(embiggenable)
SO, AS I WAS SITTING AT MY WORKSTATION CONTEMPLATING topics for my next entry, I was struck by the reflection on the glossy surface of a Polaroid picture sitting on my desktop.
As a matter of fact, my eyes were nearly fixated on it, meditation style, when I realized that the reflection impeded my ability to discern the subject matter of the picture; which, quite obviously functioned as an impediment to discerning any meaning that might be found in the picture. All of which lead me to land on the idea of meaning to be had in a photograph as an entry topic…
…I believe I have previously made it clear that I do not believe the medium of photography and its apparatus are well equipped to convey meaning(s) other than the most simple of emotional reactions. That is to write that, while a picture might be able to incite a viewer to feelings (a reaction different from discerning meanings) of sadness, happiness, anger, confusion, agitation, restfulness, et al, what it can not do is control the life experience / art sensibilities / attitude that a person brings to the viewing of a picture.
And it is those things-let’s call them an individual’s pre-existing conditions-that determine what a viewer might see and feel when viewing a picture. What one viewers deduces, meaning-wise, from what he/she “sees” and feels when viewing any given picture might be quite different from what another viewer of the same picture might deduce, meaning-wise, from what he/she “sees” and feels. Which, of course, leads to the adage that “one person’s art is another person’s falderol” (or any variation thereof).
Hence, in an effort to avoid divergent feelings and thoughts, the detailed artist statement appears on the scene. An attempt wherein a picture maker tries to direct a viewer’s attention-is a picture really “worth” a thousand words?-to the intended meaning to be found in his/her pictures(s).
All of the above written, I made a picture of what pricked my eye-an incongruous visual element, aka: the reflection, in an otherwise “soft” environment (“softness” aided by the use of the iPhone PORTRAIT mode and the subdued light). In addition, what pricked my sensibilities was the fact that that visual element, when arranged in the center of the 2D visual field, was able to anchor / be the focal point of the entire photograph. A photograph which has visual energy aplenty, encouraging the eye to explore the bathed-in-warm-light desktop artifacts as contrasted against the cool-colored surrounding picture segments. However, to my eye and sensibilities, I am ultimately drawn back to that reflection.
Upon viewing the picture (much more so than when I was making the picture), I conjured up the idea that the reflection was an apt metaphor for the pre-existing conditions a viewer might bring to the viewing of a picture. Pre-existing conditions that might mask or make difficult the discernment of any meaning(s) the picture maker might have tried to imbed in his/her photograph.
While there might be some who identify that metaphor as a road sign to discerning the “true” meaning to be found in the photograph, but that conclusion would be a product driven by their pre-existing conditions cuz that “meaning” was not part of-or, at most, a teeny-tiny part thereof-of my picture making intention. And, more to my point, re: meaning in a photograph, if I did not create an artist statement that mentioned the metaphor / intended meaning, I doubt if anyone would have noticed the reflection as such.
At best, that idea was an after thought cuz, in practice and in fact, I made the picture cuz it tickled and stroked my visual senses and I knew that viewing-not thinking about-the final print would do the same.
As Lyle Lovett asked (for a different reason), “That doesn’t make me a shallow person does it?”