The "meaning" of a photograph

[Steve J Murray]

An interesting observation I've had over the years is that no matter what I think about one of my photos, the reaction of someone else is usually entirely different. I've had people pull my reject darkroom efforts out of the trash and beg me to give it to them. I explain that it is not what I wanted for that particular photo and they think I'm crazy. Other times when looking at what I regard as a somewhat "marginal" photo that I've done the viewer will just love it, and explain why they like the "symbolism" in the photo, which of course was completely unknown to me. Even my lens tests or film tests are sometimes found by others to be "great" photos. Conversely, some of my favorite images are given a polite but cool reception by others. What I'm getting at is that in the final analysis, the ultimate "meaning" or impact of any given photo is completely unique to each viewer, and very often has little to do with the thoughts and intentions of the photographer. I guess that shouldn't be too surprising, since we all have different backgrounds, life experiences, and visual sophistication, etc. However, I think its easy, and human, to forget this fact and assume that other people see your photographs the same way you do

[Antonio Corcuera]

A similar thing can happen to us altogether: how many times have you gone back to your archive and rescued an image you didn't "like" at the time? How many images you are happy with now will end up in the cupboard in 5 years time? Ultimately, do we work for ourselves or for others, ie for recognition? Sometimes, both seem incompatible.

[paulr]

If the subject really interests you, you might want to read up on a little critical theory. People have actually been studying and debating the topic for a couple of thousand years now, and there are excellent introuctory books.

An essay that deals nicely with your point is called "Is There a Text in this Class?" by Stanley Fish. He talks about how the reader's response to a text is a central part of what bestows meaning, but explains how this still does not subvert meaning to pure relativism (in other words, the notion that anything can mean anything).

[MIke Sherck]

In the current issue of Lenswork magazine is a-very-short essay by Bill Jay wherein he tells the story of a project where he chose his favorite 50 photographs from his life's work. One common element of the photos he chose was that he didn't think much of most of the photos when he took them; many he hadn't even printed at the time. It was only later that he came to appreciate them.

A second interesting point was his thought that had he been using digital at the time he took most of these photos, they wouldn't have been saved and he would have lost many or most of what he now regards as his best photographs. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[Eric Biggerstaff]

You might also want to read about Minor White and his teachings. Minor believed the meaning behind the image was as important as the image itself, and as you pointed out, the meaning will be different for each viewer. Interesting stuff.

[GPS]

the same effect occurs when the pictures are plainly - boring.

[JohanHB]

"The "meaning" of a photograph"

The Meaning of Life (1983)
Directed by
Terry Jones
Terry Gilliam

Writing credits
Graham Chapman John Cleese

...that was funny too!

[Mark Sawyer]

"Isn't each person allowed their own point of view and bring their own perspective to the table?"

That's the intro to a big question we've tackled from different angles. If the photographer chooses to make a specific statement, or imbue the work with a specific meaning or point of view, is someone who sees something else in the work simply wrong? Is someone allowed to laugh when they see W. Eugene Smith's "Minemata" series?

Then again, many wonderful pieces of art are meant as starting points to which each viewer brings his own experience. Minor White meant for there to be no singularly correct interpretation of his images.

Western riddles have one right answer. Zen riddles have no wrong answer.

[Steve J Murray]

For those of you who are put off by my choice of the word "meaning," I could have used "impact" or "impression" or "interest." Just the idea that we all see each photo with different "eyes." paulr, thanks for the reference, but my brain hurts when I try to read philosophical stuff. I suppose this topic is too close to the question of "what makes a great photograph," which can become an endless and fruitless discussion. I wasn't trying to go that far with it, only the observation that we can never really know what another person sees when looking at a photograph.

[Michael Gordon]

"the ultimate "meaning" or impact of any given photo is completely unique to each viewer, and very often has little to do with the thoughts and intentions of the photographer."

"All forms of visual representation, including photography, share one attribute; the image is not only a mirror for the artist's experience but also for those of the viewer. The meanings that we extract from an image are necessarily flavoured by individual responses since every viewer brings his or her own intellectual and emotional baggage to the viewing." David Ward; Landscape Within

You can help direct what the viewer might see by using deliberate titling of the image, but captioning only with location, subject, and date (as I do) allows the viewer a more free response.

It's a heavy read (unless you're a philosophy major/professor), but you may want to check out Roland Barthes "Camera Lucida".

www.mgordonphotography.com