Does context matter in photography?...

specialman

specialman

Messages
8,193
Name
Pat MacInnes
Edit My Images
Yes
After flicking through photography books and online image galleries (flickr, TP etc) I've had to do a bit of exploring as to how I, as a viewer AND a photographer, like to appreciate my photography; in general terms, I know I'm not into nudes and bizarre fine art (Koontz, Sherman etc), but I appreciate a general spread of photographic disciplines.

However, going deeper into the viewing experience than just going on what I see - and this was compounded by recent posts in the image sharing sections and especially the POTY competition - I've noticed that many people on TP (and probably other online sharing sites) don't carry much in the way of contextual information to present their images with.

Although, not everything I shoot needs explaining (a sentiment that probably echoes with many people), I do feel more enlightened as both a viewer and a photographer when images I view (and shoot) are presented with accompanying information that gives reason, emotion and information on the why's and how's of the shot - contextual information I suppose is the all-encompassing term.

Referring back to the POTY section, it always amazes me how few people actually carry any supporting information with their photography. There are some bizarre photos to accompany the equally bizarre monthly topics and more often than not, it leaves me asking questions that can't be answered because the images are left to speak for themselves, a system that doesn't always work. I like images to shout out to me visually, but I also like to know what the photographer was thinking or how they were influenced in the moments leading up to the photograph being taken. I know a wedding shoot (as an example) is quite clear-cut - B&G want shots, photographer takes them - but when shots are being taken to illustrate a theme (such as in the POTY), especially one that relies on vague translation of an ambiguous theme, I'm often left scratching my head.

Does anyone else feel that with more photographers creating more material, the viewer is the one who is being expected to do the work of translating the visual information they're receiving, or that there should be some hint to the motives of that work, a link between viewer and artist that is then dissected by the viewer into the message they want?

This isn't a dig at photographers who purely shoot for the love of shooting, but I have always appreciated a photograph (and photographer) more when the visual message is accompanied by the personal thoughts of the person behind the lens....
 
Last edited:
I agree completely with what you're saying. It probably explains why I find photojournalism quite so fascinating - because photojournalism by it's nature documents a story and is readily accompanied by some descriptive text of the events taking place.
 
Doesn't the surrounding of the subject provide context?

I guess it depends on what you want out of a photograph. If you want to conjure emotion and feeling I think that you cannot achieve this without some kind of context within the photograph, but if you mean should a tome have to be written about a photograph for it to be appreciated? No, definitely not!

This is just my personal opinion, but I do think that a photograph should be able to stand for itself without any explanation.
 
If it is A body of work then absolutely some form of context is needed to help the viewer join the the images together but for single images it could be said that the image has failed if you need to add text to explain intentions.

I think it can be quite a mine field to add text to a photo as this might completely change the viewers initial take on the image and sometimes the text can be better than the image.

I don't think that any amount of text could make a bad image ... good.

Photojournalism is a completely different area where photos are often taken to complement the story and further enhance the readers understanding.
 
One of the things that frustrates me as a photographer are the images/exhibitions where it appears that the photographer has spent 5 minutes thinking of an idea, about 5 seconds in taking the shot but spent 2 hours writing two sides of A4 text to explain the picture.

I've seen several like this and it appears to be getting taught that way in certain courses.

Personally I think a picture should be able to stand on it's own. Fleshing in some details adds to the interest, as in the case of the recent Guardian item on war photographers, but the photos still stand on their own.

"There is one thing the photograph must contain, the humanity of the moment."
 
I just take pictures that I think look nice. They don't need any more explanation that that.

I get quite irked when reading photography magazines in the readers image sections where people babble on about the emotion of rays dancing through the trees and gentle glistening of the leaves portrays the freedom of life.

Just say how you took it.. That's all we need to know!

I agree about sets though. They often do need some form of text to bind the individual images together.
 
If you have to explain a photograph it has failed as a photograph. Which is not to say that they must not be 'explained', rather that the explanation ought to come after the image has been viewed.

It's akin to having a joke explained to you if you don't 'get it' first time round.

Knowing the 'back story' to an image can be interesting, can add to it, but can also detract. Does a powerful image you believed to have been captured un-posed become less powerful when you discover it had been staged?
 
Ed Sutton said:
If you have to explain a photograph it has failed as a photograph. Which is not to say that they must not be 'explained', rather that the explanation ought to come after the image has been viewed.

It's akin to having a joke explained to you if you don't 'get it' first time round.

Knowing the 'back story' to an image can be interesting, can add to it, but can also detract. Does a powerful image you believed to have been captured un-posed become less powerful when you discover it had been staged?
Click to expand...

Interesting thoughts there and very pertinent points.

My take is that the information is always secondary, but in many case, without that information the viewer is left asking questions that cannot be answered, which in turn leaves them disappointed. However, explaining the photographer's motives is different to explaining the photograph, and I think that is something that can sit with equal importance alongside the shot.

I also agree about finding out the truth; sometimes it can be an anti-climax, learning that something has been cheated or faked to achieve the shot - the jumping wolf is probably one of the most notable of recent times because although it was a great image IMO, for may people it betrayed how it was initially presented which in turn soured the image's impact.
 
Last edited:
Photography is a very special kind of image making. In fact it can be multiple kinds of image making simultaneously. Meaning/effect can alter dependant upon the context in which they are viewed and with the passage of time.

Take McCurry's Afghan Girl. In it's original context as photojournalism it had one impact on the viewer. With the passage of time and it's subsequent ubiquity it has become something else. Something other than photojournalism.

It's effect when printed small in a book, or viewed on a screen, is different to that which it exerts when printed large and displayed in a gallery. Viewed as an individual image it appears different to how it does alongside other works by the same or other photographers. Viewed large on a wall by someone with no knowledge of it's history it could be purely decorative.

Such is the nature of photography.

Given that anyone with a camera can take a truly great photograph purely by chance, a fact decried by some photographers but a fact nonetheless, knowing the context of an image's making comes to be largely irrelevant in my eyes. Photographs are either good, bad, or indifferent. And that very much depends upon the eye of the beholder.

Just a few quick thoughts on a subject worthy of in depth examination. There's a dissertation in this for some keen student!
 
Surely the requirement for a narrative associated with a photograph is dependant on the target audience and their understanding of photography. For example, before I took an interest in street photography I just didn't get most of it. Now that I know what to look for I derive massive enjoyment from those very same photographs that bored me before. As someone new to the scene I needed that description to help me enjoy the messages and stories in those photographs as they are not always obvious. Now as someone with a little more understanding the description detracts from the photographs as I want to seek out and discover the story myself! The photo never changed, I did. It is unfair to say that a photo should stand up without a description. Stand up to whom? You? Me? My wife who never even picked up a camera? Surely that is for the photographer to decide and then they will describe their photo in as much or little details as they feel necessary.
 
Not unfair Id say, a reasonable criticism and opinion. Essentially id want the viewer to understand what they are looking at context wise, whether they appreciate the reasons for ist capture isn't so important but I would try and inform them visually, so that they could understand the full context of the moment.

Ed Sutton said:
Take McCurry's Afghan Girl. ....
Click to expand...

The thing that make McCurry’s Afgan Girl so fab for me s that it doesn’t need any more context than it already has in abundance and nailed.

The detail of its taking are in someway irrelevant. It could be any war, she wearing any clothes, ….but that look in her eyes would still tell the same story.

She’s also stunningly beautiful even with that expression in her eyes. ..That beauty is important context because it also a world wide leveller, racism is forgotten momentarily, religious beliefs put aside, she is accepted by all as beautiful ..first big hurled completed and now we want to learn her story, in essence we have trouble ignoring her very excellent human qualities (good story start context) and especially so with that look on her face.(final actual context)

I think photography is all about capturing context as fittingly as ones able, whether that be beauty or documentary...A photo lacking in context isn’t as easy to relate to..
 
Last edited:
Forbiddenbiker said:
The thing that make McCurry’s Afgan Girl so fab for me s that it doesn’t need any more context than it already has in abundance and nailed.

The detail of its taking are in someway irrelevant. It could be any war, she wearing any clothes, ….but that look in her eyes would still tell the same story.
Click to expand...
All that's true Adam - the image speaks volumes. There is however a story associated with it which makes interesting reading. Whether it adds anything to the impact of the original image is another matter.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2002/04/afghan-girl/index-text
 
Some people enjoy just looking at photographs, judging the image by just aesthetics and some people enjoy reading photographs, which is where context comes in. When reading photographs I think its important to think where, when and by whom the photograph was made. This puts the photograph in context and to me makes the photograph infinitely more interesting than just a stunningly 'captured' photographs.

An example would be National Geographic images which I find so terribly empty most of the time because there is nothing behind them. Another example would be the photographs of the very talented Joey L, taking perfect cinematic photographs of what could be an interesting nation and reducing it to a Merceded ad campaign.


It's a lengthy but great topic SpecialMan!:)
 
CT said:
All that's true Adam - the image speaks volumes. There is however a story associated with it which makes interesting reading. Whether it adds anything to the impact of the original image is another matter.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2002/04/afghan-girl/index-text
Click to expand...

Reading that gave me shivers. I can't tell you why, but there's something about a story and an image that offers so much more to me than an image by itself, although of course an image as remarkable as the Afghan Girl speaks volumes in isolation.

I suppose another part is the human aspect. Pictures of human strife will always hit me far deeper than a photography of an animal because it evokes an empathy that I can't gain from other subjects. Also, an inevitability of human strife is it's going to be a complex story which can be represented in a single image, but the full story can rarely be conveyed.

As others have said, it's a great topic for discussion.
 
CT said:
All that's true Adam - the image speaks volumes. There is however a story associated with it which makes interesting reading. Whether it adds anything to the impact of the original image is another matter.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2002/04/afghan-girl/index-text
Click to expand...


No however about it mate (y) ...Thats is the qestion. ...what do you think?

It makes for publicly would be cynical I suppose, as the photographer clearly and honestly admits he couldn’t tell if that shot was any better than any other that day, so I’m assuming it wasn't until he viewed it again closely that he'd realised he'd shot a belter.

So its a nice fanciful story but it makes no difference to the emotional impact of his photograph for me. His honestly has made any attempt to the otherwise as irrelevant anyway I’d have thought.
Yes its interesting information about him and photojournalism But it still leaves the question can this shot can stand on its own, with out words, to everyone everywhere?

And is that all down to its in image context? ...I think it does.
 
Last edited:
The viewer often projets thier own interpretation onto the artists / photographers work, this leads to many diffent views of the work all equally valid. A written definition of what the photographer / artist had in mind doent invalidate the other views of it.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
No however about it mate (y) ...Thats is the qestion. ...what do you think?

It makes for publicly would be cynical I suppose, as the photographer clearly and honestly admits he couldn’t tell if that shot was any better than any other that day, so I’m assuming it wasn't until he viewed it again closely that he'd realised he'd shot a belter.

So its a nice fanciful story but it makes no difference to the emotional impact of his photograph for me. His honestly has made any attempt to the otherwise as irrelevant anyway I’d have thought.
Yes its interesting information about him and photojournalism But it still leaves the question can this shot can stand on its own, with out words, to everyone everywhere?

And is that all down to its in image context? ...I think it does.
Click to expand...

The shot stands on it's own for me - never needed the words anyway. :shrug:
 
If you have to explain your photo, it's not a good photo.
 
Context/explanation is important IMHO. A good example of what I mean is there are a lot of photographs of the penguin that ended up in New Zealand some of them are very good as actual photographs but they have more impact when you know they were taken on a beach in New Zealand not in Antarctica.
 
I think it depends on the subject of a photograph whether it needs the photographer's explanation/intention behind the image. Take for example a landscape/seascape/still life photograph, i feel these need no explanation as they are what they are, not record shots as such but what you see is what you get.

Once there is an introduction of a living subject, then perhaps the photographer can inject a little more explanation to put the image in context. Where, when and perhaps most importantly why they took the photograph.

On the flipside to this, I went to a photography exhibition just a couple of weeks ago in London, i will say no more than that as I didn't think the images were anything special so won't mention the photographer/gallery. This photographers work was accompanied by some text to put the images in context but I was left feeling that the explanation read more as an excuse for example, one set of images were completely over exposed to the point they were almost all white/light grey. The text said this was to really make the viewer investigate what they were looking at! Maybe i just didn't 'get it'.

Some images speak for themselves, eg McCurrys Afghan Girl others it is good to see a bit of contextual direction. All IMHO
 
My view would be that the only time the artist's intention should accompany the image is for the purposes of critique 'I was trying for this, did it work?' and even then only as a secondary response, as the raw unguided initial reaction of the viewer should give the strongest indication of success. The whole purpose of the image is to capture and portray that intention, if supporting text is required it's merely papering over the image's weaknesses.

I believe that 'factual' information is of value to support an image; it can speak of an image's authenticity and helps to 'ground' an image where it may otherwise be generic or abstract ('nice landscape' v 'nice landscape, the Scottish highlands are really beautiful'), adding information that may well not be read from the image otherwise.

Even then all that 'context' merely gives the image more value as a record of something, rather than increasing it's inherent artistic quality (whatever they are/that means! :)).
 
Last year I attended Mccurrys exhibition and was able to see the `Afghan Girl` picture `in the flesh` so to speak and one thing that did strike me that although a striking portrait of a very beautiful young girl no environmental information (apart from the clothes she`s wearing) is given and without the back story it would be just a picture of a girl who is frightened or startled (maybe by the photographer ) and could have been taken in any number of places where those type of clothes are common place and in a peaceful country.

I don`t think for one minute that the picture by it`s self would make me think of war or oppression.

I think it was a great piece of editorial work to associate this image with the war in Afghanistan... a bit like showing a childs teddy bear or toy in the rubble of a bombed building.
 
Last edited:
Alan Clogwyn said:
If you have to explain your photo, it's not a good photo.
Click to expand...

It's not plain explanation, it's context; additional information that helps the viewer understand the image further on another level from just the aesthetics....

I understand what some folks are saying, that first-and-foremost the image the image must speak for itself. A shot of a two Le Mans cars whizzing past, side-by-side is a shot of two cars - if it's your thing then great, but to many it will just appear to be just cars on a track. But that image may have importance; it may be documenting the last lap of a record-breaking race between two rival teams, or it could be the last image of a driver before his untimely demise at the hands of the other. Or it could just be a snapshot of a race, plain and simple.

What I'm getting at is that all too often, we see images presented to us that we are expected to take on face value. Sometimes that's fine - some images are unique without the backstory and can remain wonderful with no accompanying information - but in many cases, it's the photographer's responsibility to the viewer to give an account of what their motives were by pressing the shutter, what the photograph means culturally, and how it captures a specific moment in history.
 
Art v Realism , its a very old debate that most are alluding too, is an out of focus shot of a teenage girls hand simply that or a view of the precarious hold on life of the artist at that time ? Doesnt matter if there is a nice explanation at the side different people will still view it either way no matter what.
 
specialman said:
It's not plain explanation, it's context; additional information that helps the viewer understand the image further on another level from just the aesthetics....

I understand what some folks are saying, that first-and-foremost the image the image must speak for itself. A shot of a two Le Mans cars whizzing past, side-by-side is a shot of two cars - if it's your thing then great, but to many it will just appear to be just cars on a track. But that image may have importance; it may be documenting the last lap of a record-breaking race between two rival teams, or it could be the last image of a driver before his untimely demise at the hands of the other. Or it could just be a snapshot of a race, plain and simple.

What I'm getting at is that all too often, we see images presented to us that we are expected to take on face value. Sometimes that's fine - some images are unique without the backstory and can remain wonderful with no accompanying information - but in many cases, it's the photographer's responsibility to the viewer to give an account of what their motives were by pressing the shutter, what the photograph means culturally, and how it captures a specific moment in history.
Click to expand...

Call it what you want but once it's on the wall in a frame it has no caption or commentary and must stand on it's own merit.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Call it what you want but once it's on the wall in a frame it has no caption or commentary and must stand on it's own merit.
Click to expand...

And what about those photographs that are hung with an explanatory note beside them?

Tbh it all comes down to whether you like Jackson Pollock or not - and no that isn't a euphemism.
 
In documentary type photography, context is hugely important. To say that a photograph that requires an explanation has failed is in my opinion somewhat off the mark, as it depends on what the intent of the photograph is. Not all photographs are snap shots of your kids at a party, or of a beautiful landscape. Sometimes a photograph should be appreciated for what it is about, rather than what it simply depicts, and that may require some degree of explanaion. Photographs, indeed any kind of visual art can be enjoyed at several different levels, and not just the aesthetic, a bit like music.

The majority of my urban exploration photography is documentary style and you can look at them in a literal sense and say - derelict buildings, ugly and boring, and you'd be entitled to your opinion. But if you look more closely, or read on my website about why I do it (which is often why people have a statement of intent, such as for galleries, Degree course projects, ARPS / FRPS distinctions) then you understand the context of why I take them, and they start to have a bit more meaning. And that's the crux of it - the intent and meaning of a photograph may not always be obvious at first or even second glance, and may require a statement of intent, a verbal explanation or accompanying photographs to make a bit more sense.

Of course, some fine art stuff is so completely impenetrable that even with all this it's still a load of nonsense........
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Its frustrating when the context of the thread title isn’t accurate also..but exasperating as that is I don’t think we should smear photographs true potential as a lead story teller, and ask it not to be taken on face value when that ‘s really the main motive!
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean there :)

Alan Clogwyn said:
Call it what you want but once it's on the wall in a frame it has no caption or commentary and must stand on it's own merit.
Click to expand...

I'm not calling it what I want, merely giving examples - regardless of the presentation format (hung print, online gallery, in a book) there is always the opportunity to inform the viewer if, in the beginning, the shot was taken within a context that can affect the final outcome and how it can ultimately be perceived.

Tioc said:
Art v Realism , its a very old debate that most are alluding too, is an out of focus shot of a teenage girls hand simply that or a view of the precarious hold on life of the artist at that time ? Doesnt matter if there is a nice explanation at the side different people will still view it either way no matter what.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is that debate, and quite possbly, the viewer will take their own view away, but not in all cases I feel....

Viewfromthenorth - pretty much sums up what I am trying to get across - alas, i'm not so eloquent :LOL:
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Does anyone else feel that with more photographers creating more material, the viewer is the one who is being expected to do the work of translating the visual information they're receiving, or that there should be some hint to the motives of that work, a link between viewer and artist that is then dissected by the viewer into the message they want?
Click to expand...

Very interesting subject.

When I first read your OP I was of the opinion that photos should be able to stand up for themselves, after all "a picture speaks a thousand words", why do we need another ten or so?

Then I read some of the responses, especially in relation to the Afghan girl, and also recalled a photo I posted on here. So now I'm of the opinion that the balance of tog explanation/ viewer interpretation should be guided by the audience you are showing the image to.

For instance: The images of the current conflict in Libya, if shown to fellow togs out there shooting the same sort of stuff then no explanation is needed. When shown to the public back here it would need to be accompanied by something as simple as "From the current conflict in Libya".

In ten or twenty years time if being shown to students then a more detailed explanation may be required and perhaps the same photos would be seen in a completely different context, dependent on the result perhaps?

Just my tuppence...thanks for making me think!:thinking:
 
Wookee - I really like what you're getting at; over time the amount of contextual info may have to be increased as the proximity to the events diminishes... very, very interesting concept.

Maybe it's already happening and why certain photographs grow in cultural importance because of the after-effects and repurcussions from the said event. If that is the case maybe we are only just reaching the point where the image is now static in its momentum - photography, after all (compared to the other 'arts' anyway) is still in its infancy and it's only over recent decades that shots from the first 50 years of the 20th century have become ingrained in our culture.... :)
 
specialman said:
Wookee - I really like what you're getting at; over time the amount of contextual info may have to be increased as the proximity to the events diminishes... very, very interesting concept.

Maybe it's already happening and why certain photographs grow in cultural importance because of the after-effects and repurcussions from the said event. If that is the case maybe we are only just reaching the point where the image is now static in its momentum - photography, after all (compared to the other 'arts' anyway) is still in its infancy and it's only over recent decades that shots from the first 50 years of the 20th century have become ingrained in our culture.... :)
Click to expand...

It's a very important concept when looking at any artwork and it definitely has already happened. There is an african-american photographer who in the nineties took images that were taken in the 1890's of daguerrotypes of african-american slave plantation workers naked, who were being forced to pose for the camera. The interesting thing was these images would have been perfectly acceptable at the time but now looking at them with the new context and history we know it gives them a whole new meaning.

There are loads of other examples, Mapplethorpe being a good example. There isnt much odd about an interracial gay couple being photographed sexually but at the time it was controversial.

It is going to be very interesting to see what our images represent 6p years from now!:)
 
For most people the vast majority of paintings ever made have lost their original meanings. Yet they can still be appreciated as paintings. So it will be with photographs.

Essentially all photos are merely representations of what was in front of the lens at the time the exposure was made, and will ultimately stand or fall on their merits as images.

Think how the Mona Lisa is viewed now and how the Afghan Girl might come to be viewed. As an aside they are two very similar images (if you flip one horizontally) - which gives a resonance between the two (for those who look for such things).
 
Pat. I referred to the little because I took it literally, context within photography, not context of a photograph revealed by some words of explanation. .

Obviously the simple fact that if you add contextual information to something it becomes more interesting and less confusing is a known not a concept...although I do like the way you all write about it.

What I thought we might be discussing is the importance of context within a photograph.

:)
 
Thanks all for the replies - interesting viewpoints. Maybe a few more will get involved and share their thoughts :)
 
Thanks for starting the thread. Much more interesting than 'is my lens back focusing?' :D
 
As Luke said, "a picture speaks a thousand words". But different people, asked to explain a photograph, will use a different thousand words. Steve McCurry can tell us what Afghan Girl means to him; to me as a viewer who's never been to Afghanistan and never seen what McCurry has seen, the picture means something else; to the Afghani family who lived next door, it means something else again from their point of view. Photos aren't just taken in a specific context, they're viewed in a specfic context - potentially millions of specific contexts, depending on the number of viewers.

It's said another way: "Every picture tells a story." But it's not just a different story for each viewer. If you've ever tried serious people-watching, carefully looking at someone and watching what they do, what they wear, how they move, and so on, and then trying to guess what their life is like, you'll know that there are several potential stories for each viewer. "He looks as if he must be single." "She wears cheap clothes and probably doesn't have a job." "That lot behave as if they're friends, but look at the sideways glances she is giving him." Or did we get it wrong? "Oh, but he's wearing a ring." "Maybe she works in a supermarket for low wages". "They're probably just work mates." And so it goes...

Pat, I notice that you usually give a good context to anyone viewing your Flickr stream. If only everyone thought about doing so. I'm as guilty of not doing that as anyone else. I shoot a lot of street, and especially candid street portraits, and I usually try to supply just enough context to keep the viewer thinking about the photograph rather than moving on straight away. I don't know if I achieve this. But I also shoot a lot of events - fairs, festivals, public celebrations, etc - and I just tend to title them as, for example, "GDIF 2011 - 01" with a caption like "Taken at the Greenwich & Docklands International Festival..." etc. Just enough context for people to know where they were shot but not much else. It's a time-consuming job to describe each of 40-50 shots in detail.

Thanks for starting such an interesting and intelligent discussion of one of the major themes in photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top