# can anyone analyze this picture?



## GrandMa (Dec 6, 2005)

I wondered if anyone of you would please analyze this photo for me. I took this picture to an assignement at school and the teacher has given me some critisism back about my analyzing of the photo which I don't agree on. Could any of you please write a little bit about this picture so I could see who's right
http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=12/33910590551.jpg&s=x11

Thanks


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 6, 2005)

Post your analysis and your teacher's comments first, please, so we can see what was said and make some informed comments.
If you don't we might begin to suspect that you just want us to do your assignment for you.
It wouldn't be the first time someone has asked a question like this to try and get us to do their work


----------



## photoboy15 (Dec 7, 2005)

Looks like a burning doll on some rocks. If you want a deeper analization, you might want to express why you took the picture.


----------



## Oscar Mueller (Dec 7, 2005)

It looks like the liberation from childhood.


----------



## danalec99 (Dec 7, 2005)

It looks like an easy way to do the homework!


----------



## df3photo (Dec 7, 2005)

where you mad at your little sister or kids at some point? decide to burn her toys?


----------



## craig (Dec 8, 2005)

Again a little tough with out some info. At first glance you have burnt a child's doll. Definitely dramatic. I am not clear how it goes beyond that.


----------



## GrandMa (Dec 8, 2005)

I've disscused the matter with my teacher and she just didn't see my point I guess. But now I got an A. Sorry for not replying here. Tottaly forgot 

Edit: But anyway. Did you think it was a nice picture? The title is "Children at war" and the picture tells this tale about a little girl who's murdered with the rest of her village


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 8, 2005)

GrandMa said:
			
		

> I've disscused the matter with my teacher and she just didn't see my point I guess. But now I got an A. Sorry for not replying here. Tottaly forgot
> 
> Edit: But anyway. Did you think it was a nice picture? The title is "Children at war" and the picture tells this tale about a little girl who's murdered with the rest of her village


It has totally failed as a picture, then, hasn't it?
If you have to explain a picture to someone for them to 'get it', then the picture isn't telling the story you want it to tell.
There are several critical readings one can make of your picture and what you want it to say isn't one of them. Most of the readings come out relating to 'loss of innocence'. 
From a purely technique point of view then it's OK - but as far as doing the job you want it to goes you miss by a mile.


----------



## JC1220 (Dec 8, 2005)

If you are trying to tell a story with a photograph on its own, you will almost always, actually I would go as far and say -always-, fail to get your exact meaning communicated.  If you want to tell a story, pick up a pen and paper.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 8, 2005)

JC1220 said:
			
		

> If you are trying to tell a story with a photograph on its own, you will almost always, actually I would go as far and say -always-, fail to get your exact meaning communicated.  If you want to tell a story, pick up a pen and paper.


When that happens it just means that the photographer isn't very good


----------



## GrandMa (Dec 9, 2005)

She just didn't get my presentation of it. But anyways, since I got an A it communicates like hell!


----------



## Kent Frost (Dec 9, 2005)

No, since you got an A, the A communicates with _you_ like hell. If your teacher didn't get your meaning, and you got an A, that tells me you had to talk your way into the A. The photo itself is a bit "naked" in the sense that without any other elements, it could very easily be confused for a photo a 12-year old took while burning his sister's toy. Especially in this society. On the other hand, had you included a young, bloodied-up hand holding the doll (which wouldn't be hard to fake), it may help you portray your story better. Just an idea. I'm sure there are other things you could have done, but that was the one that came to mind for me first.


----------



## JC1220 (Dec 9, 2005)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> When that happens it just means that the photographer isn't very good


 
If you are saying that a photographer is only very good when they can communicate the exact meaning of their photograph with the photograph alone?

If so, I quite disagree.  Every viewer of a photograph brings their own unique vision and maturity of vision to viewing a photograph making the experience and the interpretation unique to each viewer. Feelings also get involved when viewing a photograph and these are unique to each viewer. There for, it is nearly impossible to communicate your exact meaning without influencing their perceptions by an obvious descript title or story, i.e. photojournalism.  

Another example is, if you have a photographic assignment.  There are certain parameters put on it: the topic, idea behind it, possibly a subject, etc.  The people involved in the assignment are aware of what the person is trying to communicate and then one can judge it to a certain degree.  Take the same photograph and let it stand on its own outside the group, and the interpretations will be vastly different the majority of the time, some will be close, but never an exact meaning.

Too bad this discussion will be buried in this thread...
JC


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 11, 2005)

JC1220 said:
			
		

> If you are saying that a photographer is only very good when they can communicate the exact meaning of their photograph with the photograph alone?
> 
> If so, I quite disagree.  Every viewer of a photograph brings their own unique vision and maturity of vision to viewing a photograph making the experience and the interpretation unique to each viewer. Feelings also get involved when viewing a photograph and these are unique to each viewer. There for, it is nearly impossible to communicate your exact meaning without influencing their perceptions by an obvious descript title or story, i.e. photojournalism.
> 
> ...


Do please excuse me.
For some bizarre reason I had thought that Photography was a form of visual communication. You have opened my eyes to the truth.
Photography's sole purpose is to produce pretty but meaningless pictures for the viewer to interpret as they will.
Now I know where I have been going wrong all these years.


----------



## JC1220 (Dec 11, 2005)

To clarify, I was not trying to be rude or condescending as that seems how you might have taken my post, tone is at times difficult to discern in text.  I was hoping for some conversation here on your thoughts and if I had misinterpreted what you wrote in your initial response, you would have clarified your meaning in a more constructive manor.

From some of your other posts I had hoped for a discussion with some content.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 11, 2005)

You say that each viewer of a photograph interprets it in their own 'unique' way.
The definition of 'unique' is that no two are the same.
This means that a photographic image is capable of an almost infinite number of different interpretations.
For something to have that many different meanings it must be, in essence, meaningless for if it had a specific meaning it would not be capable of infinite misinterpretation.
This gives only three possible scenarios:
Photographic images are meaningless on their own.
The viewer does not know how to interpret the image.
The photographer does not know how to encode his idea in the image.

You appear to favour the former. I favour the second two.
My post could be seen to encapsulate this, albeit in a sarcastic way.


----------



## JC1220 (Dec 11, 2005)

I have to head out for the day so I will be brief:

A photograph on its own will have meaning to the viewer, again who brings their own unique level of interpretation and maturity of vision to a photograph.  So, yes a photograph will have a unique meaning to each viewer.  Does that make a photograph meaningless, no, and I never said that.  It seems you infer that if a photograph does not have the same meaning to each person, it is then meaningless.  Again, I disagree with this.

Yes, it is possible a viewer may not know how to interpret a photograph, as the viewer may not have the knowledge or level of maturity in viewing photographs to do so.

Your last comment is obviously where we disagree most, and I say disagree not that one is right or wrong here.  Again you infer that photographs are about &#8220;ideas.&#8221;  Without boarding on or using photojournalism, one will fail to communicate a meaning or an idea with a photograph alone.  Fine art photographs should never about ideas, they are about feelings and invoking feelings in a viewer.  Photography for other purposes can certainly be used to communicate ideas, perhaps this is where we are differing on our opinions of intention of use, so to speak.

And lastly, yes, I do want my viewers to interpret my photographs &#8220;as they will.&#8221;  In my opinion, one gets a more satisfying visual experience in viewing photographs where you are not led by the nose and told what the photograph is or is suppose to be about.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 11, 2005)

JC1220 said:
			
		

> yes a photograph will have a unique meaning to each viewer.  Does that make a photograph meaningless, no, and I never said that.  It seems you infer that if a photograph does not have the same meaning to each person, it is then meaningless.  Again, I disagree with this


If an image has a unique meaning to each viewer then it must have at least as many meanings as potential viewers. That is an inescapable consequence of your view.
How many potential viewers does an image have, then? At least everyone alive in the world to-day, as well as all those yet to be born. Not all those will see the image, of course, but there must be at least that many meanings within the image in order for each person that views it to find their own unique meaning.
That again is an inescapable consequence of your view.
If it isn't then it allows the possibility that at least two people will find the exact same meaning in the image.
Once you admit to that possibility then the your argument becomes flawed and no longer stands up.
So, for argument's sake, we agree that an image is capable of an infinite number of different interpretations.
This means that there must be at least two interpretations that are exactly opposite. If something can contain two diametrically opposed meanings at the same time I would say that that is a pretty good argument for it to be essentially meaningless.
If you then argue that the image is not meaningless that can only be a result of it having meaning. If it has a meaning then some of the interpretations will be opposed to that meaning and so must be wrong. It therefore follows that there cannot be an infinite number of interpretations but only a finite number and so at least some of the viewers must make the same interpretation and not have a 'unique' experience.
Your view collapses.

Your last paragraph gives the key to why you are opposed to my viewpoint.


			
				JC1220 said:
			
		

> yes, I do want my viewers to interpret my photographs &#8220;as they will.&#8221; In my opinion, one gets a more satisfying visual experience in viewing photographs where you are not led by the nose and told what the photograph is or is suppose to be about


Please explain _why_ you take photographs.


----------



## JC1220 (Dec 11, 2005)

Yes, I agree that the potential is there for an infinite possibility of interpretations and meanings to each viewer of a given photograph.  Perhaps to one of those viewers the photograph is meaningless, and in that instance to that viewer the photograph becomes meaningless, or the viewer is meaningless&#8230;  But, there is more to viewing a photograph than just a meaning, it is about an entire experience around the viewing in which there are a myriad of points where some may be the same as others, but not all will be the same making for a unique experience, good, bad, indifferent or anywhere in between.  To get back to the original comment, what I disagreed about was that a photographer could communicate an exact meaning and interpretation of their personal experience around making the photograph and what that photograph means to the photographer.  Without the use of another medium, like language, it is not possible.  

Should a viewer feel the love and care you put into making a photograph, yes, does a good photographer have the ability to connect with the viewer on the deeper level of life&#8217;s patterns and rhythms, yes.  And this is what is most important about truly fine art, invoking those deep feelings and connections with our viewers; it goes way past meanings and ideas.  &#8220;the hidden harmony is better than the obvious&#8221; Picasso

Why do I photograph?:  This is something I will have to sum up as there are many reasons, but the strongest are the life experiences and growth around my photography, the experience of seeing the photograph complete on the ground glass (not talking about pre-visualizing the final print here) is an intense and deeply satisfying and pleasurable experience; that is what it is all about for me. The picture is the bonus.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 12, 2005)

JC1220 said:
			
		

> But, there is more to viewing a photograph than just a meaning, it is about an entire experience around the viewing in which there are a myriad of points where some may be the same as others, but not all will be the same making for a unique experience, good, bad, indifferent or anywhere in between.


This is merely describing the process of giving meaning!
You have obviously not yet realised that _everything_ we do in life we try to give meaning to, including our life itself.
The whole process of viewing an image therefore has meaning, the image being the focus and catalyst for that meaning.


			
				JC1220 said:
			
		

> Should a viewer feel the love and care you put into making a photograph, yes, does a good photographer have the ability to connect with the viewer on the deeper level of lifes patterns and rhythms, yes.  And this is what is most important about truly fine art, invoking those deep feelings and connections with our viewers; *it goes way past meanings and ideas.*


You have just expressed an intention to put 'love and care' into your images.
You have also just expressed the desire for the viewer to 'feel' the 'love and care' you have put in to your image.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, you have just said that you would like to communicate something to your audience. If they experience what you want them to then you have succeeded, if they do not then you have failed.
It is not a matter of whether you agree with this or nor, or whether you consciously desire it - it is an inescapable fact.


			
				JC1220 said:
			
		

> Why do I photograph?:  This is something I will have to sum up as there are many reasons, but the strongest are the life experiences and growth around my photography, the experience of seeing the photograph complete on the ground glass (not talking about pre-visualizing the final print here) is an intense and deeply satisfying and pleasurable experience; that is what it is all about for me. The picture is the bonus.


If the whole point is just 'seeing the photograph complete on the ground glass' then why bother recording it on film?
Surely that is superfluous?
The only possible reason that you record your image is to share what you experience with others - in effect, communication.
Your pictures can therefore be judged by whether they succeed in doing this or not.
That you have not realised that this is why you do what you do is a failing in you. You are not alone. A great many people who do photography do not realise that what they are trying to do when they take a picture is to communicate. 
Communication does not have to be about language per se, or at least not language in the written or spoken sense. Remember that writing came out of symbolic or pictorial representation and speech came about from trying to explain what we see.
Your whole view of Photography appears to be purely mechanistic. You see no connection between the subject and yourself, yourself and the photograph, the photograph and the viewer, the viewer and their experience. All would appear to be discrete and isolated acts within your Universe and all totally random in nature.
There is far more going on than that, only you are not seeing it. But as long as you are happy it doesn't matter.
That is all I have to say on this matter.


----------



## JC1220 (Dec 12, 2005)

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> T_his is merely describing the process of giving meaning!_
> _You have obviously not yet realised that everything we do in life we try to give meaning to, including our life itself.
> The whole process of viewing an image therefore has meaning, the image being the focus and catalyst for that meaning__._


 

Again you are getting off topic and concentrating on a quote taken out of a larger context, therefore taking what I said out of context. I never said photographs or viewing them does not have meaning or that a photographer could not be trying to impart a particular meaning, what I said, and please read this carefully,


Every viewer of a photograph brings their own unique vision and maturity of vision to viewing a photograph making the experience and the interpretation unique to each viewer. Feelings also get involved when viewing a photograph and these are unique to each viewer. There for, it is nearly impossible to communicate your exact meaning without influencing their perceptions by an obvious descript title or story, i.e. photojournalism.


What I was talking about was the attempt to impart an exact meaning or experience around that photograph, not saying there is one meaning or that a photograph has no meaning, or that it could not be a form of communication. You seem to have gotten stuck on this which is not even remotely on target. 







			
				Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> _You have just expressed an intention to put 'love and care' into your images._
> _You have also just expressed the desire for the viewer to 'feel' the 'love and care' you have put in to your image__._
> _At the risk of pointing out the obvious, you have just said that you would like to communicate something to your audience._


 

At the risk of pointing out the obvious to you, I never expressed the desire for a viewer to feel or experience anything in particular, again you twist the point to fit your argument. Saying that a photograph or photographer has the ability to do something. i.e. Connect with their viewer on a deeper level, says nothing about the intentions of the photographer. 




			
				Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> _If they experience what you want them to then you have succeeded, if they do not then you have failed._
> _It is not a matter of whether you agree with this or nor, or whether you consciously desire it - it is an inescapable fact__._


 

Again, here you make the assumption that the photographer is trying to make a viewer have a certain experience. If that is the case you will fail the majority of the time without additional communication of your intentions.



Quote:
Originally Posted by *JC1220*
_Why do I photograph?: This is something I will have to sum up as there are many reasons, but the strongest are the life experiences and growth around my photography, the experience of seeing the photograph complete on the ground glass (not talking about pre-visualizing the final print here) is an intense and deeply satisfying and pleasurable experience; that is what it is all about for me. The picture is the bonus._



			
				Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> If the whole point is just 'seeing the photograph complete on the ground glass' then why bother recording it on film?
> Surely that is superfluous?


 
If you dont understand this, Im not sure I can help you. If you want to have a truly thoughtful conversation on exploring this I will try.




			
				Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> The only possible reason that you record your image is to share what you experience with others - in effect, communication. Your pictures can therefore be judged by whether they succeed in doing this or not.


 
Once again you infer a false intention that I never stated. I have yet to say anything about my intentions yet you put your own false intention in there to make your own point. 



			
				Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> That you have not realised that this is why you do what you do is a failing in you. You are not alone. A great many people who do photography do not realise that what they are trying to do when they take a picture is to communicate.


 
You are being pretty rude, and again assumptive here. Have I told you that you fail because you cant see anything other than trying to communicate your own selfish intentions, I could easily start, but I prefer to stick to more meaningful conversation where one tries to come to a level of understanding between two different methods of work which I feel is becoming futile. And, in the last sentence hammer home that you continue to make false pretenses about my methods of work. You are under the impression there is only one reason to take or make a photograph and that is you have the intention of communicating something specific to someone else, not true. 



			
				Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> Communication does not have to be about language per se, or at least not language in the written or spoken sense. Remember that writing came out of symbolic or pictorial representation and speech came about from trying to explain what we see.


 
One more assumption on your part. I never said a photograph can not be a form of communication, if that is ones intention. Again, I go back to my original response, if one wants to communicate an exact meaning (something I think we have both defined as being more than one thing in particular), you will need more than just the photograph.



			
				Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> Your whole view of Photography appears to be purely mechanistic. You see no connection between the subject and yourself, yourself and the photograph, the photograph and the viewer, the viewer and their experience. All would appear to be discrete and isolated acts within your Universe and all totally random in nature. There is far more going on than that, only you are not seeing it. But as long as you are happy it doesn't matter.


 
Again you are getting off topic and into areas that I never commented on, again you make assumptions about my methods of work instead of actually responding to the original topic or even asking about the topics you infer on above, pretty weak. And also shed more light on how you view things, such as more assumptions that a photograph has to have a specific subject.

You have yet to explain how you intend to communicate your exact interpretation without the use of another medium. Sorry, saying that the photograph will speak for itself is simply not going to cut it and infantile. 

I ask a lot from my viewers and for them to bring there own level of vision to viewing my photographs. Why would you want to ruin their unique experience and personal growth of viewing your photographs by telling them what they should see, and experience, and that it only has the one meaning. After all, that is what you said and make quite clear in your assumptive rebuttals, that a photograph has only one valid meaning and that is the view of the photographer. That is pretty pretentious to want to force that on your viewers. Unless, you are using the medium for another purpose beside fine art, which I made clear that I was discussing. My personal experiences, personal meanings, what my photograph says to me is my vision, not someone elses. You never want to force that on a viewer, you might as well as tell them they are stupid. Therefore, I have no intention to influence how someone views my photographs; I have no intention to tell them meanings, experiences or feelings around the photographs. I make photographs first and foremost for myself, art is about life and lifes experiences. If by chance a viewer responds to a photograph and it invokes feeling in them, wow, what a great bonus to add to the personal experiences around the photograph. I did not intentionally try to communicate my feelings or some exact meaning to them. I ask them to make up their own minds if the photographs connect to them, then and only then will they have true meaning to the viewer. And, certainly not the exact meaning of the photographers experiences.

I went to the MFA in Boston yesterday to view the Adams exhibit, dont ever remember seeing anything there telling me how to view the photograph or what Adams intentions where Same goes for Winslow, Monet, Van Gogh and Picasso. 

In the end, if you want your viewers to be nothing more than a participant in a dog and pony show, have at it. I think I will stick with the great art historian, Sir Herbert Read when he said: "The visual arts are involved with feeling. If one has ideas to express the proper medium is language."


----------

