Admittedly I have no idea what makes a great photograph. I understand how lighting can be good or bad. I recognize a photographer’s intent in what they include in a picture and that there is reason in every angle taken, but for the life of me, I can’t separate art from the images a four year takes while trying to burn up the last couple of shots from a disposable camera. The realist inside of me is adamant that not every still shot has deeper meaning. Yet if there is anything inside of me that resembles an artist, he can see more in this photograph. The first thing I see is pride.
The plantation owner stands in front of his field
hands by no mere accident. It is an elevating position in that it brings the
most immediate attention and makes him appear larger. His foot is equally deliberate
in its placement on the rear of a car. From their first introduction into
society, fine automobiles have proven potent status symbols. While not much of
the car can be seen, in 1936 having one at all meant something. His foot isn’t
alone in determining his body language. His hands are not humbly tucked into
his pockets or holding themselves defensively. His body language serves to
imply ownership of the car, the men behind him, and his status.
The field hands aren’t shown in an entirely similar
manner. One is standing. They have different styles of hats. They have
different colors of clothing. The differences speak in a small way to the individuals
being individuals. On the other hand, the similarities cannot go unnoticed.
They’re not shown working in the field, but lounging in a moment of rest. From
their positioning, they all seem to share the same feeling towards where they
are. They look more obligated than overjoyed. One of the most obvious facts of
the photograph is that the field hands are all black.
The blatancy of their skin color is largely made
by the complete opposition to the plantation owner’s skin color, but also comes
from the background. To me the background raises more questions than it
answers. It looks to me to be a store. I can imagine how the plantation owner
would bring his field hands in with him to pick up supplies and stop outside
for a quick conversation and photo. What I wonder is why the photographer would
have chosen the building as the entirety of the background. I can’t help but to
wonder if it’s because the building does inspire me to create that scenario and,
if that is the case, if that is what makes a photograph a work of art.
There are two parts to evaluating a photograph. The first part you did quite well--you told us your visceral reaction to the photo.The second part has to do with the terminology, the vocab of evaluation. Looking at line, form, pt. of view, camera angle and photographer's intent, help us to appreciate and experience the pic. You mentioned the car, and what it symbolizes, the figure positions and body language, all good elements of composition.
ReplyDeleteI agree that not all shots are intended to have deeper meaning, but that's what's great about art, beauty and meaning are in the eye of the beholder. And I think there is an artist inside you...
I agree with your assessment of this man's self-perceived importance. His body language as a personification of his "ownership" was an astute observation.
ReplyDeleteI felt the same when comparing the automobile versus human ownership. I like looking at pictures and 'art', but really have a difficult time trying to find the 'true meaning' hidden within. Maybe its just a simple photo or just some paint splashed on some canvas. Maybe that what makes it art, not the complex nature of it, but more of the simplistic idea behind it. For me, it's not a right or wrong answer, it is just how you perceive it and how it moves you. I totally agree with you on this one!! Good job!
ReplyDeleteI also have always struggled to find, "meaning," in a photograph. It feels forced sometimes to be told to find meaning in somthing. I'd rather just view the world as it is, and if somthing meaningful jumps out at me, then I'll take notice. I really like how you viewed this photograph in such a different way than I did. That's what is neat, I suppose, about interpretation; it doesn't really matter what we are looking at, but rather where we are looking from.
ReplyDeleteword. I can dig the analysis and what you are laying down. However, picking apart a photo can be somewhat tedious no? Everyone wants to try and figure out what the meaning is or how this picture may tell us what is going down behind the image in some nebulous, groping desire to fulfill our assignment. In my opinion, sometimes a photograph is just a photograph and by over analyzing it we may decipher and interpret (or at least attempt to do so)our way past an image that is just purely that, an image.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting - what does it mean to say that something is "just purely that, an image"? We are viewers of that image, yes? And we have a reaction to an image as well. I would say that, yes, it is "just an image" until someone looks at it - then it becomes something slightly more. But I would encourage you to think a bit about technique, in any case....
Delete