Something happened in photojournalism class yesterday. Something important. After years of leading hundreds photo critiques, I stumbled across a way of explaining why looking at pictures can be such a meaningful experience. This may sound silly, but I have never been able to not feel guilty about the impact a critique will have on a student’s motivation and creativity. Some students are ready to be hammered with what’s wrong about a picture they have made, but many are not. Many students need to learn how to handle criticism.
After so much time evaluating students’ work, I realized that what I was looking at over and over again has affected me for two reasons. The first reason is that the image I am looking at has a clear point of focus to the story being told. In other words, “I get it.”
The second reason the picture affects so much is that it stirs me emotionally. Beyond “getting it” I am “feeling it.”
Having a strong point of focus as well as the ability to convey a mood in a picture appears to be a fundamental part of ways of making things seen.
For an image to have meaning for me, then, I not only need to understand what is in the frame, with deliberate immediacy and intensity, but also I want to be made to feel something toward the thing I am looking at. Without this double-whammy, the picture will never be as effective as it could be – the image will have failed to embed itself in my memory bank.
Without feeling, the picture is all context and no impact.
Picture are persuasive when they have a strong analogical appeal to viewers. The analogical relationship between what we know as “real” and what is represented in a photograph helps to validate us. To have just a clear point of focus in a picture, however, is not enough. The point of focus, the subject, must also evoke, goad, prod, provocative some feeling in us.
This is what I realized when looking at an endless stream of images. This is why looking at pictures seems so natural. For the past two weeks I have been looking carefully at the front pages of several hundred newspapers across the nation on the Newseum’s website. If you want to really understand what I am trying to say here, spend a week looking at every newspaper displayed on the site.
Although there is always a danger in reducing human experience down to formulae, thinking in very basic terms is helpful in learning how to make pictures with deeper meaning. Elsbeth Brown in her new book, The Corporate Eye: Photography and the Rationalization of American Commercial Culture (John Hopkins, 2005) offers an excellent perspective on making sense of pictures.
Brown, using Roland Barthes’ model, contends, “Photographic signification is a historical process, dependent upon the specific choices of cultural producers and the historically specific sign vocabulary of particular readers.” In others, Brown is saying, we make sense of pictures based on what we already know to be “real” for us. Making sense of pictures is historically contingent -- Signification is a process fixed in memory and time. Signification, the act of making sense of something, depends on a viewer’s capacity for decoding the literal and figurative meanings in an image.
It is only because I can place the meaning of a picture within the larger historical context of human memory and experience that I can ultimately be moved intellectually and emotionally by what I am looking at.