Victor Burgin’s essay described the way in which a viewer looks at a photograph complicity, with no control over their perspective. In a sense, I believe that’s true. For example, I played around with how I was going to frame and position these dolls for quite some time before deciding to upload this particular photo. I made the decision to position their arms opposite one another. I made the decision to have one doll in the foreground and one in the background. I made the decision to position my camera above each dolls waist, to focus softly, to fill half the image with bokeh. I had complete control over how I decided to use space and what I decided to bring into this image; however, I still have no control over what the viewer actually sees.
Ansel Adams once said that there are two people in every photograph: the photographer and the viewer. Though I had complete control over how to present this image, the way it is perceived depends entirely upon the viewer’s perspective — which, despite the viewer not being in my position or having the chance to see these dolls from multiple points of view, is completely in their hands (or eyes). In a more literal sense, of course, I have control of what the viewer sees and am forcing them to look through my eyes. But how will the viewer interpret my intentions? What will they see in this photograph? Am I attempting to make some sort of critical commentary on the roles of women in African culture or am I simply testing out my new lens on some figurines that happen to be within close proximity? Perhaps the viewer may even take into consideration elements of this photo that I did not. While I focused on the relationship between the two dolls, maybe their attention is on the texture of the image. Perhaps I was primarily concerned with contrasting tones, but they will take greater note of the use of shapes.
0 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.