Concepts On communication and meaning

[sirch]

Something I have been thinking about for quite a long time and this video which popped up on my tubes precipitated a few thoughts

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoY2o8c5l7c&t=746s



In the video he suggests "words" that make up the language of photography and nothing about it is, for me at least, either unexpected or new. Looking at the images he shows as examples they are good photos, attention getting, classic, canonical and I would be happy to have some of them on my wall but I often find that photos I want to take do not use this language. I could learn that language, in fact I am fairly fluent in it already and take photos like that but then I feel the photos would not be expressing the meaning I see in the world, they would be photos taken for their own sake rather than as something that has meaning to me.

The challenge is I suppose to find more words in this language if they exist, or perhaps they don't and photography is too limited as a medium for me to express what I want? Perhaps I speak a different language altogether and it is a language that only I understand but that is obviously not the case, perhaps that is better stated as a language most of which people can understand but a few words that people don't know, or a strong dialect where people can get the gist but not the nuance.

Is there a balance to be struck? Is the process to lead people into understanding by starting with the common language and slowly introducing new "words" (I'm feeling that I have done that term to death by now) to move the dial from where people are now to where I am. I doubt that is going to happen, I don't have the people skills to get people to take an interest in the first place let alone build a following. I'm sure one response is to do one's own thing, ignore what everyone else thinks and just plough on, which is an option but I think photos should be seen. I am very conscious of the thoughts I have when people show photos that are just utterly meaningless to me and also have no decorative value.

I have no conclusion to this ramble, just muttering into the void but I would like to hear what others think, do you feel that leading lines, reduced colour palette, simplified shapes, soft light convey the meaning you want in your photos?

 

[droj]

As an opportunistic photographer, I wouldn't think in terms of words when actually photographing. Since it's a visual medium, I let my eyes do the thinking - or feeling, - as part of a live, fluid process. I think it's reasonable to search for words though if you're trying to explain photographs to another person.

 

[droj]

It is possible for a photograph to communicate a 'look', but with very little substance behind that look. That's what I call 'aesthetic' photography in its purest form, though there's crossover into other genres such as landscape.

I do like to enquire of a photograph what might be being communicated and how, even if it's often an affair of guesswork. As a practitioner I might hope that my intent for a given image speaks through it to the odd viewer ... but the attention of most viewers is fairly cursory, I fear.

Not everyone has the vocabulary of thought to discuss visual work, though they might be able to 'read' it to some extent without analysis. They might more readily comprehend what is portrayed, if its recognisable, than the full merits of the image itself.

 

[sirch]

He is using the term "word" in the metaphorical context of a visual language and I was extending that metaphor, perhaps stretching it a little too far, but I suppose in a nutshell my concern is that people are used to seeing a limited set of photographic styles and subjects - the language - and anything that moves too far from those expectations is just gobbledygook and so the viewer doesn't even attempt to consider that there might be meaning and intent behind it.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

There is the powerful photograph that has impact and gets its message across instantly, and then there is the powerful photograph that draws you in, to such an affect that you spned longer with it, can't remove your eyes from it, you can return to it and see more depth, it moves you.

Most of the video (IMO) was about the former, only the Bill Brandt shot and the Mill shot would have held my interest more than a quick glance. These are very different shots to the rest presented.

 

[Harlequin565]

Interesting he used one of Weston's images when the man himself said: "To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravity before going for a walk. Such rules and laws are deduced from the accomplished fact; they are the products of reflection."

Which Phil V translated more simply to "As someone else posted; the rules exist because they were discovered in successful images not the other way round." (sauce)

I think using these "products of reflection" to create your own images is a bit like using stabilisers on a bike. They are really useful to begin with but as you become familiar with them, you need to move beyond them. A bit like learning basic grammar, and then going on to write a novel. I think TPE is trying to fill the "why" take photos void rather than the millions of "how" videos on YouTube and it's a big subject and difficult to communicate.

Is there a balance to be struck? Is the process to lead people into understanding by starting with the common language and slowly introducing new "words" (I'm feeling that I have done that term to death by now) to move the dial from where people are now to where I am.

It's not so much balance as progression (IMO of course!). To continue the writer analogy - you start by learning basic words, then you learn grammar and how to construct sentences. Getting from there to a fully finished novel is a massive hurdle. How many people who can write well ever finish a novel - and how many get published?

And then there's the rest of your post about engagement. Being able to write a novel is one thing. But to write a novel others will buy? Or even like? If you swap the word "novel" to "poem" (which is arguably closer to a single photo) the hurdle isn't as high. Also, there are many poems that use terrible grammar and yet are still great poems.

I'm sure one response is to do one's own thing, ignore what everyone else thinks and just plough on, which is an option but I think photos should be seen. I am very conscious of the thoughts I have when people show photos that are just utterly meaningless to me and also have no decorative value.

This is a difficult one. I take pictures for me. If I take a picture I think someone else will like, I may post it, but on the whole I have no real desire to "show" my work. It's just not that interesting to other people and when they tell me that - they're telling me something I already know! Vivian Maier fascinates me because she literally took photos for herself with zero interest in showing her work anywhere & I completely identify with that. I wonder if she lived today whether she would have an Instagram account and I severely doubt it.

 

[Ed Sutton]

...do you feel that leading lines, reduced colour palette, simplified shapes, soft light convey the meaning you want in your photos?

I have no idea how other people read my photographs. I never think about any of the compositional 'tricks' when framing shots, but I certainly employ them. I don't think you can use these techniques to make engaging photographs. The whole frame has to be thought about. There was a tutorial thing on DPReview which used the old lines and shapes on a picture to explain why a picture 'worked'. The trouble was some didn't work because the photographer had concentrated on the lines and shapes and neglected the other parts of the frame. They were what I call 'one liner' pictures anyway, the sort that you think 'nice shot', or 'clever shot', when you see it then move on. There's no meaning beyond the tricks used.

Vivian Maier fascinates me because she literally took photos for herself with zero interest in showing her work anywhere & I completely identify with that. I wonder if she lived today whether she would have an Instagram account and I severely doubt it.

Being an arch cynic I don't buy into the whole VM story. She wasn't the naive photographer some assume. She knew what had gone on and was going on in photography. I'm more inclined to think that had she been offered a chance to show or publish her photos she'd have taken it. But they aren't, and weren't at the time, original enough to interest galleries or publishers. It's only the back story (and the nostalgia effect) that has made them such a phenomenon. Had the pics been discovered before the internet would there have been such a fuss, and industry, created around VM's pictures?

Maybe the new book about her would change my mind, but I doubt I'll read it now.

Anyone fancy a cheap copy of the first book of her pics?

 

[Harlequin565]

Maybe the new book about her would change my mind, but I doubt I'll read it now.

Anyone fancy a cheap copy of the first book of her pics?

There's a documentary on Amazon (if you have Prime) "Finding Vivian Maier" in which they interview quite a lot of people she was in contact with. That's where my judgement came from.

Which book is it? If I don't have it, I'll take it

 

[droj]

people are used to seeing a limited set of photographic styles and subjects - the language - and anything that moves too far from those expectations is just gobbledygook and so the viewer doesn't even attempt to consider that there might be meaning and intent behind it.

We are continually immersed in a glut of images - some still, some moving - provided by film, tv, print & digital media. There can be a subliminal effect but I don't think that the 'average' viewer reflects on the specific qualities of each image.

The practitioner (such as we are) has more cause to reflect on the nature of images and how we engage with them (or not). Not that you need be a photographer to appreciate photographs, though!

From the beginning, if one has any gift of self enquiry, one makes an image and reflects on what has been produced. That process of engagement might be halting and uneven at first. But the world is also full of images by others to explore. And this is how we learn more of the language - by feeling and analysis (heart and brain).

I feel that to keep images to oneself is a bit hermetic (or hermitic), and their purpose expands if shared. But once an image is released, we relinquish governance of it - it's out in the rough and tumble. At least if someone buys a print, I assume that they resonate with something in it, but what that something is I can only guess, usually.

Communication though is the name of the game.

Regarding visual art, many people tend to see surface and not beyond. To me there's a kind of tragedy in this, but it's how things are. Luckily, the same people may have lives that are full and fulfilling! But if you tour an art gallery, say, with someone who 'sees', you may sense that their reaction to a work parallels your own, perhaps just from body language and a murmured sound.

We are all human, and there is communication to be had between us, hearteningly, outside the widespread realms of greed and profit.

Phew!

 

[Harlequin565]

I feel that to keep images to oneself is a bit hermetic (or hermitic)

I had to look up hermitic and it's really interesting because my wife walked into my office one day and saw what I'd chosen to put on the wall (as opposed to what she will have on the wall elsewhere in the house). Her words - "They're all very lonely don't you think?"

Edit to add: I think I now have a title for my next zine Thanks Droj!

 

[sirch]

I saw the Vivian Maier film, may be on Youtube, I don't have prime and she was certainly an unusual character, I wonder if she had been male shooting the sort of things that men appreciated at the time she might have been more highly regarded? And frankly Weston can come-off-it if that is what he said, it might have been second nature to him because of a wealth of experience but you only have to look at his photos to see that every aspect is considered, there is even a Weston developer formula.

Anyway that's getting a bit off topic.

I didn't get the impression that the video was talking about "rules" and I am certainly not talking about rules or some formula, in fact quite the opposite. A very large number of people like to watch soap operas which as far as I can tell basically just repeat essentially the same story over and over, people have relationships. fights, make up and then fall out again. There may be a lot of hullabaloo when the soaps do something very daring such as introducing a disabled or gay character but then that character just ends up in the same pantomime story. However by introducing, say, a gay character, the soap has moved the dial a little bit. For me the question is if I start with the familiar of sharp, dramatic, leading lines, etc. can I move the dial to bring people along and by how much can I move the dial each time?

Communication though is the name of the game.

Exactly! but if I only speak Mandarin and you only speak English how do we begin? I guess what am I trying to do is calibrate an approach that allows me to keep people engaged whilst delivering things that I want to deliver rather than what they want to see. Or to refine that somewhat, to put what I want to deliver in amongst things that people like to see, a bit like a parent sneaking vegetables into a childs meal. Or to build a bridge from where people are now to where I would like them to look

 

[sirch]

There can be a subliminal effect but I don't think that the 'average' viewer reflects on the specific qualities of each image.

I guess it is that effect that I am going for, the hook to make people start looking in the first place rather than passing by because nothing about the image engages them.

 

[sirch]

I think it is also worth adding that I am not trying to engage everyone, or even a mass audience, just maybe a handful of people. In the words of Stewart Lee "just me and a roomful of broadsheet journalists"

 

[droj]

For me the question is if I start with the familiar of sharp, dramatic, leading lines, etc. can I move the dial to bring people along and by how much can I move the dial each time?

Exactly! but if I only speak Mandarin and you only speak English how do we begin? I guess what am I trying to do is calibrate an approach that allows me to keep people engaged whilst delivering things that I want to deliver rather than what they want to see. Or to refine that somewhat, to put what I want to deliver in amongst things that people like to see, a bit like a parent sneaking vegetables into a childs meal. Or to build a bridge from where people are now to where I would like them to look

I think the answer is to revert to the beginning, not overtly consider what anybody else might think, and make images just for you. The whole initial dialogue about my images is with myself. Attempts at sharing come later.

So content, language used and the form of the image, in the beginning are just for me. An audience is far from my mind. I'm just doing something I like to do. It's an indulgence.

Once an image satisfies me somehow and I consider it mature enough to share, then I may share it. (It doesn't have to be highly polished - that's not my style.)

The viewer wouldn't normally have been present when the shutter was pressed, or even seen material, place or person that are in the image. But one might consider what's in the image that's transmissible.

It's necessary to be self-sufficient because reactions can be hard to come by. I interrogate myself mercilessly about what I've done, and self doubt is a part of that. But sometimes I just enjoy what I've done. I did it for me. It works.

 

[sirch]

not overtly consider what anybody else might think, and make images just for you

I'm sure one response is to do one's own thing, ignore what everyone else thinks and just plough on, which is an option but I think photos should be seen.

I think the answer is to revert to the beginning

I do too but I am thinking about reverting to the viewer's beginning rather than mine.

To expand on this, I occasionally show my photos to other photographers and at those events I see the work of others* which is often engaging, impressive, expressive, emotive, enjoyable. By contrast my work, which in isolation I thought was good, looks dull, drab, boring. If there are things that I can do to elevate my photography so that people can engage with it without losing my original visions then surely that is a good thing? A bit like wearing a suit to a job interview, it doesn't change my ability to do the job or who I am but could make the difference.

* this is not the usual run-of-the-mill stuff, it can be quite challenging, complex, etc.

 

[Ed Sutton]

There's a documentary on Amazon (if you have Prime) "Finding Vivian Maier" in which they interview quite a lot of people she was in contact with. That's where my judgement came from.

Which book is it? If I don't have it, I'll take it

I've seen the film. As I said, I'm a cynic.

This is the book I have: https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1576875776/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_image?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

[myotis]

Something I have been thinking about for quite a long time and this video which popped up on my tubes precipitated a few thoughts

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoY2o8c5l7c&t=746s

There seems a lot to un pick here, and not sure how well I've done it, but...

I think the video is only suggesting "some" words that describe "some" aspects of the design elements relevant to any visual art, which is only part of the language of photography. He says at the end that they are not the "be all and end all" of a photograph but can provide a framework of things to think about while composing the picture.

Jeremy Webb's "Design Principles" has seven chapters and only one of them covers the same ground as the video (Chapter 2 The elements of design). He provides a much more extensive language to discuss design than the video does (e.g.framing, emotion, flow, scale and symbolism), suggests an intuitive use of design, and provides a wider range of photographic genres for illustration.

"Rather than existing as a strict set of unchallengeable rules or guidelines, design principles applied to photography can act as kind of fluid, flexible and unseen nervous system that brings images to life"

Harald Mante in "The Photograph, composition and color design" says:

"Independently of contents and of their importance, any picture achieves it's visual effect through the use of design elements and color. A good composition underlies the picture's content without being intrusive"

I have another couple of excellent books by Hans P Bacher on composition for film (movies) and a couple by Marcos Mateu-Mestre on drawing and composition for visual story tellers (animated movies). Both go far deeper in their use of language than the video, and discuss how visual design elements can invoke emotions and narratives. All carefully articulated AND illustrated.

I don't think the expressive photographer should be routinely conscious of these design elements, but should react to their own and other photographs in a holistic and intuitive manner. There is value in learning design skills, but only if you then push them into the subconscious.

There may be occasions when there is a much more conscious use of design. For example, when you start off with a clear concept (or client brief?) of what the photograph is expected to deliver. We may also want to use our understanding of design when trying to understand why a particular photographs works, or doesn't work for us. And it's of value for academic/intellectual discussion with others who already have some understanding of the "language".

But I see this as a specialist subject that not many people are interested in. If you take the narrative from the average photography forum, the popular photographic press and popular photography Youtube channels and compare it with the academic, museum and gallery discussion around photographs and photography, it's hard to reconcile the idea that they are all talking about the same subject.

As a viewer, words and pictures seem to work well for me (which maybe reflects my own visual illiteracy) with my understanding and appreciation of photographs completely changing when they are put into context, either through some knowledge of the photographer, or through an artists statement explaining the concepts behind them.

I'm going to force myself to stop here

 

[droj]

I don't think the expressive photographer should be routinely conscious of these design elements, but should react to their own and other photographs in a holistic and intuitive manner. There is value in learning design skills, but only if you then push them into the subconscious.

There may be occasions when there is a much more conscious use of design. For example, when you start off with a clear concept (or client brief?) of what the photograph is expected to deliver.

I absolutely endorse this.

It's a funny thing that we photographers do, isn't it - peering through a little window and pressing a lever? But what do viewers generally 'like' in a photograph? Something (or someone) that they recognise. Or maybe just something pretty. Perhaps life isn't that simple, and there can be more.

The pretty can be a distraction, and the ugly can be a fetish. What might we be really about?

Here's a teaser - as photographers, do we look 'at' something through our little window, or can we 'become' it? Maybe it's not about 'things' at all, maybe its about an experience - and how that might be rendered in a frame.

 

[droj]

This is the book I have: https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1576875776/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_image?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Beats me why people are so keen to promote Amazon - there are other retailers! Often closer to home, and cheaper, too ...

I find Vivian's images to be very perceptive and human, whatever enigma she was or chose to be as a person. It's a little unbalanced that a posthumous industry's grown up around her, but hey ho that's how the world goes, and at least we got to see them ...

Is this thread derailment ...?

 

[sirch]

Thanks Graham, I might see if I can get some of those books.

I don't think the expressive photographer should be routinely conscious of these design elements, but should react to their own and other photographs in a holistic and intuitive manner. There is value in learning design skills, but only if you then push them into the subconscious.

May be these things are instinctive for some photographers but based on the evidence it seems that they aren't for me so what other option is there but to learn and be conscious of them at least until they are firmly embedded in the subconscious?

It's a funny thing that we photographers do, isn't it - peering through a little window and pressing a lever?

but what we really do is reduce 3 dimensions to 2 however unlike painting we have limited options for manipulating the 3D scene, we can use light and shade, we can use parallax to move the relative positions of elements and we can change focal length and depth of field. Or I suppose we can stick to shooting studio set-ups

 

[droj]

May be these things are instinctive for some photographers but based on the evidence it seems that they aren't for me so what other option is there but to learn and be conscious of them at least until they are firmly embedded in the subconscious?

I've found that I can be out and about with a camera but slip out of the intended mode of seeing photographically, which seems to be a certain mode of attention that can be tuned into, but if not kept in consciousness can switch itself off.

what we really do is reduce 3 dimensions to 2 however unlike painting we have limited options for manipulating the 3D scene, we can use light and shade, we can use parallax to move the relative positions of elements and we can change focal length and depth of field

I sometimes reflect that many favourite photographs strongly accentuate that curious 3d aspect that the 2d picture space can have. There's something emotionally involving about being drawn into a picture. What's in focus & out of focus is a significant compositional tool in this. Wide apertures are good!

 

[droj]

The visual experience is direct. It cannot be spoken, only spoken about.

 

[myotis]

Here's a teaser - as photographers, do we look 'at' something through our little window, or can we 'become' it? Maybe it's not about 'things' at all, maybe its about an experience - and how that might be rendered in a frame.

I'm not sure about the "becoming" it, but I've mentioned before that for me as a landscape photographer, there is a difference between "looking" a landscape and "being in" the landscape.

When I mentioned it before it was specifically about being out in bad weather, where you can't ignore the rain, wind, fog, snow etc making it clear that your physically in the landscape, and a very different experience to a sunny day and a pretty view. But there are other similar examples where the experience seems deeper than just looking.

 

[droj]

where the experience seems deeper than just looking.

Experiences out in the land can sometimes be profound in ways that are utterly un-photographable ...

 

[myotis]

To expand on this, I occasionally show my photos to other photographers and at those events I see the work of others* which is often engaging, impressive, expressive, emotive, enjoyable. By contrast my work, which in isolation I thought was good, looks dull, drab, boring. If there are things that I can do to elevate my photography so that people can engage with it without losing my original visions then surely that is a good thing? A bit like wearing a suit to a job interview, it doesn't change my ability to do the job or who I am but could make the difference.

* this is not the usual run-of-the-mill stuff, it can be quite challenging, complex, etc.

Can you expand on that?

Do you mean they grab your attention, better than your own photographs do. Is it because they come closer to some sort of optimal saturation/colour/contrast balance than yours.

Is it design and composition? Is it more interesting subjects matter, or is it because you feel they just have more to say?

You mentioned earlier putting photographs on the wall. Is this how you are judging your own photographs. Would your photographs work better as a set of photograph in a book or zine.

Are you just a "different" kind of photographer? Are you looking for solutions without fully understanding the problem

I don't have any real answers, and I have very similar problems, but I'm not sure that photographs that at first glance seem to blow my photographs away, always survive greater scrutiny.

 

[myotis]

Experiences out in the land can sometimes be profound in ways that are utterly un-photographable ...

Yes, exactly and that's excuse I have been using for years

 

[myotis]

Thanks Graham, I might see if I can get some of those books.



May be these things are instinctive for some photographers but based on the evidence it seems that they aren't for me so what other option is there but to learn and be conscious of them at least until they are firmly embedded in the subconscious?

I would get the Webb book, it should be available fairly cheap s/h. The other book that everyone seems to recommend is Molly Bang's "Picture This: How pictures work". It's based on cardboard cutouts of different shapes, sizes and colours, and shows how simple changes in arrangement can make big changes to how the picture feels.

The Mante book is hard work, and a little tedious as it works through everything in minute detail. Working with one point, then working with two points, then working with three points etc etc.

The other four books, are very focussed on artists/graphic designers, and although I have found them insightful and useful, you do need to the mental juggling act from drawing/painting to photography.

Nearly all human instinct is learned behaviour that has been repeated so often we no longer need to think about it. I study composition all the time, and, as an exercise, I often analyse my own photographs, and the photographs and paintings or drawings of others.

But I don't do it in the field (at least not consciously), I just move my viewpoint and framing until it feels right. Edward Weston relied on hearing a Bach fugue to tell him he had got the composition right. I have failed to ever hear a Bach fugue in the field.

 

[droj]

I have failed to ever hear a Bach fugue in the field.

Maybe you're aiming too high? Try concentrating on Mantovani? ;-)

 

[sirch]

Can you expand on that?

Do you mean they grab your attention, better than your own photographs do. Is it because they come closer to some sort of optimal saturation/colour/contrast balance than yours.

Is it design and composition? Is it more interesting subjects matter, or is it because you feel they just have more to say?

You mentioned earlier putting photographs on the wall. Is this how you are judging your own photographs. Would your photographs work better as a set of photograph in a book or zine.

Are you just a "different" kind of photographer? Are you looking for solutions without fully understanding the problem

I don't have any real answers, and I have very similar problems, but I'm not sure that photographs that at first glance seem to blow my photographs away, always survive greater scrutiny.

I've done 3 of the 4 zine swaps run by @Harlequin565 but have been similarly unimpressed with my zines compared to the others. I do agree that single images can be problematic and it is easier to understand the photographer's intent from a body of work.

Am I a different kind of photographer? I think in general I am a different kind of person but I like fairly widely regarded photos from people like Navad Kander, Mark Littlejohn, William Eggleston, Gregory Crewdson

I don't think there is a single element to the "secret sauce" that I am missing it could be any of the things that you list. For example Kander can produce an image like this

which, especially when seen in print is, I think a great image. I live on the side of an estuary and have tried many times to create a similar feeling but I get photos like this - https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/mud-and-sand-photos-added.722018/

Admittedly mine are black and white where as Kander's is probably split toned I guess but his grabs me in a way that mine don't.

However this feels like it is all getting a bit self-indulgent and narcissistic so perhaps we should return to a more general discussion of how others communicate via the medium of photography.

 

[Ed Sutton]

...his grabs me in a way that mine don't.

This is the perennial problem of trying to see your own work as others see it.

Do you ever look at one of your pictures and think 'f**k me that's good'? I do. But they're usually ones that leave other people non-plussed!

 

[sirch]

This is the perennial problem of trying to see your own work as others see it.

Do you ever look at one of your pictures and think 'f**k me that's good'? I do. But they're usually ones that leave other people non-plussed!

I do indeed but it often feels like that is only in my bubble, outside of that the pictures just don't stack up. IDK if you were in the first zine round but I did a zine called Fellsides and I have several of those hung on the wall, I think they are really good.

But that gets back to the whole point of this thread, is there something that one can do to make the work more approachable so that people are not non-plussed?

 

[Ed Sutton]

I do indeed but it often feels like that is only in my bubble, outside of that the pictures just don't stack up. IDK if you were in the first zine round but I did a zine called Fellsides and I have several of those hung on the wall, I think they are really good.

But that gets back to the whole point of this thread, is there something that one can do to make the work more approachable so that people are not non-plussed?

I was in the first round. I'll have to refresh my memory. But not tonight.

I suppose one way to make work more approachable is to pick a subject that a selected audience can relate to but to mix the kind of pictures they expect to see in with your personal take on it.

That's kind of what I've tried to do with my poultry and sheep stuff. It's an attempt to subvert their expectations and maybe broaden people's ideas of what a photograph can be. I don't know if it works, but it's my way of trying to democratise a more 'arty' sort of picture.

I've always tried to introduce people unused to looking at art to stuff they aren't aware of. In a casual, throw-away, kind of way. Art isn't the 'big deal' people think it is, it can be fun. Grayson Perry does a better job of it than me though.

 

[sirch]

I was in the first round. I'll have to refresh my memory. But not tonight.

I suppose one way to make work more approachable is to pick a subject that a selected audience can relate to but to mix the kind of pictures they expect to see in with your personal take on it.

That's kind of what I've tried to do with my poultry and sheep stuff. It's an attempt to subvert their expectations and maybe broaden people's ideas of what a photograph can be. I don't know if it works, but it's my way of trying to democratise a more 'arty' sort of picture.

I've always tried to introduce people unused to looking at art to stuff they aren't aware of. In a casual, throw-away, kind of way. Art isn't the 'big deal' people think it is, it can be fun. Grayson Perry does a better job of it than me though.

That's given me an idea