Part Four - Reading Photographs: Introduction: Notes - Photographs not used as a means of expression or communication

The introduction to Part Four describes how photography can be thought of as a language, with its own codes and symbols that allow the artist to convey a meaning and the viewer to interpret that meaning.  Language can enable people to share an understanding, or it can also divide them.  I imagine that as with a language, differences in understanding may mean that the intended meaning can be lost.  We discussed the concept of loss of authorial control earlier in the course in Part Two in the post on non-visible themes; I made the point that the understanding of the photograph is subjective and will depend on the experiences of the viewer.  This is a natural part of the process.  So, just as in a conversation, you may say one thing, it can be interpreted as another.  And with written languages, there are more constants; we are taught to read and write at school, we can refer to dictionaries when we need to look up a meaning.  Is it the same with photography?  Are there constants in meaning that will always mean the same to the artist and the viewer?  I imagine that the scope for difference in interpretation is greater with a visual language than a written/spoken language.

The introduction asks us to think about any photographs that are not used as a means of expression or communication.  This was tough!  I ran through a mental checklist of genres and purposes of photography to try to find an answer:

• Advertising: clearly a language (saying "buy me") designed to penetrate your subconscious
• Documentary/reportage: communication of stories
• Fine art: used to communicate the artist's feelings on a subject
• Wedding photography: good question...what is it communicating?  Like holiday and party photographs - is it just a record of an occasion or are the photographs actually saying something?
• Wildlife photography: depends - some is used to highlight eco/conservation issues - but some, including the wildlife photographs I have taken - is just used to make cute pictures - these are however - still communicating how I felt about the animal?
• Landscape photography: could be used for a variety of means - to communicate eco/conservation issues, to be used by the artist to express something, or could be used just to make pleasing pictures
• Still life: could be used for fine art - could be meaningful or meaningless?
• Journalism: communication of stories
• Portraits: will communicate the subject and the artist's emotions
• Street photography: communication of stories.

So of the genres, they could all be communicative, or not.  It depends on the purpose of the story.  On the basis though that all photographs are telling somebody something, even if just "look at me when I was on holiday", I'm not sure there are any that are not a means of expression or communication, but clearly the levels of complexity in meaning will differ.  I quick snapshot taken in a bar does not have the same meaning as something that is complex, shocking and designed to cause a reaction, such as war porn, or a fine art photograph rich in symbology that expresses the artist's emotions.

I may come back to these notes later on in this chapter - perhaps some photographs that are not used as a means of communication or expression will come to mind.