I have been reading a piece called
“Principles for Interpreting Photographs” by Terry Barrett
Click to access B_PriIntPho_10.pdf
It is an interesting read and what I will be doing is to go through each of his principles an outline of what he has said or not and Some comments that I have made on what he has said. Hopefully this will bring it all into sharper relief
All images require Interpretation.
This is the first of his principles and in int he states that Art does not speak for itself and requires and input from the viewer. Richard Long made his name with straight lines which included a 10 mile walk across Exmoor. Some people said it was not art but other contested that it was as Long as said that it was. The only trace of this piece of art(?) is an OS map held in the Tate with a straight line drawn upon it. How do we interpret this. Is this in fact just one persons Jolly or is it as he contests a piece of living art or art that has ceased to exist. The image that Long made prior to this included him walking ain a straight line to a forest then taking a photograph of it.
Barrett applies these 5 rules which are from Danto’s theory of Art
Art is about something.
Both of these are about something. One is about a walk over some moorland, the other is about a straight line to a wooded area. the fact that one has albeit ceased to be save a mark on a map is not the point what is the point is that it was about something so becomes art in this respect and becomes open to interpretation.
A work of Art projects a point of view
Again both pieces project this point of view; his. This is how he wants the work to be seen we could duplicate this work but it would be ours and not his. In photography we sometimes try to recreate the style of those gone before us and we would only be doing the same in this case. We do not know conclusively what his point of view actually is and as such we can debate and discuss this
A work of art projects this point of view by rhetorical means
If we are asking a question we are require a response an effect, In both of these pieces it gets an effect. Why was Long so enamoured with straight lines, why did he walk over the moor for 10 miles and let it go at that. These are obviously exploratory questions and leave us with a response of some description.
A work of art requires interpretation.
I find this the most difficult thing to understand. Moving away from Long and looking at Woodman, How do we interpret her works, what is she saying to us. I know that she is well liked and that a number of people look at her works and analyse them. I have seen one video where the question is asked. “In a lot or Woodmans images she works into the corners, what do we make of this?” because it had even lighting? She could control the environment? No! Apparently it was something to do with how the space was being used within her shots and it was apparently a conscious decision.
The Video can be viewed at this link
I would be inclined to interpret her work differently not so much on a technical nature of camera positions but of the overall image. In the end the interpretation of the camera position could be one of “it looked good at the time” ( my words not hers.)
A bigger question that I have asked many times is when does a photograph become a work of art. What value must it have ascribed to it to be considered a work of art. THis leads on the last one
The work of art and its interpretation require an art-historical context
Again looking at Woodman she was found about 5 years after her death and her images put on display. After much debate they began to apply different genres. from surrealism to feminism onto them, I would say somewhat cynically to get them accepted, but not really. So they have a short historical context from the time they were taken but given a longer one due to the genre.
Longs work however does not have a context to work in we have no frames of reference to base his work in, perhaps modernism?
My primary issue with any interpretation is that it is highly personal and one persons view may be totally at odds with another it is easy to see why such endless and meaningless debates go on and on. My interpretation of the two artist mentioned here would be and probably is entirely different to the accepted view but that does not make them wrong. You could in fact take any aspect of any image and find some meaning in it that was not there at the time of taking. One that we have put on it based on what we are who we are and where we have come from.
Context and Narative 