Visual Literacy and Documentary Photography
RyanS
Registered Users Posts: 507 Major grins
Be warned... The following is an attempt to engage you in a discussion of visual literacy as a it relates to documentary photography. By visual literacy I mean the idea that one can both 'read' and 'write' visually (with a camera, for example). The current visual world is broiling with activity. A whole generation is using visual media to communicate, driven primarily by two new major technological innovations: The ubiquitous camera phone combined with high-powered mobile computing power as the platform. The interconnected global nature of the Internet as the engine.
My day job is working in this space for marketing purposes. The system we run tracks nearly 20 billion transactions daily. That's 20 billion unique human interactions as they engage with content on the Internet. We are only tracking a tiny overall percentage of the on-line world. All (yes, ALL!) of these interactions are driven primarily by some kind of visual experience. Our ability to understand and work in the visual world is, as a result, more important than any previous point in history. This extends beyond clicking past a commercially generated piece of Internet art. It reaches down in to our innate ability to understand the world around us.
Reviewing the history of the photographic visual world, as well as examining the current state of visual interaction, a few things stand out:
As an illustration... I was recently going through a number of Internet forums dedicated primarily to the sharing and viewing of documentary photography. I was struck by the sheer amount of visual muck being "liked" and "favorited." These were 'documentary' photographs from people that were trying to speak visually. They took the time to join a specific documentary photography forum, to go out shooting, to select a shot, edit it (some of them investing a great deal of effort at this stage), and then share it. The vast majority of these attempts failed. It was the visual equivalence to white noise. The photographs simply didn't 'speak' or 'say' anything. There are thousands of people who want to communicate, but they seem to be failing. No doubt some of you have experienced the same thing.
Some questions for discussion:
A couple of recommended videos to watch for background:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KkLBtoTdFo - From Joel Meyerowitz. (Ditto!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O39niAzuapc - Simple background on the topic.
Additional background references:
My day job is working in this space for marketing purposes. The system we run tracks nearly 20 billion transactions daily. That's 20 billion unique human interactions as they engage with content on the Internet. We are only tracking a tiny overall percentage of the on-line world. All (yes, ALL!) of these interactions are driven primarily by some kind of visual experience. Our ability to understand and work in the visual world is, as a result, more important than any previous point in history. This extends beyond clicking past a commercially generated piece of Internet art. It reaches down in to our innate ability to understand the world around us.
Reviewing the history of the photographic visual world, as well as examining the current state of visual interaction, a few things stand out:
- Every new photograph is compared with every previous photograph. As a result, the bar a photograph needs to cross before reaching collective consciousness is higher than it has ever been. (I call this idea 'too much awesome.')
- There is a never ceasing supply of equally unimpressive and unavoidable crap.
- Many people can't seem to tell the difference.
- The public nature of the Internet has tossed out the editor/curator with few exception. The masses drive popularity irrespective of quality. The blind leading the blind?
As an illustration... I was recently going through a number of Internet forums dedicated primarily to the sharing and viewing of documentary photography. I was struck by the sheer amount of visual muck being "liked" and "favorited." These were 'documentary' photographs from people that were trying to speak visually. They took the time to join a specific documentary photography forum, to go out shooting, to select a shot, edit it (some of them investing a great deal of effort at this stage), and then share it. The vast majority of these attempts failed. It was the visual equivalence to white noise. The photographs simply didn't 'speak' or 'say' anything. There are thousands of people who want to communicate, but they seem to be failing. No doubt some of you have experienced the same thing.
Some questions for discussion:
- What are your thoughts generally regarding visual literacy (do you hate the idea, spot on)?
- Why does it appear there are a large number of people struggling to speak visually?
- What can we do to enhance or improve our individual visual literacy?
- How can we help or teach others (presumably we care, or we wouldn't be here)?
- How can you be sure that you aren't just winning a popularity contest, and that you're actually communicating in an effective way?
A couple of recommended videos to watch for background:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KkLBtoTdFo - From Joel Meyerowitz. (Ditto!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O39niAzuapc - Simple background on the topic.
Additional background references:
Please feel free to post any reworks you do of my images. Crop, skew, munge, edit, share.
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
0
Comments
To get our arms around the visual illiteracy is in my experience impossible
There are just too many variables; experiences, cultures and wall colors... yes... wall colors
I question whether a picture has to say something. My threshold is engagement first - after that it's a coin toss.
If I'm happy with an image effort, that's as much satisfaction I expect to get. Anybody else likes it? It's a bonus.
The viewer just may not understand what the photographer has to say and essentially they don't think the same language
My own vanity has me believing I know more than most and a better photographer than average, but I recognize that might not be the case, because it's the viewers call.
There's no easy answer - if there is an answer....
Around the whole thing? I agree. When we look at the entire field of visual language, it is at least as deep as spoken language. I don't have my arms around a fraction of all spoken language, and hardly have a grasp of my native one. However, I do believe it is possible to become a competent speaker of one particular language. That might take some training to do effectively. Documentary photography is an example of one such visual language, perhaps?
Not everything visual needs to have a complex message to be either successful or meaningful. But in the evaluation of visual language you either speak, or don't. Something is always said, but maybe not understood, meant, or realized. The metaphor is simple. If no prior context exists and I say nothing, I mean nothing (context is critical, it is how our brains work). When I speak there is always meaning behind what I say. Even when speaking some kind of ordered jibberish like nonsense poetry, something is shared. I rather think Lomography is a kind of visual Jabberwocky. When you show me any visual image it always communicates something. That might be one word: "Order" or "Color" or "Peace" or "Light." My feeling is that I disagree that photography can ever be devoid of message entirely. I simply think that the complexity of the message can be unintended, implied, confusing, or just plain - boring. Isn't that what engagement implies? Communication?
When we speak of documentary photography the conversation narrows considerably. I rather think that documentary photography should be precisely about saying something. Many of us strive to say something meaningful about humanity. We might choose really complex ideas like "Curiosity," "Love," or "Hate". Turns out that simplifying complex ideas like love are quite difficult. When someone is a 'master' of documentary photography, I think they master the ability to share complex ideas in a simple way.
On the other hand... If one actually wishes to be visually dull and communicate little, there are plenty of flowers and sidewalks that need photographing.
Effort implies intention. What guides your effort if it isn't a connection to something visual and your personal feelings? I rather think that effort is entirely what documentary photography should be and is. You didn't randomly point the camera down the street and press the shutter? Then you intended to say something. If you thought about where and when to use your camera, then you might well be on to saying something meaningful.
The second point about satisfaction of the message is precisely at stake here. If you write a private diary and then burn it a year later unshared, then only your thoughts truly matter. However, if you write a short story and ask others to read it, then you're trying to do something. You are asking others to do something. What is that something you want them to do? Why do it at all if you don't want people to have some kind of experience while reading it? For me, I can only hope people will get the message I'm trying to pass along in my photographs. I hope that they will enjoy it. It doesn't always work, but that shared hope or intention is what brings us all together here. Otherwise, why be here?
These two ideas lead right to the heart of this concept of visual literacy. If your effort and intention matter, then how well you speak the visual language does as well. The viewer's ability to read it is simply paramount to the entire process. If I use collegiate level vocabulary with my 6 year old, she's going to get lost quickly. That's why she can't understand or communicate highly complex ideas. If documentary photography is about sharing complex ideas, then we need readers who have a vocabulary past kindergarten. Once they obtain competency, then we as visual 'writers' better be ready to deliver the goods.
This is a really good point, and I don't know how to respond directly. Perhaps, to your earlier point, visual communication is simply not as universal as Meyerowitz suggested in the linked video. Maybe there are unique dialects. How many are there? Can they be categorized?
Otherwise, the point lays directly at the heart of the 'visual literacy' argument. If there is a universal visual language - and only 10% of people can read it - then by golly let's help the other 90% learn!
You do know more than most. What makes you a better than average photographer is your ability to communicate with others visually, to those who know how to read and understand.
I looked up your posts. You have a picture of a bycicalist you posted last month here: Bicyclists 1 & 2
1 and 2 are nearly communicating the same thing. Perhaps we should have a discussion about that particular photograph in the context of visual literacy. There is no one 'right' way to see the two photographs. Just like there is no one right way to understand a sentence. However, a visually literate person should be able to dissect a visual image in to its parts like a sentence in to nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. Isn't that what real critique is all about? Breaking down sentences, discovering better ways to communicate their meaning, and then learning from it?
I'm sorry, but 'nice shot' just DOES NOT cover it! If that's all you have to say about a photograph then you either didn't look, don't care, are doing a 'shout out,' or are visually illiterate and need to learn. Any of us should be able to write a couple of paragraphs (at least) about those two excellent images you posted. Not that we all can, but that we all should.
Agree.
Your response is really good, and got me thinking... is the current state of visual photographic communication a question of literacy or of message? What I mean is that I often hear two people having a discussion about 'nothing.' Like Seinfeld, but less funny. Consider a discussion regarding something of no real actual value. You might have a conversation about the weeds in your lawn. Generally that's not going to be a conversation that is meaningful to others (unless your have a neighbor like Kramer). I rather think that's what we see on sites like Flickr. A sort of meaningless visual babble of talk for talk's sake.
However, that is what documentary photography is precisely not. Or is it? Now I'm not sure. Should I start uploading pictures of my weedy lawn to see if anyone likes them?
I know it isn't a joke if I have to explain it. I'm just not very good at this whole communication thing. I've spent over an hour writing this reply as a result. However, I hope that you do understand how deeply important I think this topic is, and how grateful I am that you've read and considered the points made.
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
I'm in no position to speak authoritatively about most of the thoughtfully ripe postulations you espouse. I'll admit, though, to a troubling observation about your writings. In your original post, you comment that, in considering some documentary work by a group of individuals, you felt that their efforts " simply didn't ' speak ' or ' say ' anything ". Yet, in a response to Rags, you're adamant that every single photo says something.
Now, you're obviously pretty wrapped up in this whole ' visual communication ' thing. Thank goodness there are those of you that are driven to try and figure it all out. But, when I, as a layman in such matters, see such diametrically opposed viewpoints expressed by a ' student ' of the concepts involved....well, it reinforces my inclination to devote my energies to other matters.
I don't mean to cast dispersions on your musings. I'm afraid, though, if I dwelled too much on such stuff, I might go into ' photo lockdown ' and never take another picture.
Tom
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
I think Tom's comments generally reflect my reaction to the original and follow-up post...
I would add that I perceive an undercurrent of disdain for the work and efforts of others in the online world of photography - you are certainly entitled to your opinion - however, I think you have ignored the distinction
between the professional community and the amateur/enthusiast segments of the online world. If you want to view image postings where every-one is a winner and live-up to your ideal, those sites are out there.
Those efforts should not be confused with a forum such as this one where images are posted (*good* or *bad* - whatever that means) primarily for sharing/feedback/learning purposes.
As you point-out, photography - of every conceivable genre - is ubiquitous, and thankfully there is a cyber-niche for all... the only thing people *should* do, is find their place in the matrix and enjoy the journey.
So, when i get home and have the time (read: kids let me), i tend to shoot flowers, and bugs. And it gives me great pleasure.
Even more, when i shoot, select, edit and share, i get the "good shot" comments.
Another curious thing, i have learned a lot from good criticism and tutorials, but i have also learned a lot just by "reading visually" photos from other photogs.
But i get what you are trying to discuss. that "likes competition and stuff", it's at the same time annoying and satisfying.
Well, sorry if i didn't had much to the conversation, but like many other members, i tend to just keep my head low and shooting my flowers.
All the best,
Sílvio Oliveira
Sílvio Oliveirawww.silviooliveira.net
Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I've been away on a photography trip
http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=966230
If a message is paramount; what's your attitude on altered reality documentary shots to present a message ? (photoshopped)
On the other hand, you may be putting more thought in this than the subject is worth