can anyone analyze this picture?

[GrandMa]

I wondered if anyone of you would please analyze this photo for me. I took this picture to an assignement at school and the teacher has given me some critisism back about my analyzing of the photo which I don't agree on. Could any of you please write a little bit about this picture so I could see who's right
http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=12/33910590551.jpg&s=x11

Thanks

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Post your analysis and your teacher's comments first, please, so we can see what was said and make some informed comments.
If you don't we might begin to suspect that you just want us to do your assignment for you.
It wouldn't be the first time someone has asked a question like this to try and get us to do their work

 

[photoboy15]

Looks like a burning doll on some rocks. If you want a deeper analization, you might want to express why you took the picture.

 

[Oscar Mueller]

It looks like the liberation from childhood.

 

[danalec99]

It looks like an easy way to do the homework!

 

[df3photo]

where you mad at your little sister or kids at some point? decide to burn her toys?

 

[craig]

Again a little tough with out some info. At first glance you have burnt a child's doll. Definitely dramatic. I am not clear how it goes beyond that.

 

[GrandMa]

I've disscused the matter with my teacher and she just didn't see my point I guess. But now I got an A. Sorry for not replying here. Tottaly forgot

Edit: But anyway. Did you think it was a nice picture? The title is "Children at war" and the picture tells this tale about a little girl who's murdered with the rest of her village

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I've disscused the matter with my teacher and she just didn't see my point I guess. But now I got an A. Sorry for not replying here. Tottaly forgot

Edit: But anyway. Did you think it was a nice picture? The title is "Children at war" and the picture tells this tale about a little girl who's murdered with the rest of her village

It has totally failed as a picture, then, hasn't it?
If you have to explain a picture to someone for them to 'get it', then the picture isn't telling the story you want it to tell.
There are several critical readings one can make of your picture and what you want it to say isn't one of them. Most of the readings come out relating to 'loss of innocence'.
From a purely technique point of view then it's OK - but as far as doing the job you want it to goes you miss by a mile.

 

[JC1220]

If you are trying to tell a story with a photograph on its own, you will almost always, actually I would go as far and say -always-, fail to get your exact meaning communicated. If you want to tell a story, pick up a pen and paper.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

If you are trying to tell a story with a photograph on its own, you will almost always, actually I would go as far and say -always-, fail to get your exact meaning communicated. If you want to tell a story, pick up a pen and paper.

When that happens it just means that the photographer isn't very good

 

[GrandMa]

She just didn't get my presentation of it. But anyways, since I got an A it communicates like hell!

 

[Kent Frost]

No, since you got an A, the A communicates with you like hell. If your teacher didn't get your meaning, and you got an A, that tells me you had to talk your way into the A. The photo itself is a bit "naked" in the sense that without any other elements, it could very easily be confused for a photo a 12-year old took while burning his sister's toy. Especially in this society. On the other hand, had you included a young, bloodied-up hand holding the doll (which wouldn't be hard to fake), it may help you portray your story better. Just an idea. I'm sure there are other things you could have done, but that was the one that came to mind for me first.

 

[JC1220]

When that happens it just means that the photographer isn't very good

If you are saying that a photographer is only very good when they can communicate the exact meaning of their photograph with the photograph alone?

If so, I quite disagree. Every viewer of a photograph brings their own unique vision and maturity of vision to viewing a photograph making the experience and the interpretation unique to each viewer. Feelings also get involved when viewing a photograph and these are unique to each viewer. There for, it is nearly impossible to communicate your exact meaning without influencing their perceptions by an obvious descript title or story, i.e. photojournalism.

Another example is, if you have a photographic assignment. There are certain parameters put on it: the topic, idea behind it, possibly a subject, etc. The people involved in the assignment are aware of what the person is trying to communicate and then one can judge it to a certain degree. Take the same photograph and let it stand on its own outside the group, and the interpretations will be vastly different the majority of the time, some will be close, but never an exact meaning.

Too bad this discussion will be buried in this thread...
JC

 

[Hertz van Rental]

If you are saying that a photographer is only very good when they can communicate the exact meaning of their photograph with the photograph alone?

If so, I quite disagree. Every viewer of a photograph brings their own unique vision and maturity of vision to viewing a photograph making the experience and the interpretation unique to each viewer. Feelings also get involved when viewing a photograph and these are unique to each viewer. There for, it is nearly impossible to communicate your exact meaning without influencing their perceptions by an obvious descript title or story, i.e. photojournalism.

Another example is, if you have a photographic assignment. There are certain parameters put on it: the topic, idea behind it, possibly a subject, etc. The people involved in the assignment are aware of what the person is trying to communicate and then one can judge it to a certain degree. Take the same photograph and let it stand on its own outside the group, and the interpretations will be vastly different the majority of the time, some will be close, but never an exact meaning.

Too bad this discussion will be buried in this thread...
JC

Do please excuse me.
For some bizarre reason I had thought that Photography was a form of visual communication. You have opened my eyes to the truth.
Photography's sole purpose is to produce pretty but meaningless pictures for the viewer to interpret as they will.
Now I know where I have been going wrong all these years.