Looking beyond the surface – Response #2

 To interpret a photograph is “to give voice to signs that don’t speak on their own”.

     I personally have trouble offering new language about an image to generate new meaning on subjects I don’t take a personal interest in, so this article was interesting to read because it offered insight on how to break down a photograph critically. “To miss the metaphoric and to see only the literal is to misunderstand the expressive aspects of photographs” which is why non-artists and skeptics have trouble understanding or giving meaning to photographs or any work of art for that matter.   I liked how it mentioned different angles you can evaluate a photograph from, but how important it is to have evidence to back up your claim.  All claims are possible, but some interpretations can be wrong.

     There was an interesting point made by Diane Neumaier on the topic of photographing wives, that reversing the idea and photographing the husband did not give the same sweet feeling because “the practice of capturing, exposing, and exhibiting one’s wife is praised as sensitive”.  It’s just interesting how critic #1 saw the portrait of Elenor as this universal woman, “the embodiment and vehicle of all births and creations” but the feminist saw it as exploitive.  This just goes to show how important it is to have a diverse crowd of people that can generate all kinds of ideas and opinions when they look at your work.

    I would say that almost 75% of the time I’m unaware of my intent when I photograph because I am just responding to what I’m seeing, or trying to evoke a mood or certain feeling that then leaves the meaning open to interpretation.