'l /\tz, f,'futt-V'^//^
Or.f*A U-rwufu hz1\
w
Ly +' ./L..,4" L (r',/k-
' How'Do\\'e Read aFhctographi
iq I7 'r3 i,-,
imrgc \'. crgrgc ir i seriG of i \ /horcvcL wc look ^t th.togr,,dri. conplcr Lerdnlrs wlich r,:Latc rs o,u,h t!, t|c callectrti''$ itrl thriwe bLnrgto thc nngc rs to drc plrotographi' n$lcct rsnrrtiors l"dccd, Latl,tr than the notion of lookng, which rggcss r 'tsclt photogriiJh' Dnsi\.e act olrecoAnjtnn\ wc need to hsist dr.rwc,?dr (,,a rex.ling) ilrv'nves i l.d Tlnt b"t r."g" *." 'cidng "ot ".innriguols, " meanogs contr&lictory 2nd oflcn ofpLoblemrtic, sc.ies rnd rclrroxhips bcnveen thc rcrder ud thc imrgc The phoLognph aclicvcs lrernirg thLolgtr whrt has bcer c.llcd a 'Phonrsrxplijc drcouri: a hnguagc ofcodcs whi.h inlolves its own gramrnd ind syntd. lt is, in is own qry, rs co4ncx and s ri'h rs rnv wntten a' I io' \" | r cr ' r ', .' .r ', ,'; ..' l ,.d " "' Bu,gh rrists: Victor As ud hhtories. 'l lic irtelligibiliry.ail,. Phonrgatrhn Dosiml,Lcthingi lrliotognphsar' teFt ius.Libedn, lcms of $hfu ${ urv .ill inNtosrithi' rlncolrs' ' but dri: dhcolFc,likciryothe! erg.gtsdis.n!'srsL'cvondits'Ll tlNinanosLxthrL uirlnc{ ln&rt.ituLiq arr orcnaPtrng rcx., !t.lry orli.r, n dre litt.fi I lrrtidrlxr drlii xl rnd hnnrrifrl li'gnnted'! s.Licsofr,{lnnF tu{s liken Tlis is . ccnttuLsiatcnfrr ns n, how lve erd' rhc thotogriPh as lcrt ' ^ od rndcrlnes the probltnttic nrnLre of rhe plrorograpLricnrase rs both rrbitcr oi Nqniry and trcc oltlic renl' And nr a.^r'irl way il Lrys deNL d,c *terl ro wlich anl' PholoqrrPh G P'rt ot i x'ser lansuxsc of,ncinnrg which wc briig io ou. erPericncc ol tlr' phot+rph I'Iudr ol llurgitrs dnderstuding ofrhn disur$c w's to rcrdcn oi thc photograpl n thc t"",t, q"". ..".inu.t" "1]en " niretccnrh ceDn,rv"dthotgh wt crn.laiDwirh so-" 'onnden" thnr n Lh dn,tognphy wrs ie'd m rclarnrn to thc r.tcPrcd lnnsulgc oi prn r,e rnd litcrrnrrc ofthe tnlc, esfe.ixllv in tcnns ofs|tbolisr ld nrrrrtirc stmcrur hrll' co.rmdrtalos liln I'oc, rs mch rs llarvthomc, Holnx, ind lliudcLiir, notcd thc hteral rrther tru sjDbolic a'f..ts of thc thotognfh, rsror;ne tho '{rcnt to lvhich it rc icrtcd o,ltuil trcinnrs Lrlh cf fiu rcnd dilgs' with dr' Thc flrotosrph bot! n,t,r,r rod .rcries r 'llnrrrR
denrcrlm5 1967
vorld, lnd is Dever,despiteits ofien pNsiveway with things,.r neuffd] representrtion. Ildeed, we might ague drat rt every levet the photographinvolvcsa saturatedideologicalcoDtext.Fu11of mcanings, it is r densetext i. which is witten thc rermsofreferercebywhich Ir de o l ^ g )h rl ' .o ,rL ,' . T -a r| ,-.rn,l r-o... hr' -e,' r.C ,." .-l of power rnd authority.We need to read it as thc sitc of a seriesof snnultancouscompldities and ambiguities,in wlicli is situatcdnor so much a mirror o{ the world rs our wry with thar worldj whar Diane Arbus caLled'tlie endlesslyscductivc puzzle oI sighl. The photogrephicnnage contains a 'phorographicmesrge' as pan of a irfaciicc ofsig.illcIltion which reflcctsdie codes,vrlues, rnd beliefs of the culture as a rqhole. Its litqaloe$, as ch, fcflects thc /. preserradonol ourwltywitli the world thc site (rnd sigho of a series
ofothercodes rnd texrs,ofvatuesand hierarchies\a,hichengageother discouses and orher frames of reference; hence, its dcceptive simplicity, its obtuse lrczr,$. Far fron being a 'm;ror', the photogriph is oneofthe mostcompl* and most problematjcforms of represenration.Its ordinarinessbelies its ambivalenceand implicit difficulg' m a neans ofreprcsentation. To readaphotograph,then, is to enterinto r seriesofrelationships which are 'hidden',so to sperk, by the llusory power of the imege beloreourcyes.We neednot ody to scethe image,but.lso to readit b the activeplay ofav;sudlnnguage-In this respecttwo aspefisarebasic lirst,we must rememberthat the photographis irselfthe productofa be ?hotogra?her.k is ^Iw^ys the rellection of a specific point ofte\ it atsthetic, polemical,political, or ideological.One ncver 'takes'a photogaph in any passivesense.To'take'is active.The photogfupher imposes, steBls,re createsthe scene/seenaccording to a cultural discourse.Secondlnhowcver,the photogrrph encodesthe tcrms of re|rence by which we shape ard understanda three dimensiona world. It thus exisrswithin a wider body of rcferetrce and relates to a seriesofwider histories,at once,ksthetic,oltural, ard socizl. 'l^ke, fot ex mple, Idenrial 7i!t,r Ge67) r7l by Diane Arbus G9,j7t. This is one ofher leastcontentiousimages,and on the surfice ar least eppearsto be quite straightforward. It is, so to spe.}k,whrr it says it is: an imageofidentical twins. But aswelookatit and begin to read it, so the msumedcertaintyofits subjeccmattergivesway beforean increasingseriesofquizzical aspectswhich, in the end, make this an image exemplary olthe difiicult nature ofphotographic meaning. To bcgin with, the .otion of identical twins suggeststbe very miror [ke resenbhnce granted to the dagueffeoq,?e io rhe dneteeDth .entury, 2nd uDdersco.esthe idca of a phot grdpb as a literal record. Each twin is a reflection of the other. tsut 'identical' iniers 'identiq,', and the ponrayal of a seif limited to the rface presence of a sirgle image. The two dspects opeD up a critical gap between what we iee' in the photogrnph and what we are askcd to 'view'. The questionsraisedare made morc nsisteDt by the way ni which both figures are framed within a photograthi. space which deniesthem any obvioushistoricalor so.ial conrexr.We cannotl/a.r then in time or space,and there are few clues as ro their socialor peFotul backround. Arbus has cfectively neuraliad rheir terms of *istence. The b.rckgroundis white: a painted wall and a prth run acrossthe bottom of the image. And yet rhe parh, as a prescnce establishe$the terms by which we can establish,both literally and symboli.dlly,the bas; ofour readingofrhe ;tuage.The path runs at a slight angle,aDdthat 'anglc'reltectsprecisel)'Arbust approachto her subject matter This photographdocsnot meet its subjecih apafa el sense,but lool$ at it askeq evenaskanceThus, s'hat the nnagebegirrs
to refle.t is th!t, like a hnguage, its meaningswork not through sinilarity but through dil'eftntr. The more we lool at the image, movingoverits spacein time, so the morethe rterestdetailassumes a ldrger resonmce asan lgent o{ ident;+ And yet we are left with sucha pervasivesenseofditrerence$ to beliethe ceitaintyof thc title. Even on a basiclevelsuchdillerenccis vital. One twin is'happy'and ore ii 'sdd';the nosesaredifferent,the faceslre diFerent;their colars arc a differentshape,the folds ofthe dresesaredifferent,thc length oftle arms different, their stockings arc diferent. AU, n seemsis sinilar blt equrlly all ;s dilfuent. Eyebows, fringes, hria and hanbandsarc dillerent.The more we continueto look, the more rhe merestdetail resonates aspdrt ofa largerenignati. presen.eand tensionasto whrt, *actly, we are bdng askedto look at. Fd lron identical,theseare individu.ls ;n their own right. They de, asit were,vcry dilfcrcfll tuin!. Identi l Ttuift!, then, rc.alls us to a considerationof the implicit cohplexity ofthe photographi. hessage.But it alsounderlinesthe *tent to whi.h re must be aware of the photogapher ds dbiter oi meaning,and naner of signifionce. Every photographis not o y sutounded by a histoical, aesthetic, and cultural frame of refuence andn,e,ningsrelating but alsoby ancntireinvisiblesetofrelationships ro the photographerard the point at which the imagewasmade.Part of,ny reading of tlN image would iovoLvea howledge of the work of Arbus and, in turn, her photographic philosophy. We could pl2.e it in relationto her aazt as a whole, allowingits dillerenceand similariw to other im,ges to detennine the terns by which we rcad it. We might note specificinflucnccsuponArbus (1brexample,the workofWccgcc and Lisette Model), as well as , penchani for panicular kinds of night be saidto subjectmatter Photographsby majo. photographers elicit a panicularstyleinthe sddewaythat any authorexhibitsa style of witing that we come to recognize. In this sensewe can viw the photographer as an azrear, and the wo* as the summation of r visual style in which content dd form are the visual reflection of a photographicdiscourscand grammu, as much asthey arein writing and film- Although this is to rhe fore in ftlation to the photographer as artist, iiterally signing, so to speak,erch image with the nark of creativeauthentiriry it equallyrecallsto us the extentto whi.h every image is part of a self consciousand determiningact of referenccto give neaningto things.Tbe inage is asmuch a reflectionofthe'I of the photographerasit is ofthe 'cyc'ofthe camera. In any;mxge,howeverthe prinary frameofreferencerenainsthe subjectofthe photograph(althoughthis in nseFcanbe problematic). Roland Banheshassuggoted an ;nportant disrinctionherebetween the relativeneaning of different elcmcrts wlthj. the Fhotognphic fianc, distinguishing bctween vhat has been termed th. dctotatiae anl th. .anhatatire.lBy'denotative'is neant the literal neaning and l. How Dow,iRt^.n
PH.trcMr!r
Aturiii'o,r\n-","o*
signifi.rnceofanyelementin thc nnlge. A gesture,an expres on, d'l objecrrcmansjust thar a liter!l detailof the overal image.Meaning thusoferatesat the most brsic oflevels,a simpterecrgnit;onofwhat rvelook at a snile, a tablc,a street,a Pcrson Butbeyondthis rnomcnt of recognitiontlic readerftoves to a secondlcvcl of heding' thtt.f the connotative xspecc of d,e elcments of thc scene- Thus connotddonis lhe ;mpsition ofsecondneannrgon the photograPhi. nc$age ltuPer . . . its signs are gestures,.ttrtudes, exprcssDns' colours,and etrectscndowedwnh cerrainmedings by virtue of the practice.f d certrin societ)'.ln otherwords,sedesof visual]a'guxges or codeswhich aLethensclvesd1ercdcction o{ a w;der, underlying po . '', t t 'l r qr r f i. 'r on*r lr r r As wc shall see,this distinctior underliesthe neannâ‚Ź of the photographat everylevel, and dLawsi,rto our readingot thc imige everydetail,for everything,poteutirlly,is olsigniri.imce Onawider levct it informs the t rms by which we dasiiy dnd underctanda pholog.aphifo. as in pxinting and fterall,.e, ea.h genrchas its own F n. T "nd'. , le po t t a't ' ' , . 1r , ( n, , o, I r ^r '. r , 'd documeotary,art photograp\ al1imply a reriesofa$umPtioDsiof ncanngs, accepted(and sometimesquestlored) rs Part of the sis.iryins proce$:i lhot.graph (r-iathe photographer)unnuirm o questionthc world it supposcdlyn;rore. In rel'rio. ro this critical tsow Do lv. RE^r^ ProrocMPHiJr
conte\1, Bdthes (in Catueta Lu.ida) has established a further distinction in the way we read the photograph. In discussingthe photographic nexrge, he identifies two disiinci factors in our r€lationships to the image. The first, what he calls th. $udiuh, is ^ kind of general, enthusiasticcommitment', whlle the second,the is a tting, speck, cut, iitd€ hole'. The difi'erence is basic, for 1,zd,r, rldrl,, suggests a passive response to a Photograph's aPPeaLbut within ?u"x"tu allows lot ttre loffiation of a critical reading A detail the photog.aph wilt disturb the suface unity and stabiliry and, lik€ a cut, begin the proce$ of opening up that spaceto ditical analysis Once we havediscoveredov ?unctunwebe.ome, itedeemably,active readersofthe scene.' Look at a secondDiane Arbus im ge,A Faniu on tbei Ld@r One Suntal in w*tch*ter, Neu v'ln Ge6e) tsl on rf' "rrface this is an image of rn averageNew York suburbrn niddle .lass American farnily but once again, the more we look at it the more its meaning changes, until it emergesnot just $ a definitiv€ tubus image' but as an almosticonic statementon the natureof suburbanAmerica Spatialiy, for exanplq the geometry of ihe inage is ctucial Th€ lawn takes up two-thirds of the photographicspaceand indicatespreciselythe sense of emptiness, sterility, and disiocation that pervades the irnage Equaly, the tiees at the back have i looming Presencethat suggestsa haunting otherness. Even 3t this lev€1the atnosPh€re seemsgloomy' empg, and depre$ing. A literal, PhFical confi$ration h$ glven way to the beginningsof a compellingconnotativeregistersuggestiveofa psychologicaland emotionalinner sPacc This is thc setting for the figures in the image The parents are separateand alone,and everydetailoftheir figuresand bearingaddsto th s ense ofditrerence.The man is tense(rath€r ihan relued, as we might expect)and holds his headin his hand His right hand looks to touch and make contact with his wife, but remains inert and separate. The mother alsotelaxes'but in a seeminsiy'6xed'mode,just asshek dre$€d in a stereotypical bikini md wean nal<e-up. Then separation is made obvious by the wry ir which their lourge chairs are Presented formally to the Gmera, with the round tablebeMeen ihem: i .ircular reminder of unity and wholeness,although the slattedlines imply a rigid farnilial and psychological geonetry a .onnotation further sugg€stedby the solitary child who staresinto a circular bathing Pool. The boy piays alone and is turned away fron his paents The title itselJ 'franes' our terms of reference and gLrides us into the synbolic st.ucture of the photographic message Puactan follow; Ptkd,n, sa aspart of a largermap ofmeaning' especially that eachaspectresonates implied by'family', 'Sunday"and'lawr' in retationto the associations An image of family reluation seems to have been invefted and emerges as a psychologicalstldy of estrangementand loneliness
which, in lts conpulsive ellect, speaks alout .r whole culturct condition. Look, for e{ample,how obviousitems ofplay and pleasure havebeenpushedto the bordersofthe image.On the left is a picnic tzble, in the background a swinging sert dnd see saw,and on the right a swing; all abandonedand ignored.We could condnuesucha reading, theglass,the noting (anddplaining) the signifrcmceofthecigarettes, ponable radio, the Mshed out sl<y,the father's dangling feet, the abandonedplate to the left ofthe mother, and the way the child is closer to his mother than his father a1l compounded by the squre format of the photograph and the way the fanily seemsunaware of the presence. photographer's Arbust inage, which is 1pica1 of her photography, both plays wlth and questionscodesof meaning. It inculcatesa denseplay of the deootativeand connotativein relationto its subject,and conpounds its textualreferencewithin ageometryofthe straiglt and the.ircdar. It is a static inage which resonates with multiple meanings and ultimately retairs a completity which resists paraphrase and Photographs have always had dris capacity to probe and suggest larg$ condnions,which underliesihe notion of an image'spotential 'unive$al' appealand internationallanguig€.Such,for example,were rIe rerr. of rfrrn. e Iot 1 I" Fan :l)taf \4a Lrr. btro, r NewYork rr " 1955-C"rated by Edward Steichen,its 5o3 photographswere divided into distinct general categoies: 'creation, b;rth, love, wo!k, death, justice . . . denocracy, peace . . .' and so on. The exhibition thus 'universal'themesvhich mitigatedrgrinst thc argumentlor suggested a photographic language rooted i! the culture as the ideology within which the photograph establishedits meaning. We car, then, speakof a language ofphotography, in which every aspect ofthe photographic spacehas a potential meaning beyond its literal presencein the picture. Thus we cm read a photograph wirhin its own terms of reference, sceing it not so much as the rellection of a ieal' world as an allows us then to interpretation of that world. 'lh. ?u"taa terms ofreference, and alertsus to deconstruct,soto speak,thosesane way view the world in cultural we the fact that 2 photograph reflectsthe has in many ways nade terms. Photographic practice, ihough, th2t ve t€nd to look at the invisible its strategiesand that lmguage, so nirror but on the photographasi reflectior onceagain,the simple other hand much photography does seekto mke us aware of how and why a photograph has 'meaning; and in the twentieth centdry, certai.ly, many photographers have questioned not just the terms of reference we take for granted but ,lso the codes and conventions of photography itself (e.g. the photographers status, photographic Inpart, ofcourse,suchcodcsuc centralto the photog.apht power
9 M!!!EaBc!y ng sbii MalrhewBtudyslaid lryr@1365
.,n ,T J q F . l ' r fa .' . F : ,n d el ' d b' r' rh * :: ' ; the so that world, .ontinuous partofa and sealed as the imase Drcsents i. which rt t'as takenremainsinvisibleand outsidethe &rme "".t*t of the inage. A Paintirg, in corrrct, has a surf'celve crn ntentifv!r t"r-. ofpi"t"n,t b-,hit.ukes It alwaysreflectsthe wav it Nasmade' Photography,as a me,tium,is deceptivelvinisible, leavingts with a ra-less ec|ofreplsrtation, an i.sisteDtthGne$ inwhich only the .ontentsofthe photograph,its ncssage,arcofiercdto the eye in the ninetecntii Wr photograp\-s a mse in point, especiaLlv wnr ot pliotogmlhed centurv.The Anericd Civil Wir was thc most r ner' trre i I nabF' do.' P -o8' r" I r:r -, s :,l L r + rn d . cxtraor.lin.ry .letail. This suggeststhat the crmerx is a 'witnes to events',and lct evenat this 'documentary'levcl the most sceningh Look, ncut..l ofimaeess subiectro tire problematicofLtPresentation ta I t at R J-' nb' 8 B ' ,J i "w i M, ' a-a ,o , * ,-o ., , ""q r8o' 9r B r' d)uJ or-or' h S .a fl .M;.t.-p a t" ,a n l \b ttfoinost ofthe oflicirlphotograph*s ofthewr, aml his imegcsoFera sustainedrecordofcve"n This oneis tyfical, oneof r largemnb* of \e" rh' e ' ro o l ' r.e r" p h ,rw h \ l ' P U rrJ^drL " l -r' c rr n8-' o u l ' .t," l e ' .,..,, S E r 6d' rl I l -i r' ( ,, within a rnwer is twofold. First, ar ! fonn.l picnre it takesits lhcc ' J q ' r o o .j fp o rr' .i rr' c $ " ^ ( D Jrl . ..i o p 1 o r" " , p l rc rl ' ;n - l l r he i r a.c aJh -gh r' " l of 'o1. '". Brady'simageswere takeo by his rssistants)What em'rges s two dilr.ient photographs*nh wo distinct messrgesBradv hm made hinselfvsible to us and,in $ doiis, hasmadephot'graphv'asmtch
formalpo'tra't asrhe miltaryqroup, thc subjectoftheimage lD suchI m,r ofsignificmce cods n@ning is e;tablisledthoush strict lNed in I nale sisniri'ance and nlL t'.,ai,i"i,r 1'.iri.-y; i'icnr:hy of o on' h. , . , r ". r ' . " . * Ri, o' o'', Poh- . . ^ , he "", . re, 1. r r "- m n' p\ ot gr 't hi oi i f l.'l-ed 'r dlc ' "nd restofthe grouPdcfer mace.$s positbn is reinforcedbv the wav rhe centreofthegrout' is the at we Rrtter, do r.;-,.s ii r';-. rl'iy r""l " basedon ho'our' code a militarv of svmbol as the also identified r ar ' r e'r ; nr ' "nr of 'le e n'e and r i' \ . r ' I ' """, . "'e'r ' ". ', a. , "* or Pr i"r en f ' r er 'e' n'r ooF'r hr r 'dl . i"o"r and ol the ", ,'" .p'.**t^t'. ", . "tr- ', +of the nilitdrv world he 'ontrch ofhis "s Placet' t'",tu'd.. But lis positionis alsoPaft ",t,'",io.*hi.hi.,l*, i" xn oil to akin pon'"it' u a"nni'iu'
ili' '""."n.", s* * wiir' ,r'" Arbus,what beginsto emergeon closer "";"ti'n. and denseregistcrof mexnirg rcflecdns i..',i"i i, I'igt'ly " ',yti,.d ii,*g" rhe verticrl structurcrcioiorcesthe obvious il'" *-ra tlr "r,r''" distinction,mergingthe straightnes,of .nr.-ity ..1* ".a us "r beforc stand s they figucs ,*, t ina t'',t'" p'".e'.e ofthe "t theonly furtherdistinguishln! -i notwerahat, 6gurewhodoes Potteris statusHis significanct hissingular r';," +"-,1r" e-r; of tht anangement -a;.reasing lite friea denre the sy i' oi*' "aa"i an' rcgilia The -iigr',' s'ulPture monuhental a e.;up, reminisent-"f xs distinc authoritv' and of power i-presion th" i*ig';o laneuaqe\ in thtir oM n right \! mbolic--pl"a onfrrn rleal'e q ." i','..i";", .'"'r"'alp'r'r"'nI a ofdisthg''ishedind;viduaLs ofa militaryworldandthesignilicance il'i...
d.wtowE
rr^D
Pnoro.RAPHil ^
thev connrm their place in history. But vhat happens when we iDclud€ the fisure of Brady in the image?Allow Bradyt prcsenceon th€ right to be the objectofour attentionand immediate\' Potter; /rcentred' The compos;tional balance of the 'tust' photograph is completelv broken. What emelges ; a double structure: an official grouP Po'tmit which advenises and celebratesa white military world, and a second which, through the simple presenceofthe photographer' questions the terms ofreferenceofthe first. Brady hasestablishedacriti'al disunce between himself, the group, and the way the grouP has been photographed; an aspect turther underlined by the way his own Pose' nonch"l"nt and *'"a1, is in direct contrast to the others ln telns of Banhes's reading of photographs Bradyk presence cre tes ^ ?unctum which beginsa proces ofquestioning.Brady,alongwith such figures as Tinothy O'SuUiwn and Alexander Gardner, is among the most celebnted ofthe blicial'war photographers ofthe period, but oncewe besin to question the conte\1, the terms of imaging, the treatment of n"a ." .", *ry aifferent image ofthe var emerges,and a very " '"i;"o, ditrerent senseofwar photography asan historical account What such imagesshow us is not so much a history as m ideology,and in their accretion as a composite image they create a sust.rined PhotograPhic esay o! that ideology Colectively they build ioMrds a critical ,rueiionins and, fir from 'ofiicia1', they suggestthe contradictions and myths at tie cenft of the culture. Thus, in relation to the General Potter photognph an image like trol takes its Place vithin a very ditrerent tradition of potraiture and history as a tundamentar inversion ofthe'oficial' Portrait. This is, literaltv, the underside ofthe formal advertising and reveals the Potter image as both Propagand$t and myholog'eJ. Tle single figure is isolated, at the margins of the world iepicted and at the bottom ofthe hicrarchy Mot obviously heis black, and just as his presenceMs missing fton1 the white world of Potter'simage,soherehe is resrainedwithin a domesticcontdt lleis named as a senant, passive,and sunounded bv rubblsh His unifo'nt confirms his conditio!.4 Such a critical and sel{-conscious use of the nedium is most often associat€d with radical twentieth-century PhotognPhy' sPecialy since the r95os,when there has emerged a sustained questioning of th€ terms of representation and the stNctures of moning very much with nodernism, and in the influencedby critical theoriesassociated DostmodernDeriod,bv structuralisnand semiotics But in many ways t. all phitograPhs in the sameterms and be alert to the * "eed "ee extent that FhotoglaPhers have always beeo 'on'erned with the tf'" photograPhard the actoftaking it The illusion of conte"t "fUoih i - rl u a l ' o p e nro a p rra z a u l ' r.h al l ow ' u: to a phot oqr dph - v c ra c :ry . ii' ; . , t ly r" .l " ' r i r r n o r' ^ m u . h a ro k erol rl e-eal brt r' "no 'e , a ' process of signiication ind rePresentatron. put ofa
The extent to which mmy conternpolary Photog.aPhers h,lve questionedthe idea of a singletepresentationalsPaceand mde th€ reading of the photograph the"rr subject helps to place all Photo erap hr wi, hin t he. onr o of posr m ode- npm . r ne f ht i- ony t \ r ' . v a' a d'uJ m edir m eor lir ninq r prro r oganhva.hievedr 6 a, cender e Pr 'int i, s ser r r er . r ns redl$o, ld ju'r dr t hepo: . t sben lir er ar utand the aims and assumptionsofrealisn, is tenpered onceve agreeto a theory of photographic meaning as being as problenztic as anfhing we find in such works as ?}e WasteLand, Urysl' ot Le' Denoisdk' dArignon.lrst *Wdlace Stwensdeclued that in modernpoetry the subjectwas 'poetryitself', so in paintingthe act ofrePresentationitself became central. Photography has i:llowed a simil2r develoPment' creating the terns for a critical readirg of its meaning and status as a modeof representation. One such photographer is the American Lee Friedlmder (r93a ) Friedlander's photographs arc deliberately dificult to read, indeed' they rnake diniculty basic to their meaning as part of a larger critical process. The ,tuestionofthe terns by which we reada photograph'and ihe stanrsof the world it'renects' de centralto his vhole enterprise His eye rcans the United States not c a Walker Evans intenr on d visior of a particuld cultuml order, but m the recorder of a series of random events and images which, once qu€stioned' fail to cohere' What energes is a disParateworld of chaotic images and signs' .rer in'r e pio. e. 'e' ir $h: , q ever 1t hi. ghor er ' abor r m e, n: ngbut ' ur c n" ,Uy o"ly a. . t ar "' r '( 1'ir ' P. r r ot r ' lr r ge Dr oblcm ar :'du'r us in the inPlicates directly photograph And vithin th; processthe mirors nor its assumed spee' us into act of reading.It neither &aws back a world which aflirms our own terms of reference lnsterd, it purposetully distorts the world we take for granted and makes ihe photographic act part of a larga way of seeing and constructing rea njne. Hs'nase a, < r or 'o r u. h a r e'or d of whr t i' a' vt r al e" r1 . on ulr ur alr P'<selm r r on Hr glr Jt'<l' onr r ou' r ho wor k through paradox, the Phy of absenceand preseoce,rldical Pers pectives, and the breaking up ofthe photographn: surfa and di6cult relation-ships. Thus liiedtands nakes the act of readingbasic One of his most famousinages,for exarnpL,Rotie 9W Ne.,)Yaft G969)I u I includesa reflectionofthe photographcrinthe wing-mirror ofh;s cd ashe takes lt r 'dcG r ir r vel- r iedlJ- de,pho'os, 'pnor ih". . ". on*nr hweloo* . Pd'e; n qhr ch r Lp r he"qi. "l r ''- - r 'al r u t 1"' " ''- , t ' -.' -y The very act of looking is dispiacedas part of a larger scene/seen. processofconstruction The rnirror establishesa self rcflqive term {}1 oPcns uP the inage to a comple.t and arnbivalent i"r-."-, "ra di', our 'e The m r r r ur : . : n ': c- br t r o p\u , oq- aphi'11; 'r r r ur Jl ; , h"wUnur j' { Bt Jd) Lke ir . luochim 'clJin i ..a r i, J"- . . r *', Eow Dowr RtaD rHoTocurHi ^
l7
t,
nrkes reflections,shadows, The processis slmih, in xnotberexemplaryFiiedhnder inage, alb"qrcry,e (1971)lr2l O ne of a numberof inrges of Aneri.a, t his coul.lbe an)Nhcrc.nd nowhere.At first glanceit dprexrsN d bhnd an.l nondescriptimage,brlt thcn bcgjnsto resonrtewitl r rich and brokenup profusemeaning.ln chaactersdcnanne. Friedlanderbas so that an ordered, three dimcnsional the suriaceofthe lhotograph spaceis simultaneouslyquestionedand rltetd. We look not at Alberquerquebut at a photogxph. It,esists anysinglefocalpoint, so thar our cyc movesoverand overthe imagc$'ithout any point ofresi, any senledor nnal senscofunity (andunitarystaceand meaning).it the mostobviousofurban thnrgs:a blockofllats, a dog,a phorographs h.nrntod -, B n.r( a,. n c h y d Ir.. ,,.J n r' i ." rd rc -tu .. ol .onnections.Iriedlarder makesthe fanilirr mfamililr, and thc obviousstrange.Inthisimage,for crampie,thereis no senseofdepth, so that cvcrything existsin d two din,ensionairather rhan thfce d;mensiondlper.eptualspacc.Any'deptl' *ists in reliinh r. the co,l.eptualdensityofrheimrue.In a.onnotutivecortext,we notehow ,4.sterilescereis the ihage is sa .atcdwith signsof communication. the car,the road,the glunedwnh thr pro.essofpossiblcconnecrions, telegfuphwires, and dre traliic ligh*. And of course the act ol .onrmunicating,the ljnes of mcening,fut part of the photograph'.s subject.Frledlando thus crertesr phoLog phic stacc which makcs
diri.d analysismd culh,rxlneaning dre worLdof its ihaging Jut as inagesnake centrelthe langmgeand his dis.ontinxols ,nd dccePtive syntuof the photograph,sothey often qhaust the subjccti'r orderto reduceit b littlc morethan a Darginaland banalfresencc.The nost aspart ofan on going obviousand narginal subjectoftâ&#x201A;Źn resonates an$iguity and dim.u1ry In short,they oller us *cmplarv inages for how we rcad a photogra|h and how dre photognph construct
Fricdlanderk;nageschangcthe historyof thâ&#x201A;Źrhotosruphandsive us a criticalvocabularyby which to readits developmentThev return to the bxsicdistin.tioosbetweer the deootaiivexnd connotatlveso in*ted upon by Barthesand Umberto Eco,! and orhe clearthat' as as in p"inting and literature,the neaning and pnctice of -"cl' . r l. e- opht r \ e pl, e u, r l; n r '. r n 'r | or 'od' 'nl f r ar " .' ' wt " S r r \ . d- Jr d L\ "r p\ o'obr r Pl'vc' , r . f . '. ' ". 'unclasifirble, hc alenedusto the Pd.doa ofsomethingsccminglvso obviousand yet so problenxtic The foloviDg ch^pterstake uP tha tle lhotograph in al paradoxand suggesta readingwhichcelebraics jts ambiv,lenceandstr^ngcne$rs. modeotreprcscntatLon
Bos' Do\'LREAD^
PH.,locurH;]!