I think that the best way to think about looking at pictures is to break into three components. The first component could be referred to as its physical form, the second component would be what the picture contains or the symbols and it, and the third component would be the context, such as captions, text surrounding the image, and even where it’s published. Sometimes context can also be the analysis of the history or time and place that the picture was made.

The first and probably the most immediate or visceral plane that you can look at a picture with is its physical form. Here’s a dictionary definition of the word form and it encapsulates most of the physical elements that we would look for.

form (1) : orderly method of arrangement (as in the presentation of ideas) : manner of coordinating elements (as of an artistic production or course of reasoning)(2) : a particular kind or instance of such arrangement <the sonnet is a poetical form>

b : PATTERN, SCHEMA <arguments of the same logical form>c : the structural element, plan, or design of a work of art -- visible and measurable unit defined by a contour : a bounded surface or volume

(3) The literal shape and mass of an object or figure.(4) More general, the materials used to make a work of art, the ways in which these materials are used utilized in terms of the formal elements (medium, texture, rhythm, tempo, dynamic contrast, melody, line, light/contrast/value structure, color, texture, size and composition.)

formal analysis Is the analysis of a work by discussing its form such as its medium, shape, lines, light, color, texture and composition.

If you were to describe this photograph in terms of its formal analysis you might start with the most basic things such as, the fact that the photograph is in black and white. This photograph has at the center of it a teddy bear leaning against a low ledge or wall. There is deep space in the photograph in which the teddy bear is in the middle of the composition but also in the mid-ground of the photograph. It’s not up against the front of the picture it seems set back a little way into the background, however, there is deep space and in

the far background are some blurry buildings.

It’s not clear if there is a strong light source or where the sun is because the lighting in the photo seems to be diffused. There is a little cast shadow underneath the bear and it seems like in the foreground of the picture there is more contrast in terms of dark and light shading. In the background of the photograph there are less darks and it is not in focus.

If one were to describe this with fancier or more specific jargon you could say that the picture is composed in a symmetrical way in which the bear is in the center of the photograph. There is deep space in the photograph with the foreground, a middle ground, and a background. There is a range of focus in which the foreground is blurry and the background is blurry but the focus literally is on the bear. The center of the picture, with a stuffed animal is located, is also the vanishing point in terms of one-point perspective. The image is also monochromatic, meaning it is in black and white. The photo doesn’t seem to have a lot of grain or texture and the picture plane itself is a square or cube shape.

The formal description is almost like how one might describe a person or thing without understanding what it is or who it is. It doesn’t include the subject matter or content of the photograph. The next-door deeper plane of analysis would be the content, sometimes referred to as the iconography, or subject matter of the

picture. In a way, both a formal analysis and an analysis of the subject matter can be pretty much objective and not have very much judgment or value in it. So far we haven’t discussed whether or not we find this photograph beautiful, or interesting, or even offensive or unattractive.

You would refer to this assessment of the content as an “iconographic” analysis. Here’s a definition.

ico·nog·ra·phy Etymology: Medieval Latin iconographia, from Greek eikonographia sketch, description, from eikonographein to describe, from eikon- + graphein to write -- more at CARVE Date: 1678 1 : pictorial material relating to or illustrating a subject2 : the traditional or conventional images or symbols associated with a subject and especially a religious or legendary subject 3 : the imagery or symbolism of a work of art, an artist, or a body of art 4 : ICONOLOGY

The subject matter or iconography of this photograph is a stuffed bear, leaning against a wall or low ledge, in what looks to be a decaying cityscape. The diffused lighting seems to suggest that this is in a cold or rainy climate. The decay of the bear and the buildings seems to suggest the intention of the photographer was to place a discarded teddy bear in a decaying environment and this could be interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the viewers context and if there was any accompanying information about the photograph.

For this course, looking at the photograph in terms of accompanying facts and interpretations can be referred to as a “contextual analysis.” Here’s a definition:

context

Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words, coherence, from contexere to weave together, from com- + texere to weave

1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : ENVIRONMENT, SETTING

contextual analysis Is the analysis of a work by discussing its history, culture, environment, and or background. Roughly close to conclusion in music.

contextualism A methodological approach in art history which focuses on the cultural back ground of an art object. Unlike connoisseurship, contextualism utilizes the literature, history, economics, and social developments (among others) of a period, as well as the object itself, to explain the meaning of an artwork.

The photograph, while containing identifiable things, does not specifically describe how we’re supposed to feel about it or where it’s taken, and possibly what it means. We do have some clues. For example, the bear is probably the most important part of the photograph because it’s in the center of the picture, but the bear itself is also posed or placed in such a way that it almost looks like a person who is slumping down or leaning against the wall. This combined with the black and white, almost documentary look of the photograph, against a decaying urban landscape might allow us to interpret what the photograph means and this brings us into a deeper level of analysis in which our context, our thoughts and personalities, might make us interpret the photograph. If we had more facts, such as who the photographer was, where the photograph was taken, and the reason for taking the photograph we would have more contextual data or information in which to make a judgment about what it means. I found this photograph on Tumblr and there was no other information about it other than it had been

shared a couple of thousand times. There was no photo credit or caption associated with it.

Because of the lack of factual data or information, the viewer has to bring their own experiences and personality on the photograph to make some sort of meaning of the symbols or “icons” included in the photograph. For example, the use of black and white as opposed to color photography, is often associated with things like, newspaper or journalistic photography, and sometimes we even use the cliché “in black and white.” The placement of the bear and even how it’s posed can also be interpreted pretty universally as a sort of sad looking posture. Objectively viewed, without any value placed on it, it could be described as a bear discarded in the street wedged against the curb. However, if we take into account when teddy bear’s meaning in our culture it’s pretty clear that a discarded bear in a landscape of urban decay photographed in black and white might be a pretty depressing photograph of the teddy bear. Compare these two photographs that contain similar stuffed animals.

By adding the contrast of the photograph that shows an image of a happy child, with bright colors, and a smile we can see a big difference in how we would interpret each image. Our personal context and our understanding of children and stuffed animals in our culture allows us to interpret what the intention of each photographer might have been. This comparison is sort of a sad versus happy version of how a teddy bear might be regarded.

What if we were to compare another image of a child with the teddy bear with the original black and white one?

These two photographs share a lot in terms of their form. They are both in black and white, they both use elements of linear or one point perspective, and they both contain a brick wall and a teddy bear.

If you compare the compositions of both photographs there both a bit different because the one on the left is symmetrical. The bear is in the center of the picture at the apex of where the lines from the building meet on a vanishing point on the horizon. However, the photograph on the right-hand side places the child in the teddy bear in the far lower right-hand corner of the picture and above the child are a series of paper flyers pasted to a brick wall. The difference between the compositions is symmetrical versus asymmetrical composition.

In terms of the content or iconography of the two images they both share in the fact that they are urban landscapes that include a brick wall and a stuffed animal however, they diverge in the fact that there is the addition of the paper flyers and the small child kneeling on the ground looking at the teddy bear. The addition of extra elements such as the Flyers and the child, possibly even the asymmetrical quality of the composition could lead to different interpretations of the meaning of each photograph.

I can provide you with some context for the photograph on the right-hand side and this will even change how you might view the comparison of the two photographs. By placing these two photographs in a comparison it might generate more meaning for you and allow you to fantasize in a different way about what each of the photographs means. The addition of more context besides placing the

two photographs in context to one another can even further that change in interpretation.

The photograph on the right-hand side of the child kneeling underneath the Flyers is one from a week or two after the event we call “9/11.” It is a photograph of a child who is regarding a teddy bear that was left as a reminder of someone who was lost in the destruction of the World Trade Center’s. Above her are a series of flyers that are actually missing persons posters that many New Yorkers posted all over the city hoping that they might find one of the loved ones who went missing on the day of the tragedy.

Think about how the caption or another photograph in direct comparison, might change your interpretation of the first.

Wall with Missing Person Flyers

turned Into a Shrine for 9/11 Missing/Victims

The caption underneath the photo makes it more haunting and might be a completely different idea than one based on viewing the image with no caption.

Many of the books and documentary films that I’ve watched to prepare for teaching this class seem to emphasize biographical and career data about individual artists, however, many of these in-depth analyses don’t talk specifically about looking at particular photographs and/or films by these artists. I think it’s really important to look at the reasons why something like a photograph become so popular that everyone knows it and everyone seems to appreciate what it is.

To this end I read a couple of books that were specifically about analyzing photographs and products to understand what makes a photograph popular or important even when the photographer is not famous or well-known. A helpful book to get to the root of why a photograph or picture might become popular or famous are in two books “Emotional Design” and “The Photographer’s Mind.”

Both books introduce the idea that there are several levels that make us like or engage with the work of art, a photograph, or even a product. These three levels are very similar to the planes of analysis, formal, iconographic, and contextual that I discussed in the previous paragraphs. It seems as if there are principles in which a person can first be engaged are gripped by a work of art on a physical or visceral level. What engages us on this physical level, similar to the formal level that I discussed before, is that the work of art engages us on a physical or sensual level and there are elements on this level that sort of hook us into engaging with it. Several books refer to this by using the adjectives pretty, or beautiful, or visually pleasing. Within the category of visually pleasing several of the books seem to agree that images that are familiar, have rich color, harmonious value structure or color, are clear or well-focused, often symmetry or composition is discussed and when it comes to the human body many of them discussed similar kinds of standards. It seems as if it’s hard to quantify or find statistics for elemental qualities that people find beautiful or pretty, however, we all know what it is.

The next level that people seem to enter into a picture on has to do with the content of the picture and how important or emotionally engaging the subject matter or content is to the person. Sometimes you can enter work or be interested in looking at a work in engaging with it just because you engage with it on an emotional or intellectual level and you agree with the content, but, many of the sources I consulted suggested that the majority of the time people get involved with looking at a work of art first because they respond to it on a visual or visceral level according to whatever formal elements appeal to them and then continue to engage with the work after the look at the content of it.

You may have seen this photograph before. I remember seeing this photograph when I was a kid of about 12 years old. My parents have a book called “The Family of Man,” which is a book of black and white photography that addresses several themes that the curators believed were universal to all human beings. This particular photograph was so engaging to me that I tried to draw or painted several times as a young teen. I remember thinking that it was very beautiful. I liked the light and shadow in the fact that it was in black and white and had an interesting value structure to it. I thought that the level of

detail and clarity of the focus was really beautiful because I can see the details and I remember liking it because the woman’s face was in the center of the picture. On a personal level, I think I liked this photograph so much because I thought it would be a good thing to draw and it made sense to me.

I suspect, that I was also drawn to the photograph because it is a little bit sad. The black and white and gray quality of it makes it literally kind of gray in terms of its emotional tone. It also has what seems to be a sort of sad subject matter with a woman and two children whose

body language suggests deep worry and despair. The idea of a mother and her children being sad or morose was engaging for me. In the book, “Emotional Design,” the author uses the term sentiment as one of the ways that someone can

engage with the work. The author goes on to describe how this can lead to a deep intellectual, emotional, and/or reflective state that makes you engage with the work even more.

I think that in the case of this book the reflective or emotional content and my engagement with it were enhanced by the photographs that preceded it in the book, surrounded it in the book, and also were after it. All of the images were rather sad and were about some sort of universal emotional state of mourning or

sadness. The context caused me to reflect a little bit deeper and see the images as a series of stills or panels in a larger story about people. This was actually the goal of the curators of the exhibit “The Family of Man” intended according to its preface.

Some questions to think about.

1. Find some examples of photography that are used in social media that you have a powerful reaction to. 2. Make a screen shot of it for reference. 3. What about the image you to have a strong reaction to it. 4. Are responding to the work because of its form, the content, or the context of it? 5. What about its physical form do you like or dislike? 6. What emotion did stir up for you? 7. How does it fit in with the images and/or design of what surrounding it?