AboutDocumentary & portraiture photography
Image and text:
Beginners | Intermediate
| Advanced - 1 2
3 4
5
Advanced Part 2 of 5
One
photograph with two different captions gives us two different meanings
of the photograph. The caption controls the response we have to the picture
presented, we derive our meaning from the implicit trust we have in the
combination of words and pictures to illustrate a theme, or a point of
view. These can vary, and leaves the photograph without any intrinsic
meaning on its own. Can the photograph have a stable, intrinsic meaning
of its own, devoid of a relationship from controlling or explaining devices,
devoid of context? Or are the photographs we see always changing in terms
of their context historically, or of our changing circumstances? Roland
Barthes said “the text loads the image, burdening it with a culture, a
moral, and imagination.” Is the only way to combine words and pictures
to form one intrinsic meaning to include the words within the closed frame
of the photograph itself?
I define the closed frame as the inherent image, as defined by its external boundaries, be it the black line around the edge of the print or reproduction, or the white border surrounding the contents of the space. The image itself, that which appears in the frame provided by the cropping, or edge of the negative or positive, the contents of which could not be there had they not been part of the original exposure or print. This closed frame can only be defined in terms of language if the intention is to explain the meaning of the photograph, otherwise it can be explained in technical photographic terms as the space occupied by the intended image, within the boundaries defined by the author, and represented by such.
In isolation, the photograph invites definition - we are uncomfortable with an image on a page without context - without some form of coded meaning, or clue to where we can make our start point to understanding the inherent meaning of the closed frame. Our language of definition is through the words we use to define other things. We have invented a technical language to help us define photographs, but have failed to describe the photograph in non verbal forms. This traps us into selecting meanings based on clues provided by notes, captions, etc. as described above, at the same time, covers our discomfort with the image on its own. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does our cognitive process. We feel insecure when faced with a purely visual abstract form in the space in front of us. We are challenged into defining the space in order to control it, and pacify our inadequacy to deal with the totally abstract. Thus the closed frame, barren and devoid of verbal and written complimentary explanation, is a threat. A narrative is compulsively formed if there is none provided. This narrative can be from our own imagination, and takes the form of an expression of meaning through language - through words. We do not imagine the next frame, or another photograph that could be next in the sequence. We fill the gaps with words, and define ourselves in the process. This completes the cycle of the artistic experience, where we are given a visual stimulus, and provide ourselves with a meaning that satisfies our interpretations. The degree of collusion with the artist is dependent on everything - the viewer and the circumstances of the viewing. If provided, words are a road the viewer can take towards the intended meaning, if not provided (a rare occurrence in photography) the viewer is free to define meaning through the only process we know to reach understanding - words and language.
So are we trapped in our own language? Are we controlled by the photograph’s context and our circumstances into a narrative we cannot escape?
Let us explore the logic of creation further.
© John Frederick Anderson