© 2010 Kang Menacing

Menacing Head

Associating words with photographs can be a tricky thing. The moment one tries to attach an idea to a photograph, one might be in danger of interrupting whatever preconceptions the viewer might be holding while looking at the photograph. There can be two outcomes, either the viewer agrees or disagrees with my point of view. This is intriguing, because if the viewer disagrees with the way a photographer has chosen to present their photographs, and in the context of which it is presented, does it then lose meaning? Does it make it more or less provocative.

What kind of emotion or response should a photograph or a collection of photographs suppose to illicit anyway? Are photographs best viewed without commentary, or does the viewer feel more fulfilled when they know more about the circumstances behind the photograph? Or more shockingly, that some photographs do not ever take on meaning, and they are merely pretty pictures. Take the case of documentary photographs. Does the act of documenting something ‘real’, and presenting a version of the truth mean that it is suppose to take on meaning? Are certain types of photographs merely aesthetics and nothing else?

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>