The Meaning of a Photograph

The Meaning of a Photograph

A very short essay

Göran Sjöberg

2008-12-23

If you cut out a single photograph and hypothetically send it to Mars or to a blog this photograph has no meaning when it dwells where no one will see it but possibly the mental act of doing this might be considered as an act of art partly because this act is also without practical use.

Here is another hypothetical example. Imagine that you are working at a photo lab producing prints and now and then pick up one from the stream that comes out of the machine e.g. to check printing quality. Probably, when you have been working there for a while and many thousands have passed before your eyes, you don’t even absorb what kind of image it is on the print and to an even less extent any meaning which might be attached to the image. It is for sure one of many ‘meaningless’ pictures to you. With your ‘experienced’ eye you should of course be able to see the technical qualities, the darkness, the hue etc. of the print since that is basically your job and if you did not you would probably lose your job. And then the meaning for you with all the pictures might be as simple as they give you a steady salary.

Perhaps we are now abusing the word ‘meaning’ because ‘everyone’ understands that these are ‘imbecile’ examples of what we usually mean by meaning when we are using this word when we are seriously talking about photography. A second thought might however convince us that raising the question about meaning at all in this way is perhaps not that stupid. What it tells is that it is completely useless to ask the question about the meaning with a photograph without first setting the scene for the display and here are a few suggestions.

• The family photo album

• The MoMA

• As an illustration in a scientific paper about metallurgy

• I a police file

• At a photo exhibition at a home for elderly people

• At the yearly exhibition of a local photo club

Everyone realizes that this list basically does not have any limit. So haphazardly taking one photo from the printing machine and also haphazardly to put it at any one of the displays suggested on this endless list would of course signify some kind of specific meaning but probably in most cases with a rather surrealistic effect. Such acts of ‘displacing’ images were also typical for the art school with the same name. With this it should be clear that to display an image (or a piece of art) outside an agreed upon context would in most cases produce a surrealistic effect on potential viewers. It is like with a specific religion where most of the acts for the people who are far away from that religion appear more or less surrealistic but of course not to those who are involved since they all belong to and understand the images of their own totem.

This sounds like something either black or white and as long as your images are within the ‘same cultural context’ they will not be looked upon as something alien like images from another totem and this is of course a tautology. In other words, the potential viewer will read your ‘signs’ as if you could be a good disciple of the totem. But before you could carve the ‘right’ images you must study in the religious school to be able to distinguish between the good and the evil. It was not by chance that Mohammad’s guys, upon the final arrival at Medina more than a thousand years ago, smashed all the evil images of the female goddesses (with the exception of Virgin Mary and the Kaaba stone itself) and confirmed the solid patriarchic rule which has been governing ever since not only in his part of the world but in most other parts as well.

So the whole idea is about context. In other words don’t show the wrong picture at the wrong time but show the right one at the right time. When you start thinking about it in this way it starts to be very simple. The difficult part is then to materialize this simple truth into something which is meaningful. And then we are back at the starting point which perhaps is also a good place to stop this post.

Freak photography

On Photography

 

An philosophical essay

 

Göran Sjöberg

 

2008-12-04

 

 

So – photography has to address something. And – it has to carry a meaning to someone. And – that that someone has to understand that meaning or otherwise it is useless at least for that someone.

 

So – what is carry to, what is meaning and who is someone to understand somewhat? These are the questions we need to dwell on to get another progress step of the understanding of what photography is about – the intention of this essay.

 

So – to start with – let’s start with ‘carry to’.  There are one or several images to carry and all photography is of course about images or …. ? Inversely there is no photography without images. These images are carried or brought to someone and there is always an intention in the ‘carrying’ since carry is a transitory verb. Someone carries somewhat (images) – a sign if you like – to someone. Why does this happen? You must have an idea about this action, to convince someone about something important to you – you might even have an ideology  – most probably there is at least a meaning attached to the action –you want to convince your surroundings – your target reversely speaking photographically – e.g. about the beauty of  the nature or the horror of war if they are not already convinced about that or  more generally about social injustices.

 

Even if the people there already are convinced they can be even more after the exposure to your images and perhaps also be grateful to you afterwards in opening their eyes even more to the facts they already ‘know’.  This of course would be your ‘feeling good’ part of it. However, speaking with Susan Sontag, this does not mean bringing understanding but rather more mystery and perhaps that is not bad since mystery must be the pillar of belief – the totem if you like.

 

I mean, I am not talking about making a good living on carrying photographs to an accepting market.  There has always been a conflict between this kind of production and ‘serious’ image making through  photographic means as well as it has been in general arts.  It is always questionable if you start with make a lot of money, being ‘successful’, and later turning ‘serious’  like e.g. Richard Avedon or Diane Arbus  although they have been fundamentally acclaimed there is a lingering doubt about there ‘carrying to’ motives again speaking with the tongue of Susan Sontag in her ‘On Photograhy’ which has inspired much work with this essence not least in the present essay.

 

So – what about the meaning?  You may split meaning into three categories – the meaning, your mind-set, of taking a photograph (or several) – the meaning of carrying (why do you do it?) and finally the meaning it may have to the potential receiver, the viewer, the public.

In this section of our essay we must then first think about the meaning of making photographic images. What’s in it for me – as a photographer? And again there must be numerous reasons behind this according to the circumstances. As with every act in life you must have an idea which is backing what you are intending to do or after the ‘fait accompli’ the outcome of an idea (idea, ideology) how to defend the act – often you could invent a suitable one afterwards especially if it is a morally disputable act. And basically that is what all philosophy is all about. Here again, Susan Sontag has elaborated on the numerous reasons why photographs are ‘shot’. Distressingly, also this can be split into many categories depending on the connection between the object and the ‘purpose’ of the photographic act which of course in turn can not be separated from the character of the ‘photographer’. This is complex but let’s go for the main ones.

 

Your mindset is the most important. Assuming that you are serious about what you are doing you also ‘know’ what you are doing, i.e. you are not a fool in the view of your peers. With that you must also be dedicated and ‘true’ to your self – you must love what you are doing for whatever reason but always be in touch with your own time and understanding what is happening and if you are destined to be ‘great’ you better keep track on the philosophical history and trends of your chosen niche. How could you otherwise claim to be a master and it is not a question of the technical skill (which to some extent must be there) if that is not your main niche like Weston. ‘Ahead of your time’ – could be the buzz word.

 

As always, you should not be too much ahead of your time if you are not a true genius or crazy which is close enough. Moderately much ahead of your time is basically to understand exactly what and how your peers are thinking and add about ten percent and now I am not talking of the peers at popular photo magazines of which few seem to understand much about what serious photography is about. It is about the people involved in the true art world with proper academic training into what is totemically established  as genuine photographic art – which is the idea with a totem.

 

This talk might be too cunning but it is easy to step on the wrong toe and then you are on the black list or, which amounts to the same thing, be completely disregarded. If you would like to stick to the ‘true genius’ path then you must be crazy enough not to give a damn. Still they are picking, not you, and it is important not to mix this up due to the toe reason. Nan Goldin e.g. who got the Hasselblad reward was picked and I think was also truly surprised of having been picked and this was because she was persistent in her craziness and did the totemically photographic right thing in Diane Arbus spirit when she mingled with the freaks of New York and not for her technical skills. She was completely politically correct and there is another one on the same track, Mary Ellen Mark, who now have had focus on retarded children in an Icelandic asylum and who is getting rewards and recognition. The problem if you are trying to catch up late on such a track might be that it does not seem very convincing – as I stressed you have to be ahead of your time and peers by ten percent and this also includes your photographic competitors.

 

Since we are talking about meaning you could have an agenda of your own – you perhaps want to contribute to the progress in the world of some kind – you could be serious about your talk of social concern etc. Then there is, as has been evident not least during this very autumn, a freak show of another kind going on, the economic one were the world is ruled.  The people inhabiting Wall Street of course permanently perform there and would for sure be valuable as photographic objects but the problem could be that they may be concerned about serious photographic attention in contrast to the victims of these freak shows since we all believe that serious photography reveals something that is true about the subject. And it does not take much of imagination to understand that it is hardly something anyone involved there would like to see happen.

 

So far about your mindset which we must think is pure – but what about the ‘meaning of carrying’. Where are the carrots for you? Provided you are successful with your photographs (though I doubt that you ever get so close with your cameras) of revealing the true joy of these guys when they see their competitors bleed away or the skyrocketing profits on e.g. antidepressive drugs which people urgently need when their families are thrown out of their houses, how could you carry these photos to someone?

 

To cite my favorite Susan Sontag again these photographs will not surface if they are not politically approved. Of course you may show them to your neighbors or even venture the internet which seems to be democratic. However, political approval of photographs was given  during the depression for the  photographs of Dorothea Lange since they were approved by the FSA (Farm Security Administration) and this was a part of a political democratic agenda and again it were the victims who were cooperative  and not the true stalkers at the economic freak show at that time. Charles Chaplin was though heading in the right opposite direction with his films but as we all know he was finally not politically approved by the guardians of the freak totem.

 

 

Then, the someone who is to receive the impact of your pictorial revelations who is she or he? Is there a kind of mass reception or is it an exclusive club we are talking about? This is important to make clear because it is easy that the intentions fail – a flop after all. In the great effort Dorothea Lange made with her husband ‘An American Exodus’ 1939 was in all respects as A.D. Coleman put it 2002 ‘an unprecedented collaborative effort that still stands as a paradigm of the documentary image-text photographic bookwork’ but still the intention with book failed, few read it at that time.

 

So my suggestion is that you give up your serious intentions if you are looking for any carrots. Still, if you don’t want to take photographs of sunsets you may turn cynical and follow the rule of the game.

 

Good luck!