can anyone analyze this picture?

[JC1220]

To clarify, I was not trying to be rude or condescending as that seems how you might have taken my post, tone is at times difficult to discern in text. I was hoping for some conversation here on your thoughts and if I had misinterpreted what you wrote in your initial response, you would have clarified your meaning in a more constructive manor.

From some of your other posts I had hoped for a discussion with some content.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

You say that each viewer of a photograph interprets it in their own 'unique' way.
The definition of 'unique' is that no two are the same.
This means that a photographic image is capable of an almost infinite number of different interpretations.
For something to have that many different meanings it must be, in essence, meaningless for if it had a specific meaning it would not be capable of infinite misinterpretation.
This gives only three possible scenarios:
Photographic images are meaningless on their own.
The viewer does not know how to interpret the image.
The photographer does not know how to encode his idea in the image.

You appear to favour the former. I favour the second two.
My post could be seen to encapsulate this, albeit in a sarcastic way.

 

[JC1220]

I have to head out for the day so I will be brief:

A photograph on its own will have meaning to the viewer, again who brings their own unique level of interpretation and maturity of vision to a photograph. So, yes a photograph will have a unique meaning to each viewer. Does that make a photograph meaningless, no, and I never said that. It seems you infer that if a photograph does not have the same meaning to each person, it is then meaningless. Again, I disagree with this.

Yes, it is possible a viewer may not know how to interpret a photograph, as the viewer may not have the knowledge or level of maturity in viewing photographs to do so.

Your last comment is obviously where we disagree most, and I say disagree not that one is right or wrong here. Again you infer that photographs are about “ideas.” Without boarding on or using photojournalism, one will fail to communicate a meaning or an idea with a photograph alone. Fine art photographs should never about ideas, they are about feelings and invoking feelings in a viewer. Photography for other purposes can certainly be used to communicate ideas, perhaps this is where we are differing on our opinions of intention of use, so to speak.

And lastly, yes, I do want my viewers to interpret my photographs “as they will.” In my opinion, one gets a more satisfying visual experience in viewing photographs where you are not led by the nose and told what the photograph is or is suppose to be about.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

yes a photograph will have a unique meaning to each viewer. Does that make a photograph meaningless, no, and I never said that. It seems you infer that if a photograph does not have the same meaning to each person, it is then meaningless. Again, I disagree with this

If an image has a unique meaning to each viewer then it must have at least as many meanings as potential viewers. That is an inescapable consequence of your view.
How many potential viewers does an image have, then? At least everyone alive in the world to-day, as well as all those yet to be born. Not all those will see the image, of course, but there must be at least that many meanings within the image in order for each person that views it to find their own unique meaning.
That again is an inescapable consequence of your view.
If it isn't then it allows the possibility that at least two people will find the exact same meaning in the image.
Once you admit to that possibility then the your argument becomes flawed and no longer stands up.
So, for argument's sake, we agree that an image is capable of an infinite number of different interpretations.
This means that there must be at least two interpretations that are exactly opposite. If something can contain two diametrically opposed meanings at the same time I would say that that is a pretty good argument for it to be essentially meaningless.
If you then argue that the image is not meaningless that can only be a result of it having meaning. If it has a meaning then some of the interpretations will be opposed to that meaning and so must be wrong. It therefore follows that there cannot be an infinite number of interpretations but only a finite number and so at least some of the viewers must make the same interpretation and not have a 'unique' experience.
Your view collapses.

Your last paragraph gives the key to why you are opposed to my viewpoint.

yes, I do want my viewers to interpret my photographs “as they will.” In my opinion, one gets a more satisfying visual experience in viewing photographs where you are not led by the nose and told what the photograph is or is suppose to be about

Please explain why you take photographs.

 

[JC1220]

Yes, I agree that the potential is there for an infinite possibility of interpretations and meanings to each viewer of a given photograph. Perhaps to one of those viewers the photograph is meaningless, and in that instance to that viewer the photograph becomes meaningless, or the viewer is meaningless… But, there is more to viewing a photograph than just a meaning, it is about an entire experience around the viewing in which there are a myriad of points where some may be the same as others, but not all will be the same making for a unique experience, good, bad, indifferent or anywhere in between. To get back to the original comment, what I disagreed about was that a photographer could communicate an exact meaning and interpretation of their personal experience around making the photograph and what that photograph means to the photographer. Without the use of another medium, like language, it is not possible.

Should a viewer feel the love and care you put into making a photograph, yes, does a good photographer have the ability to connect with the viewer on the deeper level of life’s patterns and rhythms, yes. And this is what is most important about truly fine art, invoking those deep feelings and connections with our viewers; it goes way past meanings and ideas. “the hidden harmony is better than the obvious” Picasso

Why do I photograph?: This is something I will have to sum up as there are many reasons, but the strongest are the life experiences and growth around my photography, the experience of seeing the photograph complete on the ground glass (not talking about pre-visualizing the final print here) is an intense and deeply satisfying and pleasurable experience; that is what it is all about for me. The picture is the bonus.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

But, there is more to viewing a photograph than just a meaning, it is about an entire experience around the viewing in which there are a myriad of points where some may be the same as others, but not all will be the same making for a unique experience, good, bad, indifferent or anywhere in between.

This is merely describing the process of giving meaning!
You have obviously not yet realised that everything we do in life we try to give meaning to, including our life itself.
The whole process of viewing an image therefore has meaning, the image being the focus and catalyst for that meaning.

Should a viewer feel the love and care you put into making a photograph, yes, does a good photographer have the ability to connect with the viewer on the deeper level of life’s patterns and rhythms, yes. And this is what is most important about truly fine art, invoking those deep feelings and connections with our viewers; it goes way past meanings and ideas.

You have just expressed an intention to put 'love and care' into your images.
You have also just expressed the desire for the viewer to 'feel' the 'love and care' you have put in to your image.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, you have just said that you would like to communicate something to your audience. If they experience what you want them to then you have succeeded, if they do not then you have failed.
It is not a matter of whether you agree with this or nor, or whether you consciously desire it - it is an inescapable fact.

Why do I photograph?: This is something I will have to sum up as there are many reasons, but the strongest are the life experiences and growth around my photography, the experience of seeing the photograph complete on the ground glass (not talking about pre-visualizing the final print here) is an intense and deeply satisfying and pleasurable experience; that is what it is all about for me. The picture is the bonus.

If the whole point is just 'seeing the photograph complete on the ground glass' then why bother recording it on film?
Surely that is superfluous?
The only possible reason that you record your image is to share what you experience with others - in effect, communication.
Your pictures can therefore be judged by whether they succeed in doing this or not.
That you have not realised that this is why you do what you do is a failing in you. You are not alone. A great many people who do photography do not realise that what they are trying to do when they take a picture is to communicate.
Communication does not have to be about language per se, or at least not language in the written or spoken sense. Remember that writing came out of symbolic or pictorial representation and speech came about from trying to explain what we see.
Your whole view of Photography appears to be purely mechanistic. You see no connection between the subject and yourself, yourself and the photograph, the photograph and the viewer, the viewer and their experience. All would appear to be discrete and isolated acts within your Universe and all totally random in nature.
There is far more going on than that, only you are not seeing it. But as long as you are happy it doesn't matter.
That is all I have to say on this matter.

 

[JC1220]

This is merely describing the process of giving meaning!
You have obviously not yet realised that everything we do in life we try to give meaning to, including our life itself.
The whole process of viewing an image therefore has meaning, the image being the focus and catalyst for that meaning.

Again you are getting off topic and concentrating on a quote taken out of a larger context, therefore taking what I said out of context. I never said photographs or viewing them does not have meaning or that a photographer could not be trying to impart a particular meaning, what I said, and please read this carefully,


“…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.”


What I was talking about was the attempt to impart an exact meaning or experience around that photograph, not saying there is one meaning or that a photograph has no meaning, or that it could not be a form of communication. You seem to have gotten stuck on this which is not even remotely on target.

You have just expressed an intention to put 'love and care' into your images.
You have also just expressed the desire for the viewer to 'feel' the 'love and care' you have put in to your image.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, you have just said that you would like to communicate something to your audience.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious to you, I never expressed the desire for a viewer to feel or experience anything in particular, again you twist the point to fit your argument. Saying that a photograph or photographer has the ability to do something. i.e. Connect with their viewer on a deeper level, says nothing about the intentions of the photographer.

If they experience what you want them to then you have succeeded, if they do not then you have failed.
It is not a matter of whether you agree with this or nor, or whether you consciously desire it - it is an inescapable fact.

Again, here you make the assumption that the photographer is trying to make a viewer have a certain experience. If that is the case you will fail the majority of the time without additional communication of your intentions.



Quote:
Originally Posted by JC1220
Why do I photograph?: This is something I will have to sum up as there are many reasons, but the strongest are the life experiences and growth around my photography, the experience of seeing the photograph complete on the ground glass (not talking about pre-visualizing the final print here) is an intense and deeply satisfying and pleasurable experience; that is what it is all about for me. The picture is the bonus.

If the whole point is just 'seeing the photograph complete on the ground glass' then why bother recording it on film?
Surely that is superfluous?

If you don’t understand this, I’m not sure I can help you. If you want to have a truly thoughtful conversation on exploring this I will try.

The only possible reason that you record your image is to share what you experience with others - in effect, communication. Your pictures can therefore be judged by whether they succeed in doing this or not.

Once again you infer a false intention that I never stated. I have yet to say anything about my intentions yet you put your own false intention in there to make your own point.

That you have not realised that this is why you do what you do is a failing in you. You are not alone. A great many people who do photography do not realise that what they are trying to do when they take a picture is to communicate.

You are being pretty rude, and again assumptive here. Have I told you that you fail because you can’t see anything other than trying to communicate your own selfish intentions, I could easily start, but I prefer to stick to more meaningful conversation where one tries to come to a level of understanding between two different methods of work which I feel is becoming futile. And, in the last sentence hammer home that you continue to make false pretenses about my methods of work. You are under the impression there is only one reason to take or make a photograph and that is you have the intention of communicating something specific to someone else, not true.

Communication does not have to be about language per se, or at least not language in the written or spoken sense. Remember that writing came out of symbolic or pictorial representation and speech came about from trying to explain what we see.

One more assumption on your part. I never said a photograph can not be a form of communication, if that is ones intention. Again, I go back to my original response, if one wants to communicate an exact meaning (something I think we have both defined as being more than one thing in particular), you will need more than just the photograph.

Your whole view of Photography appears to be purely mechanistic. You see no connection between the subject and yourself, yourself and the photograph, the photograph and the viewer, the viewer and their experience. All would appear to be discrete and isolated acts within your Universe and all totally random in nature. There is far more going on than that, only you are not seeing it. But as long as you are happy it doesn't matter.

Again you are getting off topic and into areas that I never commented on, again you make assumptions about my methods of work instead of actually responding to the original topic or even asking about the topics you infer on above, pretty weak. And also shed more light on how you view things, such as more assumptions that a photograph has to have a specific subject.

You have yet to explain how you intend to communicate your exact interpretation without the use of another medium. Sorry, saying that the photograph will speak for itself is simply not going to cut it and infantile.

I ask a lot from my viewers and for them to bring there own level of vision to viewing my photographs. Why would you want to ruin their unique experience and personal growth of viewing your photographs by telling them what they should see, and experience, and that it only has the one meaning. After all, that is what you said and make quite clear in your assumptive rebuttals, that a photograph has only one valid meaning and that is the view of the photographer. That is pretty pretentious to want to force that on your viewers. Unless, you are using the medium for another purpose beside fine art, which I made clear that I was discussing. My personal experiences, personal meanings, what my photograph says to me is my vision, not someone else’s. You never want to force that on a viewer, you might as well as tell them they are stupid. Therefore, I have no intention to influence how someone views my photographs; I have no intention to tell them meanings, experiences or feelings around the photographs. I make photographs first and foremost for myself, art is about life and life’s experiences. If by chance a viewer responds to a photograph and it invokes feeling in them, wow, what a great bonus to add to the personal experiences around the photograph. I did not intentionally try to communicate my feelings or some exact meaning to them. I ask them to make up their own minds if the photographs connect to them, then and only then will they have true meaning to the viewer. And, certainly not the exact meaning of the photographer’s experiences.

I went to the MFA in Boston yesterday to view the Adams exhibit, don’t ever remember seeing anything there telling me how to view the photograph or what Adam’s intentions where… Same goes for Winslow, Monet, Van Gogh and Picasso.

In the end, if you want your viewers to be nothing more than a participant in a dog and pony show, have at it. I think I will stick with the great art historian, Sir Herbert Read when he said: "The visual arts are involved with feeling. If one has ideas to express the proper medium is language."