When the Viewer Doesn't Get it

[Allen Herbert]

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

[Allen Herbert]

<p>:The Incredibly Out of Touch Man?"</p>

<p>Well, they do tend be introverted doing their own thing. Selfish in their Art.</p>

<p>Generally not crowd pleasers...look at the History of Art there are so many insights.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Q.G. - first thread - post an image with no intended meaning that others might over-analyze. Second thread - post an image with an intended meaning that others might not get.</p>

<p>Not the same.</p>

 

[GerrySiegel]

Drinking shatters lives, huh. Well, I could come up with some other ways to demo that besides a still life with a mere pint and not a magnum and a crystal glass, more for wine than gin. So where is the hit them where they can't miss the message. Sprawl a fellow in a doorway ( you can do the modeling) with a paper bag of cheap wine. Appropriate rags of course. Got to get em in the gut. Or the gut rot. But then messages are not all that exciting to all PN viewers. Beauty might be a more fun message...or Mohter Love....or Solitude......or Frenetic Activity.. Or even something with Energy demonstrating enthusiasm or Joy of a New Set of Wheels etc..challenge for the messenger, but shoot him not... Oh yes, I think ambiguity is over rated. Give me the simple life. A shot of kids in play works.

PS. To show the message that alcohol make a party a party look at all the ads from prestige boozer companies in the magazines. You have to be as strong with a punch as they do extolling the fun of a 'punch.' SeewhatImean? Aloha, gs

[sjmurray]

<p>A lot of people over the years have looked at my photos, and I have come to expect nearly every one of them to overlay their own interpretation on my photos to some degree. Its normal human nature. Images "trigger" thoughts, memories, emotions, that exist within the viewer. No photographer/artist can know what triggering will occur in another person. Sure, there are universal themes, memes, tropes, cliches, etc., but beyond that there is the personal stuff. Duh.</p><div></div>

[GerrySiegel]

A wink wink message has to be universal enouugh to cross cultures without ambiguity. With technique sublimated to universal experience of the Human Comedy.<div></div>

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Sans bottle... "Now what does it mean?"" That it was put in the recycling bin.

[Spearhead]

<p>I just point and shoot. If people want to see something in the photos, that's their problem.</p>

 

<center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/fsf201403.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" />

<p><em>Adult Baby</em></p>

</center>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Yeah, there's also some validity to <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=%22What+does+it+all+mean,+Mr.+Natural%3F%22&safe=off&rlz=1C1LENN_enUS490US490&es_sm=122&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ZeNWVO37OYSsyASg2IGgDg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1020&bih=617#imgdii=_">Mr. Natural's philosophy</a>:<br>

"Mr. Natural! What does it all mean?"<br>

"Don't mean sheeit."</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>Werner Herzog's "Cave of forgotten dreams" documentary deals with this interesting aspect of 30k years old cave paintings: their meaning and our ability (or inability) of understanding them. There are no humans from that time to explain these images to us not there is a convenient title inscribed underneath. Still these images are deeply moving even thou we may understand them completely "wrong" as to what their creators intended.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Bill, in both threads the intended meaning and what meaning the viewer reads in the photo do not match. In both, because it was not immediately obvious what to read, it was left open to either speculation (easy to do, so most common) or required the viewer to investigate.<br>You could say that is because the photo fails to bring the intended meaning across, does not work as the message bearer it is supposed to be. But that would be too easy, of course, because not all of the burden rests with the photo. There is an effort required from the viewer too. But the viewer is in a disadvantaged situation, because while the maker of the photo will know what he or she intended (even if that is nothing), the viewer has to get it from the clues presented in the photo itself (and the background information). So it is neither surprising that people read things into photos that aren't there (first thread), nor that they take something out of a photo that wasn't their intended message (this thread). Both are the same: communication failed. They do not get it.

[q.g._de_bakker]

There is a very real danger, Thomas, that what moves us about those images is the fact that they are that old, that noone is here who can explain what their meaning is, and that we find it amazing that back then people were able to put marks on walls, though we don't find it amazing that kids did the same yesterday, and will do the same today and tomorrow. I.e. all to do with us and our perspective, nothing to do with that of the makers.<br>We can indeed find images we know nothing about moving, shocking, informative, etc. Because it is so easy to project our own interpretation on them. Though it can be frustrating for the maker of images, that's not that bad. We are allowed to make our own mistakes. We should know though, that even though we do not know which ones are and which ones are not, we do make mistakes. 'Artists' must not get their feathers ruffled by people being people. On the contrary: it is what makes the world such an interesting place, and makes being an artist such an interesting challenge.<br>Mr. Natural? "The whole universe is completely insane." As long as we are aware of that, it will be fine. Business as usual.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Maybe in a way, "overanalysing" and "not getting it" are at the two extremes of ambiguity. Too ambiguous (or more rude: vague) and viewers are forced to analyse too much to make something out of the image. They look too much for clues to forget to see the whole picture. Too little ambiguity, and it's hand-holding, the equivalent of shouting your message. For a viewer, not half as involving and rewarding. While both extremes have their place, the middle ground tends to be a nicer place to be. Leave the fantasy some play, but also leave some decent clues.<br>

For me personally, I much hope to achieve what Tim described before in response to Fred - invite people in into a vision on the world, evoking that internal dialog, a conversation-starter to exchange ideas. Not a fixed message, but ratehr sharing a thought. Sure an image needs to communicate, but communication does not need to be answers, statements, or finished stories. It can be fragments, fuzziness, a question, hazy dream, an open-ended statement... Leave the message of the image a bit open, and the feedback from people is a lot more interesting, because it won't be confirmation from what you said, but a reflection, a response to an idea. In ways, a reflection on you (as the creator/artist).<br>

Of course it all depends on the intent, the intended use and way of showing the image, and so on. But in general, I'm always hesitant to say the viewer didn't get it. It's more likely I did not explain myself well to them, and I should try better again next time.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Got to get em in the gut.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Gerry. This can be important. <br /> <br /> Many photographic messages are prosaic and, therefore, can be unengaging. If the message reads like a TV commercial, it will not usually capture my imagination though it may get a point across. If, on the other hand, we're working towards an aesthetic or artistic message, then some emotion, some poetry, humanity, passion, and soul might be better than a quick text or a memorable jingle. Even if I don't get the specific message as intended, if I see there's a specific message (a literal one) to get, I'm less likely to use my imagination and less likely to be moved emotionally. There are all kinds of messages and all kinds of tones of voice a message can be delivered with. Mystique and ambiguity, rather than getting in the way of the message, can be vital aspects of the message.<br /> <br /> __________________________________________________</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm always hesitant to say the viewer didn't get it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not, if I think it's the case. I think as many viewers don't get it as photographer's don't visually articulate it.<br /> <br /> I'm not saying each viewer can't view as she pleases. Of course she can. But just as there are photographers who are better at making significant photos, there are viewers who will surely miss a lot that's in a photo because of a lack of viewing depth and savvy.<br /> <br /> I understand the artist who can be disappointed in some viewers for not getting it. Which doesn't mean there aren't artists or so-called artists who miss the mark. Sure, some photographers and artists fool themselves and blame viewers. But it's a two-way street. First off, many viewers of photos don't take the time to get anything. They're browsers, not viewers. And if a photo falls short of being pretty or being some kind of decor one could hang on their wall at home, there are viewers who will immediately dismiss it.<br /> <br /> I think there can be a lot of art to viewing photos and paintings. And that art takes time and effort to develop, just like the art of creating them.<br /> <br /> It all depends on what one wants out of the experience.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>If you have to explain the joke, it wasn't funny.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

While having to explain the joke is not funny, the fact that you have to is not necessarily the joke's fault.

[jordan2240]

<p>Ooo, I like the joke analogy. But Q.G. is right. My mom almost never gets a joke. I suppose if you WERE trying to send a message, you'd best know your audience and understand the background that would influence their perceptions.</p>

[LineMartel]

<p>I don't think I want to impose my views on the viewers. I think good art does not need a title or a defined message. It should generate an emotion, the message being solely in the perception of the viewer. Otherwise I call it marketing... Although marketing is in fact an art!</p>

[thomas_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>Although marketing is in fact an art!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to disagree with that as a general statement. Marketing visuals can exhibit great craftsmanship but you need someone like Andy Warhol to make them art.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I think good art does not need a title or a defined message.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO, art may or may not "need" a title but many good artists have titled their work. Duchamp's <em>Fountain</em> comes to mind, where not only did Duchamp title it but he signed it with a pseudonym, R. Mutt.<br /> <br /> Then there are verbal messages that are an integral part of the artwork, such as in Magritte's <em>La trahison des images (The treachery of images), </em>a painting of a pipe under which he, himself, writes, "<em>Ceci n'est pas une pipe.</em>" <em>(This is not a pipe.)</em><br /> <br /> And Magritte was not hesitant to write what he was thinking about and why he made the picture and talk some about what it was trying to say.<br /> <br /> In a sister thread to this one, it's been pointed out the Georgia O'Keeffe got tired of hearing her viewers interpret her flowers as an expression of her sexuality, and she told them so. Good for her!<br /> <br /> Different artists do things all sorts of ways and take all different approaches. Many of them don't shy away from taking stands and being committed to an idea about art. They may not always impose a specific verbalized meaning onto their own art, but they very often do impose their views. Cubism and Dada were among the biggest artistic impositions I can imagine. Dada, at least, even had a doctrine to go along with it.</p>

<p>Stieglitz, first with his successful heralding of photography as an art form deserving of display in museums, had a big message for the art world. And, then, in his just as vocal rejection of the Pictorialism which helped photography get there, he explained why his photos were now going to look the way they looked. There are all kinds of messages one can give with their art and all kinds of communicative expectations or desires one can have.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Having a message, Line, is not the same as trying to impose a view. When you were writing what your wrote about imposing views, were you imposing your view on messages and imposing views on your readers?<br>But then you say that art "should" generate an emotion? Hmm... ;-) But joking apart: evoking an emotion by anything you do or produce = sending a message.<br><br>I think all art always has a 'message'. It doesn't have to be an attempt to educate, persuade or convice. But whatever the intention (or lack thereof), it is always telling us something about the world as seen by the artist. (Even - as is all too often the case - if it that message is no more than that the artist in question has nothing original to say.)<br><br>If words help, why not add words to a painting, photo or whatever? Are songs lesser art because they add a verbal narrative to music?

[LineMartel]

<p>I may not always chose the right words in English.... but what I was trying to say is that I don't feel my perception should be directed....(probably did not word this right either! :-D). And go figure I am a big fan of Cubism and Dadaism!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>There are many ways to interpret a work of art, many messages. Whichever is chosen is I think the right of the viewer.</p>

<p>Often a title chosen by the artist results in the viewer locking to that aspect of the meaning or interpretation, and sometimes blocks other viewpoints the latter may have had. I like titles that either say the minimum or simply situate the scene ("East Cleveland" or "Ontario village") or those which are seemingly enigmatic and challenge the perception or understanding of the viewer. The in between type of title that tells all is a bore to me. And a hinderance at times. I agree with Line that imposing an interpretation on a viewer often does not work or tends to rob the viewer of the pleasure of absorbing the image for himself or herself.</p>

<p>Given time, I would likely understand the apparent narrative of Vivaldi's 4 seasons without the title, as I would with with Debussy's "Engulfed Cathedral" (La cathédrale engloutie") or "The Sea" (La mer). If that generated a symbolism other than that intended (and sometimes an intention of others after the fact, rather than the poular title of the composer) so be it. Art is seldom cartesian.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>While having to explain the joke is not funny, the fact that you have to is not necessarily the joke's fault.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It could indicate a mismatch between the joke and the audience. A joke about a plunger means nothing to someone who has never seen a toilet.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I don't know why rights, freedom from being directed,not imposing an interpretation, and such could be such a big demand. Quite the contrary. When we converse, the aim is to convey a definite content. A message. That is not different when we converse without using words.<br>You have every right to read this particular sentence as saying something else than what it does, interpret it in many ways besides the one intended and expressed. But that defeats any conceivable point there could be in writing it. Except, perhaps, to give you a chance to dream away and imagine it says many things it does not. For that, however, it doesn't matter at all what i write. No point to even try to converse with people holding their fingers in their ears chanting the well known i-can't-hear-you! chant so not to catch anything of what you are saying, safeguarding their freedom.<br>Art is not a guessing game. The pleasure of good art is not that it provides an opportunity for the viewer to find out how clever he or she is inventing intentions that might fit the work of art. Don't be so selfish. You have to (there, i said it) show some respect for the artist and the work of art by taking it seriously. Which you don't when you think it is all up to you.