Photography is one of those subjects that has a foot in both the camp of science and art! On a fundamental basis we can say that the science is in the developing of an image i.e. the use of chemicals and the whole process of bringing an image to paper/screen, and the art is the skill of framing and bringing effect to bear. However, the division runs deeper. Within the ‘taking’ of the photograph, we can roughly, subdivide it into two categories. That of (loosely speaking) media and delivery of information, and that of art, fashion and styles (of photography). Although the very nature of photography does not allow for it to be totally transparent, we would say as a generalisation that we are able to translate the former, whereas we would have to interpret the latter.
Learning log. Departures, translation & interpretation.
Learning log. Humpty Dumpty.
Exercise
The image above was taken by Elliott Erwitt in New York in 1974. There is much to read within this image, but before even looking at the image we know a lot about the photographer that, if not careful can bias, or sway our reading or understanding of the image. We know that Erwitt liked dogs, also that he had a certain ‘style’ of presentation of dogs. Very importantly, we have to strike a balance and read the image with an eye on neutrality, both from the point of view that, just because what we know about Erwitt and his style, this does not mean that this image was shot for the same effect. To balance this thought (absurdly) we have to not have the total conviction of that statement, in doing so maintain neutrality!! Erwitt himself said of his pictures, “… not pictures of dogs but pictures with dogs in them”. This should both simplify and clarify my ‘slightly’ complex statement!
How has Erwitt structured this image? What do you think the image is ‘saying’? How does the structure contribute to the meaning?
What strikes me is the way the subject matter is constructed in such a way that it appears to be a block within the image itself. On three sides of the subject matter, there is an ‘unseen’ border comprising cleverly of both foreground and background, and the distance to the edge is the same all the way round. This really puts the subject matter in isolation, for us to really look at and ‘get’ the humour that is clearly presented. Within the image it is constructed of many vertical lines, and the point of punctum is that which is the subject matter. So, in punctum, the status of the small dog is augmented and thus given equality in spite of its size. Here in lies the humour that is at the heart of the image. The dog’s status, in spite of its size is clear to see, not only by the attention it has received from its owner (i.e. it has been dressed up to be protected against the elements), but also in the way that Erwitt has cropped the image to show the small dog as the only element that has not been cropped. The more obvious joke within the image, that of the large dog’s legs possibly being mistaken for those of another human, is completely outflanked by the detail of the ‘lesser’ dog. A very subtle juxtaposition of two pieces of humour within the one frame.
I see! 