nope the image would have the same impact if it was korea and the destruction was caused by shellfire - you can see that its US troops because they are pictured... this is my point the picture is powerful in its own right without needing the context explained
The impact is not in question, it's whether the image alone can give the full story, which you seem to insist a good image needs to be able to do. You would have no idea if it was Korea or Vietnam, you'd have no idea if it was shell fire or napalm or even just a forest fire, nor whether it was US troops who deployed it. THAT information HAD to come from words [and even then that's not proof those words are true], and the ONLY reason you can now talk about that image saying so much about the Vietnam war is because you've read news stories that accompany the image, or read about the image's history in books, or online. All the information you insist comes from the image alone, in fact, does not. All the image can possibly tell you is that it's Asia somewhere
[possibly]... it's a conflict
[possibly].. some ordnance has been deployed
[possibly] and some asian civilians are being escorted somewhere by US troops. That's it.
[ In fact, without words, the fact that the US troops are escorting the civilians would probably make you think it was NOT US fire causing the problem]
It HAS to be it the case, because that is all that's contained in the image. Everything else you are talking about has not come from the image at all. It would be impossible.
It is a myth that great imagery needs no words. Nick Ut's image is one of the most powerful photojournalist images of all time, and even THAT needs words to give the story. If great images didn't need words, then newspapers would just be full of images. Of COURSE you need words to give context. To suggest otherwise is clearly wrong. A picture without words is open to interpretation, and it will have as many meanings as there are people to look at it. This is true for ALL images
[assuming there is a meaning to be read].
I'm still groping for understanding here
You (Pookeyhead) said about the fire and pumpkin picture, "The IMPLIED meaning is obvious. The callousness of the fireman choosing a pumpkin while the house burns is obviously speaking of the selfishness of humanity and the duplicity of your fellow man"
I didn't find that obvious at all. To me the picture showed the triumph of the human spirit over adversity - normal life must continue despite disasters. As it turns out we were both wrong, since what we thought we were looking at was false.
Only if you didn't know it was false... however...
Which is why you need words
We're both on the same page... everyone would have realised that the fireman choosing a pumpkin while a house burns was the POINT of the photograph, but how you read that will vary depending on who you are, what your experiences have been, and what your opinions, ideologies and politics are. However, once words anchor the meaning, it's very hard to UNSEE the intended meaning. Images never, ever have one meaning. There are as many meanings as there are people to view them. This idea of an image having one fixed meaning, and that great images need no words is nonsense.
But do our interpretations not say more about our differing views of humanity than about art?
Of course they do. That's the point... this is what makes it art.
And is the artist's interpretation any more valid than the viewer's?
Not at all. You just have to realise that if you want the audience to think something in particular, you're going to need words, because they invariably will not think what you want them to think at all. That doesn't make the image bad, it makes people, people.... we all have led different lives and have different opinions. There's no such thing as one meaning in an image, and if you want to say something, you need to SAY it. Going back to Nick Ut.. the image that's always trotted out in these debates... it still needed words, otherwise you only get a half truth, and you could fill in the blanks how you see fit.
Does it really matter what he is trying to say? It is nice to know the reasons behind the taking of a picture but do they validate the picture as art?
Not really, no. What makes it art is that there IS something to discuss. How many times on here do you look at work and discuss it? I don't mean technically.... I mean actually discuss the image, it's meaning, how it works upon you, what it makes you think, feel... whether you agree with he meaning you have derived from it... how often does THAT happen in these forums? Hardly ever... why is that? Because with a great deal of the images, there's nothing to discuss other than how sharp it is, how well composed it is, it's depth of field etc. Take all that away and there's nothing left for the vast majority of amateur images, and for THAT reason most are not art as we have come to think of it in the post modern era. It may be decorative art... but not much else.
You can SEE what's in the Nick Ut image... but you still don't really know what's going on until you're told.
i'm still waiting for the "explanation" that acompanies the shot David posted - it will be interesting to see if the words add any power or impact to the picture
You'd only say that they don't any way Pete... is there really any point?
