I know we discussed this topic in class, but the more and more I think about it, I still disagree. Let me start from the beginning, Lester said that every visual image has a historical background “story” to it. In Dylan’s blog, he pointed out that there would be no such thing as originality if that were the case. We talked about his blog in class and Professor Lenert analyzed a photo of a rose saying that the photo as simple as it was could be analyzed historically as well.
When I left class yesterday, though, I still had a very difficult time grasping this idea. Last semester in my philoshophy class, we learned about how one of the philosopher’s theories was that every moment is original and that no moment is alike any other. While some photos may relate to the past, I refuse to believe that everything is just a re-creation of the past. Don’t pictures lose their uniqueness if we look at them in this light? Is it EVER possible that someone can make something original then?
Lastly, I do believe in overanalyzation. Someone pointed out Ernest Hemingway’s book The Old Man and the Sea and how Hemingway just intended for it to be about an old man and the sea. When we think too much about things, I think we lose sight of its simple message which could be much, much more powerful than that of what we have convinced ourselves of it being. Sometimes a flower is just a flower and a little girl sleeping is just a little girl sleeping. As much as I see the rationalization of Lenert’s purpose of creating six steps in analyzing a photo, I do think that they can potentially hurt the photographer’s intent of the photo. Some things are so simple and can not be explained. Personally, I think the mystery that is captured in a photo is what makes it so beautiful and so meaningful. The fact that sometimes you can not make sense of something that you are seeing is the essence/purpose of the photo. I think the best photographers are those that do not make you think, but instead make you feel. When we make things complicated and refuse to accept the fact that we can not know everything, we lose sight of the beauty in not knowing – something the photographer may have been trying to get at. Sometimes, I think, all you need is step one to “get” it. Bringing in all these other steps proves to me that people like to make things complicated. In doing so, I think they do themselves a disservice because they may just clear “hidden” message.
Essential six steps? Totally questionable.
Wow! Nicely put! I like that you to the side of living in the moment, taking a photo for what its worth, and not overcomplicating the subject. I understand that looking at pictures and being able to break them down is essential for a jouralist to create, but sometimes getting caught up in the process makes the picture complicated. Just admiring a rose because it is beautiful is not always a bad thing.
In response to your question relative to the time at which the photo of my friend and I snowshoeing was taken: the photo was taken at about 3pm. The extreme blue of the sky is likely a biproduct of the elevation (~9,100 feet) rather than the time of day. Keep in mind this was also taken before daylight savings time took affect this spring.