do.livejournal.com/">http://i-seldom-do.livejournal.com/</a></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>I visited the "Nomade" show this weekend in Montreal of Loto-Quebec's (our provincial lottery), showing a small part of the corporation's 30-year tradition of collecting art. Some 80 artists were on display, some not well known, others more so. The lottery spends a very very small fraction of its receipts each year on new art (usually about $400,000, encouraging each year 20 or so artists), to enhance the walls of its office tower, and perhaps also its investment portfolio. It was interesting to reflect on how seldom I had seen in the art literature the texts of such artists (we have 4 monthly art magazines in French or bilingual French/English which cover the the provincial and natonal art scene, including photography). There may have been more "guidance" articles in them than I have read, but I could recall only a small percentage of them.</p>

<p>This may be my fault, as much of the art I see in these magazines I do not warm easily to (highly commercial pop art that I avoid like the plague at my own small gallery). Probably most of the artists I saw at the "Nomade" exhibition (it is called that as it will tour around the province this year) have appeared at one time or the other in these magazines (which are similar in presentation to "Art in America", if you know that one) or elsewhere. Much of the guidance so provided is wrapped in what I can only imagine as a 3rd or 4th year thesis language, intended not so much as guidance, but more as embellishment of artistic intent to impress a prof or close colleagues.</p>

<p>But for me, simply seeing the work was well enough. Later, reading the artist's list of prizes and his or her appoach (very summary) did add something I must admit (and sometimes it was really needed, as there were no "sugar shacks in the Canadian wilds" in these very contemporary and ofttimes strange works), although the insights, welcome enough, did not alter my first appreciation. My major impressions, for or against, were already acquired simply by looking. Many of the descriptions were not consistent with how I subjectively interpreted the works.</p>

<p>Some artists of very powerful images had little or nothing in text to describe their work. The fact that they were not trying to influence my perception, was freshly welcome.</p>

<p>With all my respect to Ms. Kawasaki, I get the feeling her work goes no further in its message than that of the photographer David Hamilton (another popular artist with the public). It is "too cute by half", on both the graphic and erotic levels. In regard to the guidance, her text says it combines an aesthetic together with a disquieting nature (if I remember correctly). I certainly did not find most of the images disquieting at all (some of your own recent images are more directly disquieting in that sense, although I feel you are at times playing with a scenario, instead of letting it play with you).</p>

<p>In some former photography Salons I have submitted to, it wasn't always the case that you could discern the value of an image in a few seconds. Certainly there were images that we call "tape à l'oeil" (sort of eye candy, those images easily and quickly assimilated), but the best images, whether so recognised by the judges or not, were those which required more time to appreciate, or which unfolded additional meaning or levels of appreciation on longer periods of visual familiarity with them. But that effect is not ucommon in much "serious" art.</p>

<p>Anyways, I will look again, as I have just finished a purely technical report this evening on someone else's non-artistic work, and that is hardly conducive to stimulating the right side of the brain.</p>

[don_e]

<p>"One of my favourite examples of using words to add "significance" to pictures was by <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich" target="_blank">Kazimir Malevich</a> , with his "<a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprematism" target="_blank">Suprematism</a> " thing... And people wonder why many folk don't take "art" all that seriously... :)"</p>

<p>Perhaps you take art way too seriously, if that is your response to Malevich. I love his stuff.</p>

<p>http://www.stevenvanneste.com/images/600px-Malevici06.jpg</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>...with the lightness and joy of a Miro.</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Don, I've found that whether I take anything seriously or not (photos, paintings, people, work, my own thoughts, etc...) mostly depends on my mood. And that tends to fluctuate all over the shop, depending on all kinds of stuff...</p>

<p>Arthur, your assessment of Audrey Kawasaki's pics was pretty similar to my own initial reaction. The only way I could make her paintings interesting to my mind was to imagine the pictures being animated, with my good self as the make-it-up-as-I-go-along director of the resulting imaginary scenes... I've found that this can be a handy thing to do when looking at paintings and photos, if I'm trying to avoid being bored at a gallery or something, and not in a piss-taking mood. I mean, damn, it can even make some of Van Gogh's crude pics of flowers and trees a little more interesting... ;)</p>

<p>Anyway, AK's stuff then became more interesting to me, but OK, I can't really give AK herself a great deal of credit for that, because it was mostly the results of my own imagination that generated the interest. I've mentioned something similar to various artists over the years... Strangely, some have appeared to be quite offended when I've said "Well, it's not your imagination that has made this thing interesting to me, it's my own."</p>

<p>"Some artists of very powerful images had little or nothing in text to describe their work. The fact that they were not trying to influence my perception, was freshly welcome."</p>

<p>Well, I guess their "say nothing" approach had the desired effect then... :)</p>

[don_e]

<p>"Don, I've found that whether I take anything seriously or not (photos, paintings, people, work, my own thoughts, etc...) mostly depends on my mood. And that tends to fluctuate all over the shop, depending on all kinds of stuff..."</p>

<p>That can make discussions in this forum problematic.</p>

 

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Such is the nature of discussions such as these, Don, given that the perception of other people's words as "problematic" may be very much dependent on the individual, and their mood at any given time. For example, I often find people's apparent inability to differentiate between opinion and factual statements to be problematic.</p>

<p>On a related note, in my opinion the perception of a particular person as a "serious artist" (or a particular picture as "serious art") is a matter for each individual to consider for himself, at any given time.</p>

<p>Of course, the artist is free to try to shape a viewer's reactions/thoughts such that they respond as he would prefer by whatever means he sees fit. For example, perhaps the desired response is a "serious" one... Well, depending on my mood, I wish them the best of luck... :)</p>

[don_e]

<p>I mean what is the point of discussing something with you, if in the middle of it, you will have a mood swing, perhaps several. It sounds like you will go with the mood swing. That may be fun for you, but it might mean the others in the discussion have just wasted their time conversing with you, so maybe next time they think, why bother, Paul's a kook.</p>

<p> </p>