Filtered Through Association

All of the images we read are presented through the filter of editors whose aim is to present their arguments. From the billboard you see while driving down the highway to the AD you read about the School of Visual Arts, arguments are presented front and center with forethought regarding their viewing audience. Whether these images have been produced by photographers and presented by photographers, as in the gallery installation, or by art directors for consumers, as in the magazine advertisement, these images have been edited, filtered, and purposefully presented for our consumption.

In recent sessions we have discussed the power of the Press Article, Title, Caption and Headline, now let us discuss the image selection process. Due to a photographs inherent nature to have two levels of communication, denotation and connotation, it has, since its inception, been a powerful tool for argumentation. "In a limited way, the camera catches so accurately what's in front of it that you think that's all there is to say" Elaine Reichek.

We relate to a photograph by its natural tendency to present fact and certain aspects of reality. For example, in the AD for Pedigree Dog Chow, we read a cute, innocent puppy sleeping, (Who can't relate to that?). In no way is the dog food directly related to this quality of cuteness or "puppyness." However, by positioning the brightly colored bag of food on a black background in such a way as to draw the viewers gaze back and forth from the puppy to the brand, we are forced to make the connection that Pedigree Dog Chow represents this puppy and therefore all puppies of a similar cuteness. This association informs the viewer with certain qualities, all of which are dependent on our relationship to the photograph of the puppy.
To further emphasize the point about our relationship to a photograph by its natural tendency to present fact, consider this same advertisement where an illustration stands in place of the photograph, hardly the same connection right?

Editors and Image Makers alike, present their slice of reality using the strength and inherent properties of photography along side tried and true techniques that aid in selling their arguments. Such techniques as juxtaposition, where two images are seen side-by-side forcing the viewer to make direct associations with two otherwise unrelated subjects. And others, like closure, where the viewer draws certain parallels as a result of the path we have been goaded into following.

Take, for example, this image of O.J. Simpson. Seen here are two versions of the same image. On the right is the version that was presented on the cover of Newsweek. On the left is the version that was presented on the cover of TIME. Notice the difference between the two images? How do you feel about Mr. Simpson after looking at the image on the right versus the image on the left? What affects do the titles have on you, on the image?

The editors of TIME Magazine purchased the same image from the press as Newsweek but in their interpretation they have chosen to darken the photograph with the obvious intention of making Mr. Simpson appear more menacing. Juxtaposing this image with the title, "An American Tragedy," we are intrigued yet alarmed. Is the tragedy the downfall of a "hero" or is the implied tragedy what O.J. Simpson represents as a member of American Popular Culture?

As photographers we are all editors to one degree or another. While some of the edits we perform on the images we make are compositional choices, others are more about the claims we make and want to reinforce. All of our images are produced through our filters and presented to the community of viewers at large. How we take advantage of this authority is another issue, however it is your responsibility to wield the power of image responsibly.