Recently I had a friend comment on some photos I had taken from a recent trip. He told me that there were some well composed shots that he wasn’t exactly sure why I had taken. He went on to comment on how we as photographers inherently take pictures that mean a lot to us but often times lack the meaning for those viewing them. That’s no surprise to anyone, is it? Color yourself underwhelmed. However, this conversation is what set my brain on a collision course for this somewhat nebulous post aimed at furthering my photographic self discovery.
I’m not nearly smart enough to dissect culture, upbringing, religion, world view, past experience, preference, etc – all those things that unconsciously and undoubtedly play out in our photography. I’m really asking the question what happens when we present these photos expecting the viewer to automatically understand the personal meaning behind those images? Is the story complete? Does the story necessarily need to be complete?
The picture above is a great example of this point. When I sat down and thought about it, there were 5 different, specific, and influenced reasons that I took this picture. This photo actually means a lot to me, but to the viewer without appropriate background, it’s honestly just a f1.8 shot of a row of water faucets. It’s a bunch of water faucets nailed to a wall for crying out loud. However, I can’t look at this scene without my mind going into overdrive.
A picture without context is a lot like a joke where you have to explain the punchline. I agree with this statement and at the same time I violently disagree with it. Sure, some of the most influential photographs I’ve seen were layered with explicit context – but at the same time an image without certain contexts can send a potent message in and of itself. Neither is wrong until you consider what you might be trying to communicate.
Take a look at the image above again – isolated, this image fails to communicate that a) this is a mosque and b) that this is an extremely important location in a mosque for Muslims. I’d have to surround it by other images – or outright verbally explain it to the viewer. Simply put. If you intentions where to communicate all these things to you – I failed. If I were on assignment to present Wudu – I failed. Honestly, If I had presented this to friends that are familiar with the context – I still failed. If it was for me to artistically and effectively remember something that meant a lot to me – I win.
Like I said, I hardly have any great bits of wisdom on this point and even if I did, it would be a load of crap because it’s different for everyone. All I can do is pay attention to some continued personal resolutions:
- Why do I shoot what I shoot and why do I shoot it the way I do?
- I shoot because I love photography. You don’t have to get it all the time – it’s largely for myself.
- Lack of context won’t get me struck by the photography gods.
- Some of the best images I’ve seen come with a story that explains context rather than explicitly showing me the context.
- What am I doing? Is it for me or am I truly trying to communicate something. If so, did I contextually do the photo justice.
So how do you bridge the contextual gap?
Btw, I’m not claiming the original as an interesting shot – just an illustration.
Hmmmm.Probably the mens side…before afternoon prayers…..low turnout…..still a very cool shot…
I’ve been thinking about this post all day. Thanks for posting it.
I suppose for me it depends on the intended purpose of the photograph. If it needs to convey a specific message for a client (commercial, editorial, photo journalism) then sure, being clear in context is going to be very important.
But if the photograph is something other than that, then I think there can and should be room for the viewer to bring their own context, their own interpretation. Photographs don’t always have to be explicit in the photographer’s meaning in order to embody deep meaning. Taking your photo above as an example, someone who was there with you at the time, or someone who is Muslim will understand some of what is carried in this photograph. An African who has no access to clean water, a homeless person with no ability to bathe, a residential school survivor who had terrifying experiences… are going to see that line of taps and have very strong reactions, though not what you might have intended. But that isn’t a bad thing. An image that causes to the viewer to feel + think is a success.
Well said – Sometimes a photographers intentions are to specifically communicate LACK of context.
I generally just think of us who live in another culture and see things daily that are often not fully explained through a stand-alone photograph.
Nonetheless – I find no sin in different levels of context.
Thanks for the comment.
Brian, thanks for your thoughts on photography. Now I’m really confused. I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to take another photo without thinking of what you said.
I was reading Thomas Merton earlier today, an essay called “The Inward Solitude.” He makes the case that “secrecy and solitude are values that belong to the very essence of personality.” Your post seems like a perfect example of this idea. The inward, subjective richness of that picture ignites your personality, your soul or self, in a way unique to you. That’s delightful. As Merton says in the same essay, “True love penetrates the secrets and solitude of the beloved by allowing him to keep his secrets to himself and to remain in his solitude.” The image doesn’t mean to me what it means to you, and that is a truth we should celebrate.
Hi Brian,
I think there’s no “sin” in either way… when you have contextualized a photograph and when not.
In my personal view, I think there’s room for “personal” photography that satisfies only to your being, and “audience” photography when you have to satisfied you client, viewer, etc.
I have said in my Bio/About that I’m not pursuing to have a unique master piece, but what I want or I’m looking for is that my whole photography tells a story/theme or have meaning as a whole.
What I meant with the later, is that I’m always shooting with the thoughts/mentality of telling a story with a bunch of photographs instead of 1 or 2 frames. That’s my vision though… I love the following quote:
“t is a great honor for me to be compared to Henri Cartier-Bresson…But I believe there is a very big difference in the way we put ourselves inside the stories we photograph. He always strove for the decisive moment as being the most important. I always work for a group of pictures, to tell a story. If you ask which picture in a story I like most, it is impossible for me to tell you this. I don’t work for an individual picture. If I must select one individual picture for a client, it is very difficult for me.” – Sebastiao Salgado – Excerpts from an interview with Sebastiao Salgado by Ken Lassiter, Photographer’s Forum
Great post Brian! I read this earlier, and it offers a great reflection upon who we are (photographers) as communicators and creatives! Without what would be dubbed personal work or abstract visualizations, unique outcomes in creative assignment work would not produce, nor would the components of a story emerge.
Time and time again, when on assignment, I find myself photographing patterns at a much smaller scale than the entire context could be derived from. However, those visual patters are PART OF the context that I’m creating a story around. In this image above, you did the same. I believe that most photographers whose job is to participate in visual storytelling, particularly cultural storytelling, pay special attention to this aspect of the craft!
I was reminded of another aspect of our work as photographers when reading your paragraph that started with: “A picture without context is a lot like a joke where you have to explain the punchline.” I sympathize with you on both agreeing and disagreeing with this statement, and it likens to what artists would refer to as the Intentional Fallacy, a very necessary component of a viewer’s/listener’s/reader’s interpretation of a creative work. What it means to them may be something totally different than what the creator wanted to exhibit. So goes the way of our craft and the vision we use that craft to exhibit. This IS part of telling the story, the two-way, often-twisty, road of communicating between creator and viewer!
Thanks for this insightful piece, and I look forward to reading more!