This is the most important article I've read on photography in a long time. I am irritated when someone looks at a photograph I’ve taken and asks where it was taken, as though that context will make a substantial difference to the way they look at the picture. However I find that when I look at a photograph I will often fall into the same trap. Your words about Vivian Meier resonated with me: am I drawn to her pictures qua pictures or is my attraction based more on her back-story? Is her back-story even relevant to looking at her photographs? The same problem occurs with “forged” artworks: is a picture only good (and consequently “valuable”) if it is by Vermeer rather than Van Meegeren?
You final questions: “Can you refrain the urge to know more, to just let it be, to accept a photograph for what it is? Does a photograph need explaining?” are very important. I think we have to try as hard as we can to be “innocent” of context (unless the picture is photojournalism where context is a major and important part of the picture). I also think ignoring context and back-story are very, very difficult to do consistently. I’m going to have to keep on trying …
I think that wanting to know where a photo/painting was taken is related to a trend, where we are becoming less and less interested in art forms in general. Investing time in accepting what is there, making an effort, and trying to understand the message are becoming less and less common these days. The result is fleetingness.
Moreover, as Kees points out, we find it increasingly difficult to comment on the artistry of a photo/image/painting, because this is subjective and therefore also says something about the critic. No, it's much more comfortable to comment on the (faltering) technique, something that someone else can also observe, relatively objectively.
When I think of photography, I immediately think of (un)focus; skewed horizons and violate the rules of composition. An easy distracting manoeuvre is asking what the image represents, or where the photo was taken. Better yet: spontaneously noticing the latter as a viewer, thereby demonstrating one's own general knowledge.
No, images don't need that context, add nothing, and are indeed distracting. And just let Korte Kamperstraat (or any other specific landmark) remain. It's easier to ignore the know-it-all's unsolicited commentary than to try to change them.
A brilliant article which poses many questions to which there are probably even more, varying answers.
In Woodman's case, would viewers of her work be as interested if she'd been an old woman when she committed suicide? When it comes to Vivian Maier, if her photographs had been poor quality and with no commercial value, would she have received the same posthumous recognition. If Van Gogh had lived a happy life selling his work until he died of old age, would his legacy of work be as highly regarded?
Isn't there a distinction to be drawn between the context / back-story of the individual as well as one for their work? Does one not add to the other? When I see a photograph, I try to work out what it is and what the photographer is trying to tell me. Sometimes the story seems obvious. other times it's opaque and I need context or some reference point to start me off down the right track.
There are some people whose appreciation and interpretation of a photograph is heavily dependent upon what exact camera and lens combination was used as well as the core settings / EXIF data. For me, that misses the point altogether - but that's just me. Can you imagine someone going up to Michelangelo and asking what size mallet and chisel he used to sculpt his "David"? And yet, if you are into watercolour painting, paint manufacturers will sell you pans of paint branded to your favourite painter's palette. Does that infer you can produce the same quality of work?
I doubt there are many people who are able to accept a photograph solely at face value - particularly in the "fine art" category if the photograph is for sale. Two identical photos taken at the exact same moment, at the same place, using the same equipment and settings will command very different price tags - especially if one is by a world-renowned photographer and the other is by an unknown. Sometimes, right or wrong, context is everything.
Fascinating article which cuts to the heart of photo literacy. I agree that sometimes words get in the way of visual thinking. We prioritise knowing over looking, culturally, and this is reinforced in schools. My recent post about Philip Perkis’ pedagogical book explores this phenomenon.
“Photography, first and foremost, is about appreciating the ‘object-ness of what is seen.’ Meanings come later. Light on surface. ‘Just to see.’”
I do, however, think that contexts are key for understanding a photograph, particularly where the image is encountered - on the web, on a wall, accompanied by an article, in a wallet etc. I wouldn’t restrict a discussion about context only to known facts about the picture. https://www.photopedagogy.com/threshold-concept-7.html
I believe context becomes more important as more images are AI generated. I would like to know where and how a human being created a work of art. To me without that context the work is meaningless.
Great article. For me, context can sometimes deepen my experience with a photograph or a body of work. It really depends, though! I wouldn’t have needed to know where and that the building Vermeer painted really existed. This work stands for me on its own. I think what I want to say is that depending context can be helpful sometimes, but not necessarily.
I don't agree with the premise: "Context is everything."
In certain situations, yes, such as journalism and violent acts. In the case of art, it is applicable with specific art made in the context of politics at the time. Context is unfortunately important in the case of "celebrity photos" taken by paparazzi. For example if you don't know who Mick Jagger is, the photo is no more than an skinny old man with dyed hair.
In the the case Vivian Maier, the context was marketing and nothing else. The story helped generate attention for her wonderful work. But any attempt to analyze and interpret her images from the standpoint of the life she chose has nothing to do with art. It's nothing more than an opinion--the smarter it sounds, the more likely it will further the career of the critic.
The curator's response to the discovery of Vermeer's subject is another form of marketing, of drawing attention to the work for a reason that has no artistic significance. If the publicity attracts people to the museum, that is good for the museum, and perhaps for viewers who hadn't previously visited the museum.
Woodman's suicide at 22 is tragic. She left behind a small body of strong work. But to analyze it from the standpoint of her suicide is folly. Again, a form of marketing. And a way for critics to feather their caps.
When anyone dies young, particularly a suicide, there is always a sad examination of the preceding situation--seeking factors, trying to understand, a way to circumscribe grief. None of that is remotely related to art.
This is such a thought-provoking article, so thank you for that. It may make me reconsider how I view photographs or paintings, though I'm not sure it would change the way I initially look at the picture and my immediate reaction. However, saying that, I am thinking about the first time I viewed the photos of Daidō Moriyama. I have much more appreciation of his work knowing that 'Many of his well-known works from the 1960s & 1970s are read through the lenses of post-war reconstruction and post-occupation upheaval'.
My immediate impression, before reading about what had been removed, from the photograph presented was a)what was the intention of the photographer in taking this photo? and b)why does it look so lacking in context? If the cables, moped and advertising had been left in it would be of much more interest to me. I didn't look at the road sign! I think the place, historical and cultural context are most relevant in many instances. I am rarely interested in the camera gear or settings used.
I am reminded about Turner adding a red paint mark to his painting in the Royal Academy where Constable was also exhibiting. It doesn't change my view of either artists' work, but the context is fascinating. In the varied work of Lee Miller it seems relevant to me to know about her life as a fashion model, time with the surrealist movement as well as her other photographs. Does it change my view of the photographs themselves? I will try to keep an open mind.
This is the most important article I've read on photography in a long time. I am irritated when someone looks at a photograph I’ve taken and asks where it was taken, as though that context will make a substantial difference to the way they look at the picture. However I find that when I look at a photograph I will often fall into the same trap. Your words about Vivian Meier resonated with me: am I drawn to her pictures qua pictures or is my attraction based more on her back-story? Is her back-story even relevant to looking at her photographs? The same problem occurs with “forged” artworks: is a picture only good (and consequently “valuable”) if it is by Vermeer rather than Van Meegeren?
You final questions: “Can you refrain the urge to know more, to just let it be, to accept a photograph for what it is? Does a photograph need explaining?” are very important. I think we have to try as hard as we can to be “innocent” of context (unless the picture is photojournalism where context is a major and important part of the picture). I also think ignoring context and back-story are very, very difficult to do consistently. I’m going to have to keep on trying …
I think that wanting to know where a photo/painting was taken is related to a trend, where we are becoming less and less interested in art forms in general. Investing time in accepting what is there, making an effort, and trying to understand the message are becoming less and less common these days. The result is fleetingness.
Moreover, as Kees points out, we find it increasingly difficult to comment on the artistry of a photo/image/painting, because this is subjective and therefore also says something about the critic. No, it's much more comfortable to comment on the (faltering) technique, something that someone else can also observe, relatively objectively.
When I think of photography, I immediately think of (un)focus; skewed horizons and violate the rules of composition. An easy distracting manoeuvre is asking what the image represents, or where the photo was taken. Better yet: spontaneously noticing the latter as a viewer, thereby demonstrating one's own general knowledge.
No, images don't need that context, add nothing, and are indeed distracting. And just let Korte Kamperstraat (or any other specific landmark) remain. It's easier to ignore the know-it-all's unsolicited commentary than to try to change them.
You can't teach a shrimp to play guitar either.
A brilliant article which poses many questions to which there are probably even more, varying answers.
In Woodman's case, would viewers of her work be as interested if she'd been an old woman when she committed suicide? When it comes to Vivian Maier, if her photographs had been poor quality and with no commercial value, would she have received the same posthumous recognition. If Van Gogh had lived a happy life selling his work until he died of old age, would his legacy of work be as highly regarded?
Isn't there a distinction to be drawn between the context / back-story of the individual as well as one for their work? Does one not add to the other? When I see a photograph, I try to work out what it is and what the photographer is trying to tell me. Sometimes the story seems obvious. other times it's opaque and I need context or some reference point to start me off down the right track.
There are some people whose appreciation and interpretation of a photograph is heavily dependent upon what exact camera and lens combination was used as well as the core settings / EXIF data. For me, that misses the point altogether - but that's just me. Can you imagine someone going up to Michelangelo and asking what size mallet and chisel he used to sculpt his "David"? And yet, if you are into watercolour painting, paint manufacturers will sell you pans of paint branded to your favourite painter's palette. Does that infer you can produce the same quality of work?
I doubt there are many people who are able to accept a photograph solely at face value - particularly in the "fine art" category if the photograph is for sale. Two identical photos taken at the exact same moment, at the same place, using the same equipment and settings will command very different price tags - especially if one is by a world-renowned photographer and the other is by an unknown. Sometimes, right or wrong, context is everything.
Fascinating article which cuts to the heart of photo literacy. I agree that sometimes words get in the way of visual thinking. We prioritise knowing over looking, culturally, and this is reinforced in schools. My recent post about Philip Perkis’ pedagogical book explores this phenomenon.
“Photography, first and foremost, is about appreciating the ‘object-ness of what is seen.’ Meanings come later. Light on surface. ‘Just to see.’”
I do, however, think that contexts are key for understanding a photograph, particularly where the image is encountered - on the web, on a wall, accompanied by an article, in a wallet etc. I wouldn’t restrict a discussion about context only to known facts about the picture. https://www.photopedagogy.com/threshold-concept-7.html
I believe context becomes more important as more images are AI generated. I would like to know where and how a human being created a work of art. To me without that context the work is meaningless.
Great article. For me, context can sometimes deepen my experience with a photograph or a body of work. It really depends, though! I wouldn’t have needed to know where and that the building Vermeer painted really existed. This work stands for me on its own. I think what I want to say is that depending context can be helpful sometimes, but not necessarily.
I don't agree with the premise: "Context is everything."
In certain situations, yes, such as journalism and violent acts. In the case of art, it is applicable with specific art made in the context of politics at the time. Context is unfortunately important in the case of "celebrity photos" taken by paparazzi. For example if you don't know who Mick Jagger is, the photo is no more than an skinny old man with dyed hair.
In the the case Vivian Maier, the context was marketing and nothing else. The story helped generate attention for her wonderful work. But any attempt to analyze and interpret her images from the standpoint of the life she chose has nothing to do with art. It's nothing more than an opinion--the smarter it sounds, the more likely it will further the career of the critic.
The curator's response to the discovery of Vermeer's subject is another form of marketing, of drawing attention to the work for a reason that has no artistic significance. If the publicity attracts people to the museum, that is good for the museum, and perhaps for viewers who hadn't previously visited the museum.
Woodman's suicide at 22 is tragic. She left behind a small body of strong work. But to analyze it from the standpoint of her suicide is folly. Again, a form of marketing. And a way for critics to feather their caps.
When anyone dies young, particularly a suicide, there is always a sad examination of the preceding situation--seeking factors, trying to understand, a way to circumscribe grief. None of that is remotely related to art.
This is such a thought-provoking article, so thank you for that. It may make me reconsider how I view photographs or paintings, though I'm not sure it would change the way I initially look at the picture and my immediate reaction. However, saying that, I am thinking about the first time I viewed the photos of Daidō Moriyama. I have much more appreciation of his work knowing that 'Many of his well-known works from the 1960s & 1970s are read through the lenses of post-war reconstruction and post-occupation upheaval'.
My immediate impression, before reading about what had been removed, from the photograph presented was a)what was the intention of the photographer in taking this photo? and b)why does it look so lacking in context? If the cables, moped and advertising had been left in it would be of much more interest to me. I didn't look at the road sign! I think the place, historical and cultural context are most relevant in many instances. I am rarely interested in the camera gear or settings used.
I am reminded about Turner adding a red paint mark to his painting in the Royal Academy where Constable was also exhibiting. It doesn't change my view of either artists' work, but the context is fascinating. In the varied work of Lee Miller it seems relevant to me to know about her life as a fashion model, time with the surrealist movement as well as her other photographs. Does it change my view of the photographs themselves? I will try to keep an open mind.