Italy in general is one of those places that inspires. So much character in the landscape, architecture and people. If you've never been to Sicily I would highly recommend it for a more "rustic" experience.
This is an excellent example of a competently-captured photograph that becomes lost without context. Who is this man? Who are the faceless people greeting him? Why is the reported location significant? It's Exhibit A in the thesis that photographs, in fact, do not really tell stories in the absence of language or richer context. Eh?
And when people capture landscapes what do they become without context? Context and stories are essential for news and journalism but a photograph can just be a photograph.
I guess that's part of what makes out the fascination: not knowing the context of a particular photograph enables you to spin your own story around it, make your own interpretation.
Alternatively, how many stories are in this one photograph because it's not burdened with a bunch of words? How much richer is it for the lack of context?
Is he greeting his sister? Wife? The woman his heart has yearned for for decades, but who is married to someone else? Is the man in the hat a stranger? A long lost friend? A sworn enemy? A lover? Are they all strangers to each other? How far back does the story begin? Five minute? Five years? Five decades? How much history do you need to know to really understand the significance of a smile, a gesture, a moment?
It's Exhibit A that photography, like all languages, tells as much about the imagination (or lack thereof) of the listener as it does about the speech act itself. Eh?
Why lily pads? Why the faces of beautiful young women? Why abstracts? Why chunks and jigsaw pieces of cityscapes? Why images about color? What is the meaning of life...and other un-answer-able stuff? Why is the perfectly rendered butt of JeanLoupe Sieff's models so compellling? What about Irving Penn's Cigarette Butts? Freidlander's reflections? Robert Frank's Juke Box? Ansel Adam's mountains? Mapplethorpe's tulips? Eh?
Linear thinking leads one in straight lines. Art is a whole different map.
Indeed, photographs are ALWAYS just photographs, Kirk! But photographs that appear to be such personal snaps as this beg questions that other genres do not. This man's position of sole prominence in your photo suggest that he's important, someone you think we should know, perhaps a Nobel Prize winner. If we saw the other people's faces or posed in a more conversational composition such questions would be more muted. Such is the power of constructing the photo.
14 comments:
Wow - thanks Mr. Tuck! Awesome photo, like so many of yours.
Oh ... It seems you have been here in Rome a century ago ...
:-)
And more recently.
Italy in general is one of those places that inspires. So much character in the landscape, architecture and people. If you've never been to Sicily I would highly recommend it for a more "rustic" experience.
strange ... living in Rome I think I am much more inspired by places like NY.
A matter of taste.
...what dario says :-) the neighbour'grass is always more inspiring :-)
robert
PS: good photographs, of course.
This is an excellent example of a competently-captured photograph that becomes lost without context. Who is this man? Who are the faceless people greeting him? Why is the reported location significant? It's Exhibit A in the thesis that photographs, in fact, do not really tell stories in the absence of language or richer context. Eh?
We are seldom inspired by what we see every day. In a way I think that's quite sad but it does explain the divorce rate :)
And when people capture landscapes what do they become without context? Context and stories are essential for news and journalism but a photograph can just be a photograph.
I guess that's part of what makes out the fascination: not knowing the context of a particular photograph enables you to spin your own story around it, make your own interpretation.
Alternatively, how many stories are in this one photograph because it's not burdened with a bunch of words? How much richer is it for the lack of context?
Is he greeting his sister? Wife? The woman his heart has yearned for for decades, but who is married to someone else? Is the man in the hat a stranger? A long lost friend? A sworn enemy? A lover? Are they all strangers to each other? How far back does the story begin? Five minute? Five years? Five decades? How much history do you need to know to really understand the significance of a smile, a gesture, a moment?
It's Exhibit A that photography, like all languages, tells as much about the imagination (or lack thereof) of the listener as it does about the speech act itself. Eh?
Why lily pads? Why the faces of beautiful young women? Why abstracts? Why chunks and jigsaw pieces of cityscapes? Why images about color? What is the meaning of life...and other un-answer-able stuff? Why is the perfectly rendered butt of JeanLoupe Sieff's models so compellling? What about Irving Penn's Cigarette Butts? Freidlander's reflections? Robert Frank's Juke Box? Ansel Adam's mountains? Mapplethorpe's tulips? Eh?
Linear thinking leads one in straight lines. Art is a whole different map.
Exactly. I think it was Chekhov who said something like: great art asks the right questions, and has the courage not to answer them all.
Indeed, photographs are ALWAYS just photographs, Kirk! But photographs that appear to be such personal snaps as this beg questions that other genres do not. This man's position of sole prominence in your photo suggest that he's important, someone you think we should know, perhaps a Nobel Prize winner. If we saw the other people's faces or posed in a more conversational composition such questions would be more muted. Such is the power of constructing the photo.
Post a Comment