Critiquing the Critics

[Hertz van Rental]

Nah I dont need a pro decorator. Why pay someone to screw things up when you can do it yourself.

You seem to be confusing decoration with DIY carpentry.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Or camera building..

 

[Alex_B]

if a decorator / interior designer is needed, I am willing to jump in ...

 

[Hertz van Rental]

if a decorator / interior designer is needed, I am willing to jump in ...

Now you're getting confused with lifeguard.

 

[Alex_B]

Now you're getting confused with lifeguard.

might be right .. lifeguards get more girls, right?

 

[Puscas]

I'm glad to hear it. It means that you agree with all the major thinkers on the subject and all the research that has been done on this for the past 60 years.

First I apologize, I didn't noticed you commented on my comment. Second, I hope this is not your attitude towards everything. The mere fact that something is around for 60 years, doesn't make it true forever or rather off limits for anything different.


And again, I wasn't talking about the same process as you were. Indeed, I was talking about our obsession with images.

People may well glance at a photograph first but then they immediately scan any associated words to discover what the photograph means or represents. Only you do it so quickly and it is so automatic that you are not conciously aware you are doing it.

Yes, is has to be associated, otherwise you become very consious of the fact that you are looking for meaning. But I reject the idea (and maybe I'm misunderstanding you) that the image is some powerless factor at the mercy of words. If you have an image and you add/change the word(s), sure the impact changes. But the image has a power of its own and it impacts the word(s) as well.
But of course, that's not the way we look at it when we're critiquing, so believe it or not, I agree largely with you on this:

If you give a picture a caption or a title then the picture ceases to be a picture in it's own right but becomes merely an illustration to the words.

pascal

 

[Hertz van Rental]

But I reject the idea (and maybe I'm misunderstanding you) that the image is some powerless factor at the mercy of words.

Images have power. There is no doubt of that. But because of the way we have developed we now privilege words over images. This means that if you put words and pictures together (and this includes the mere titling of an image) then the image becomes an illustration - the words take precedence because in our present culture (at least in the West) words have power.
This process is highlighted by the following.
An illiterate person does not see what is written, only the image. And the image is all that person has to go on. Words have no power for them.
If the writing is in a language we do not understand then we find ourselves using the image to try to puzzle out the meaning of the words. We recognise that the words have meaning and that the meaning must be important.

Some of this is context conditioned. We understand that in newspapers and magazines the written word carries the message. The images are there as a supplement (in newspapers they provide a spurious proof. 'We can't be lying - we have a photo to prove it'.). In a gallery we understand that the images are the important objects - but we still put little titles with info by them

Of course just because something has been around a long time does not mean it is not open to question or that it is right. But it doesn't mean that it is wrong either.
There is still a lot of research going on in this area (advertising depends upon it for one thing) but all the indications still point the same way. So I see no reason to change my view.

 

[Puscas]

Me thinks we're on the same page...

So I see no reason to change my view.

I'm not asking you to. Just to keep an open mind.


well, it's been fun. My curiosity has been satisfied.
Off to the Off Topic again.....

pascal

 

[The_Traveler]

Images have power. There is no doubt of that. But because of the way we have developed we now privilege words over images. This means that if you put words and pictures together (and this includes the mere titling of an image) then the image becomes an illustration - the words take precedence because in our present culture (at least in the West) words have power.

I agree with most of what you said up until the underlined passage. IMO, words become an intrinsic part of the communication and may even direct it, but they are not necessarily the most powerful portion. The relative power is related to the effectiveness, both of the words and the image.

Unfortunately, what we run into here are people who use titles or text in an attempt to add something that the image doesn't have.