Accessibility and Communication
by Mark ~ October 19th, 2008. Filed under: abstracts, art, artistry, composition, creativity, landscape, nature photography, philosophy, wonder.I am sure most of you are familiar with this statement when it comes to viewing art..
“I just don’t get it.”
As I have launched off of before, there are a series of Brooks Jensen podcasts (LW0428, LW0429, LW0430) that got me thinking about this whole concept of accessibility and association we try to make when interpreting something visually. . It came to mind in particular for my rock abstracts and wondering even though some of them have some very interesting patterns to me, what about someone else?. The impact and absorption of such images may be lessened if someone else cannot make some type of association with something they are already familiar with Sometimes I take a casual interest in the view counts of these images in my gallery. Which images get more “clicks” than others? Does this tell me something about the accessibility and interest of this image over the next?
Of course, it isn’t solely about rocks either, but any type of photograph that may have an abstract principal theme. . The interpretation can be completely different from one person to the next, and that can be exciting. However, sometimes, there is no interpretation at all (ie. confusion!) - so we arrive at the statement I mentioned above.
It made me question how many photographers take this into consideration in their compositions, assuming that they do care about the appeal of their work to others on some varying level. Certainly a lot of artists simply take the approach of “I create for me” and leave it at that. . That’s all fine and good, and perhaps the “artist” way of doing things. . . Work from your minds eye and soul, etc, etc. But I have to believe that a big part of being an effective photographer is being a effective communicator. If you are trying to communicate in a language that no one else on Earth understands, how is that going to work out for you?. . Certainly you can take pride in a photograph that is deep and meaningful to you personally. But when sharing it with others, and presumably hoping for some type of acceptance,. you have to check your expectations that they will find them just as meaningful.
Perhaps this is why some abstracts resort to the simplest of graphical definitions of shapes, lines, and textures. The definition of these types of objects are ingrained in our intellects from the time we are born and have universal understanding. . Some of the most effective landscape photographers are masters at reducing a complex scene into simplicity. . Good light itself has many ways of simplifying graphically confusing, contrasty scenes. . Are they really trying to go for ‘mass appeal’ or simply trying to break communication into the simplest of elements to make it more powerful and effective?. . Similar to an effective quotation, it may be a simple assembly of words, yet has a much deeper and insightful meaning.
Keep it simple, and keep it meaningful. . A good mantra to remember when making any composition I think. Of course, always easier said than done. But if we consciously think about this when trying to make a composition, as much as we think about exposure and focus, I would think it helps us grow as communicators and photographers.
October 20th, 2008 at
Good advice here. Also makes me feel better about my paintings. I haven’t heard that phrase personally, but sometimes you can see it in their eyes…
October 20th, 2008 at
Mark,
You are so right. I appreciate this post because it comforts me to know that the response to abstract work is more universal than my own experience. I enjoy imagery that makes me think beyond the obvious as much as more representational work. But, I don’t believe most people are secure enough to let themselves get lost in an image the way an abstract piece requires.
October 20th, 2008 at
I think Paul hit the nail on the head. Representational work is much easier to decipher in regards to whether one likes it or not or finds the subject matter appealing. In contrast, an abstract piece requires more time to pause and ponder because it’s message is not precise. Not everyone is comfortable with this exercise. Having said this though, I do think that there are universal aspects to all images that everyone responds to.
I really like both your images that you have here but find the 2nd one more appealing. Why??! That’s the million-dollar question. For me, I love the lines and the richness of colors. It reminds me of an oil-painting, which I use to love doing. So you see, it is totally personal and ultimately, all subjective.
Do what you love and “they” will come!
October 21st, 2008 at
the visual arts are both a journey for both viewer and artist. I think as an artist you have to ask yourself what segment of the general population you are targeting with your work. Not every person is on the same page when it comes to viewing photographic art. What matters most is after you’ve identified your audience is to keep and further develop the channels of communication through your work. For some that may mean a smaller but more advanced audience and for others a more general and broader audience. It’s important not to get lost in this all because the infinite variables of what works for some and not others can be maddening
October 22nd, 2008 at
I always welcome your posts on this topic, since your thinking and your writing are so clear and help me clarify my own muddled thinking. I know I find myself mindful of maintaining this delicate balance between speaking my heart rather than chasing compliments, while hoping to speak in a way that will communicate with others. This is an area in which you have so obviously found your answers. It helps to have models. Of course, I don’t mean models to copy, but models that inspire. Thank you.
October 22nd, 2008 at
There’s a nice profile of the poet Gary Snyder in the 10/20/08 issue of The New Yorker. They talk about how one of his poems was panned as “monotonous, flat and superficial,” yet when you take the time to understand the poem’s allusions, you see how beautiful and profound it is.
October 23rd, 2008 at
Hey Mark,
Nice post man - great images, and a good essay. I’ve been thinking about this issue a bit lately — I’ll write a bit more soon.
Hey John Wall - that’s interesting; I can’t imagine Gary Snyder writing ANYTHING monotonous, or flat, or superficial.
He’s a beautiful writer; “Practice of the Wild” is a must read. I’ve got that issue of the New Yorker upstairs - I’ll have to check it out, thanks.
Cheers
Carl
October 23rd, 2008 at
Carl, I agree “Practice of the Wild” is a must read. It’s one of my all-time favorites. There’s another excellent article about artists and genius and late-blooming talents in that same issue, btw.
Getting back to Mark’s thought-provoking article, I have been trying to do the “keep it simple” thing in my photography. But the “keep it meaningful” part is what’s so hard to grab hold of or articulate. What is “meaningfulness”?
October 23rd, 2008 at
Wow, so many great comments from you folks, it is going to take me awhile to absorb!
@Diane, you wrote “I do think that there are universal aspects to all images that everyone responds to. ”
That is what I was thinking also, and therein lies some interesting decisions - first of all do we know the universal aspects (some obvious, maybe others not so much), and do we place any conscious thought about them when incorporating them into a composition?
@Jim: re: identifying your audience - that is one I struggle with. It is hard to pick a certain group or aesthetic perhaps that you want to focus your work on, or perhaps that just comes naturally over time.
@Anita: I don’t think I have any answers, only seem to generate more questions unfortunately!
@John/Carl - I will have to check both of those suggestions out. I am not familiar with that writer.
October 24th, 2008 at
Hey Mark,
I’ve thought about this some more. I think the line about being an effective communicator is a little bit of the ole ‘artsy speak’ thing. I think being a good photographer is about being a good photographer. Art is about making art, I don’t think it’s about communication so much. A good artist makes good art - anything else is nice, but I don’t think art necessarily involves being a good communicator. If communication is the focus, then I’d suggest good art, particularly REALLY good art communicates by itself. But Artists make art, which is, by definition, more about creating, or creation, than communication. Wanna be a good photographer? Make good photographs - everything else is apple pie.
Cheers
Carl
October 24th, 2008 at
Carl - I beg to differ wit ya. Take your incredible bear shot you posted recently at the wolf kill. If that doesn’t communicate a story, amongst many other things about Alaska, I don’t know what does!
October 24th, 2008 at
Hey Mark,
Thanks for the kind words. And sure, a photograph may communicate - but it may sit in a dust jacket, too. As I said above, art can communicate, but it does so by itself. I know that when I was taking those photos, I was trying to take photos, not communicate. Any communication that may have came about is a byproduct - and not a requisite one at that.
Cheers
Carl
October 25th, 2008 at
Well, maybe it is artsy talk, or perhaps something else I won’t name… but I have to believe there is some primal psychological response that makes someone think a photograph is good or bad. That subjectivity is likely influenced by a person’s connection to that particular image - and how the elements of that image may communicate to the viewer.
October 25th, 2008 at
Hey Mark,
Maybe - I guess I’m learning to see art more as a process than a product - and it’s a process of creating. I read a really cool essay recently that suggested literally any creation stands as art, if it’s done with love - it’s a love for what we do that constitutes what we call ‘art’ - whether it’s painting, writing, dancing, cabinet making, whatever. When we engage that process without a real love and respect for what we do, for the tools we use to do it with, the materials we work with, etc, then it’s not art, but something else. I don’t disagree that the product of our work can communicate many things to other people - I just question that it must - I think we can make great photographs without worrying about communicating - we probably make greater photographs when we focus on making photographs. Works for me.
Cheers
Carl
Carl
October 27th, 2008 at
As an artist I always strive to communicate with my viewer in hopefully a very understandable way for them. Great post and I love the photos.