(embiggenable) • iPhone
"One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others. [...] The talented practitioner of the new discipline would perform with a special grace, sense of timing, narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with intelligence, but with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the tour, how much our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer." ~ John Szarkowski
IN THE ABOVE STATEMENT JOHN SZARKOWSKI SUGGESTS THAT a work of art, in this case a photograph, is comprised of 2 primary ingredients...a thing pointed to and a pattern created by a pointer. He also suggests that the viewing of such a photograph could be comparable to an "adventure of a tour" accompanied by "pleasure and a sense of enlargment". And, the way I read it, Szarkowski implies that a really good photograph-with a thing pointed to and a pattern created by the pointer-can capture a viewer's attention / interest but, in a very real sense, leave a viewer wondering about why he/she is attracted to that photograph...is it the thing depicted or the manner in which the thing is depicted that has drawn the viewer in?
I can write with authority-based upon my actual experiences-that I have encountered quite a number of viewers of my pictures-at a gallery openings of my pictures or showing someone one of my photo books-who have run smack dab into such a dilemma. Simply written, they are confronted with a picture of a thing, a thing which they can not begin to fathom why I (or anyone) would make a picture thereof. That written, what really confuses them is the fact that they feel unexplainedly attracted to the picture.
Most often heard at such a juncture is, "I don't know why I like this picture(s) but I do." A statement which I consider to be a very high compliment indeed cuz I truly believe that I have zapped them with my "secret weapon", the "hidden"-to their eyes and sensibilities-pattern I have created on the 2D surface of my print. That is, a concept of which the average viewer has no conscious knowledge or perception.
And, have no doubt about it, it is at this point in such an encounter that I make absolutely no attemp to try to explain the concept of a "hidden" pattern on a 2D surface to the viewer. The reason for that is simple, the viewer has "felt" something in the picture in addition to what he/she has "seen" and I have no desire to practice confuse-a-cat psychology. Not to mention the fact that I am not about to tell a viewer-who is confused as to why he/she likes the picture-why he/she likes the picture cuz that's for the viewer to figure out.