try and have a look at the book I was mentioning above, the one on NYC. Very different from the “over cooked” portraits that you’re probably referring to!
2 Likes
– so that you can change it to untitled …
Images and their relation to captions and context is quite an intriguing and interesting subject. We risk here, of course, to stray somewhat from the original topic of this thread, but it should be quite fitting, then, to quote a statement from exactly Dan Winters:
“A photograph does not require any information beyond the confines of the frame. … Viewers may want to peer beyond the edges in search of context, but it is the nature of the photograph to deprive them of this experience. If the photographer does not provide a backstory, the viewers may find themselves creating their own; however the stories are the product of their thoughts and not related to the actual story contained within the photograph.”
Much can be said about captions, and for e.g. documentary photography it’s been argued that “a photograph” is the association of an image and a caption – and that it’s first when these two elements meet that one can determine whether a photograph is fake or not. But also a photograph of this kind, may of course possibly be judged solely on more artistic aspects as for form, light etc.
For my own part I’ve been considering some of these issues because I have e.g. an image that judged on its general artistic aspects are nothing much to shout hurray for. However, if one know the context (and some history of modern art) there is quite an element of humor in it. So I’ve made a version of the image where the image file contains both the image and underneath it a field with the caption clearly visible in plain text.
What do you think about forcing upon the viewer an awareness of the context of the capture in such a “brutal” manner?
1 Like