NARRATIVE OF AN IMAGE
One of the things that appeals to me about art in general; and photography more explicitly, is the story that an image can tell.
Everyone views our existence differently but the making of an image enables us to share this way of seeing with others. There is no right, there is no wrong – it just is.
For me, Photography perfectly encapsulates this ability and is primarily about editing the world. Showing it through my eyes – with my inspirations, selections and opinions.
EDITING THE WORLD
The editing comes in several stages – firstly by the subject matter I choose to photograph. Second, the actual scene I shoot and finally by the choice of images I select to display. This method allows the world to be cut down and segmented into manageable pieces, which I can at least attempt to understand on some level. In some cases – if I do my job correctly – it will also allow others to get a glimpse of this interpretation.
A whole host of things might draw me to make a photograph of a particular scene, event, person or place – but at the core of it, at that precise moment when the shutter is pressed down – I am editing an incredibly small portion of the world, with the mindset that it will have something greater to say.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons Photography can create such friction and debate – because this very process of selecting and editing the world is massively subjective. The old adage ‘the camera never lies’ is a lie in the purist sense. The camera ALWAYS lies – by omission.
CREATING A NARRATIVE
A good photograph (and therefore a good edit of the world) will often contain some form of narrative of story. At times, this story is obvious and created by the artists. They have set an image up, used models or created a documentary that has a very set and obviously contained sequence of events within it.
But sometimes, a narrative exists that is much more open to speculation and imagination. I love to look at the world in this way and therefore I am drawn to images that also allow me this small perversion.
MUDDY MARKINGS
The Photograph shown here is something I have seen numerous times and only just decided to photograph. It is of one side of a building in Preston Park that I walk past each day on my way to work.
The shot itself is not that interesting, but the narrative it contains is. As an image, on initial glance, it’s a very standard composition of a wall with a building behind it. Perhaps it contains some indications that it’s a park building – I guess it would depend on your knowledge of bowling chalets! The photograph could easily be dismissed, until the eye is drawn to the markings on the white wall of the building.
To me, the markings have clearly been created by someone throwing a muddy ball against it. Repeatedly. Perhaps by a dog owner, perhaps by someone sitting there thinking or bored. The beauty is the suggestion made by an image leads the imagination to create a plethora of stories about what happened, why it happened and how it happened. Each person who sees the image will (hopefully) create their own interpretation of what the stains are and how they got there.
For me Photography is the perfect tool for capturing such moments and presenting them to others for consideration. Maybe other people walk past the same scene everyday and have never really look at that bit of wall or consider the muddy stains upon it. But by presenting a photograph of that scene, by editing the world down to this one simple image, it forces the viewer to question what they are seeing, to try and understand the photographer’s motivations. Within that process, they are then led to create a narrative to explain the scene and perhaps see something in a different way than they have before.
Hmmm. Loved this post. Must say, for me the beauty in art is sending a message, that I agree with. But if the message is a clear one it is defined and edited, constructed and formed like you say. But what happens when its received. There are some interesting theories regarding art; some say that art is in three forms: the artist (creator), the material form or body of the art (artefact)and the viewer. The three forms are actually three different things. The creator makes something and places a message within. The Thing itself, without viewer or creator holds no message. ‘it just is’. Whilst the viewer ‘recieves’a message, is it ever the message created by the artist?
anyway…
http://blogs.nyu.edu/projects/materialworld/2009/05/pictures_worth_at_least_a_thou_1.html
At its heart, art is about communicating – I guess most artists from any discipline would state they turn to art to communicate something that they cannot express in any other medium. I might make photographs of something I could never explain or get across to someone in words.
For me, the way an artistic creation is received is just as interesting as why or how it was created. I certainly produce art for myself and my own exploration of the world around me, but equally I find it has a limited personal use if it is not distributed amongst others…hence the creation of this blog and a website to follow. The creation of an image or series of image is my exploration and once it is done it’s done. I rarely go back to my own work to study it or ponder its meanings – that is where the exposure of the piece comes into its own.
I might have a myriad of reasons for taking an image or creating something artistic…but when other people view it and provide their own comments, thoughts or interpretations – that’s when it takes on its new lease of life and gets a second wind if you like. People have made comments about photos I had taken that I never even considered, in some cases, seen things within them that I had never seen. For me, that is why it is essential for my own learning and satisfaction for others to see and contribute to something I have created.
I like the three forms of art idea. I think the artist certainly creates a message, but it maybe a message that is never received by anyone – or if it is, not in the exact form the artist intended. The viewer is always the person who has the ultimate control of creating the message – the artist or creator can only try to guide and direct them by their choice of subject, medium, edit etc etc.
As for the object itself…that’s a whole new can of worms! I am slightly obsessed with inanimate objects and often like to imagine them with some form of personality or characteristics of their own. I suppose it depends on the artefact in question; if it is a man made item that is the focus of discussion, then surely its original designer or creator has placed some message within it? Whether it’s a park bin, chocolate wrapper, sheet of paper – someone has designed and created it and therefore on some level, imbedded a message there in.
If it is a ‘natural’ object we are talking about – then that is a whole debate for theologians as to whether a divine force has created said object. If there is a God who has created or designed everything ‘natural’ then I guess they too would have placed a message within each design.
As a last thought – the viewer placing the meaning on an artistic creation reminds me of the whole debate about an artist’s original intention. It is not uncommon for a critics view of a piece to become the normal manner in which it is interpreted – yet the critics analysis and the meaning they place on it, might be thousands of times deeper and more involved than the artist ever intended. What may have begun as a simple study of a subject ends up being a complex creation laden with different rhetoric and signified meaning.
Nicely put…
An artists creates… The object is… the viewer creates.
I have often thought the difference in writing is much the same. An academic works hard to create a single view, an undisputed message of clarity. A particular view of a singular part of the world.
Conversely, a novel will mean a thousand things to a thousand different people. A a photograph, or any piece of art is much the same.
I am not an artist, would that I was. But for me creation is an act of self expression without a direction. At its heart, art is a message to the world meant for no one and received, one hopes, by many. Like religion, art often provides us with, as you say, expressions of things that can not, or will not, be explained in any other medium. Yet this explanation is tied to the unique position of the artist on the world. In this way, can one argue that outside the artists own world (his head) does there exist a message that is transferable? And if we question this, do we therefore question whether or not are is communication at all? Can you communicate something that is received as something completely different? Or is the fuzzy message of generality, that mood or moment, that emotion or thought, does this represent the message. An inspiration of direction of thought? hmmm….
Finally, if art is expression of a part of the world that has no other medium to describe it(be that part of your head or of a sweet wrapper) is art then a suitable medium to communicate it?
“Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.” Wilde