I know I haven’t been updating this blog because I’m too lazy. Years 2 and 3 have been an exciting flurry of business (both work and busy-ness). I constantly spew bite-sized thoughts that stream into my mind on Instagram Stories anyway, and I am remarkably easily bored and excitable, so longer, more considered pieces on Blogger aren’t sustainable. I digress. Many exciting life updates! I’m now officially done with my undergraduate PPE programme at King’s College London. I loved every bit of it: the depth, rigour and intellectual intensity of the course, the international student community, the bustling city of London and all the travel opportunities around Europe. Words can’t do justice to the profundity of the experience. In typical Quincean fashion, I milked everything I could out of the three years: went to Cumberland Lodge (for free) as a photographer with the Philosophy Department in Years 1 and 3, clinched the Principal’s Global Leadership Award (PGLA) in my second year (spending
If we break down the process of photojournalism, we find that there are essentially three stages: Pre-Photo, Photo and Post-Photo. Pre-Photo involves the photojournalist's brief and his conceptualisation of photographs. Photo refers to the finished photographs themselves. Post-Photo involves the selection and distribution of photographs to a wide audience. This provides a convenient framework that we can use to figure out where and how a photograph’s meaning is created. In our examination of the photograph’s meaning, it is also important to note the dual nature of the photograph — as both a piece of evidence and a work of art.
Before the photograph, there is the photographer. The creation of the photograph necessitates the active intervention of the photographer, who must choose what settings to use, what scenes to capture, the angle of the shot, et cetera. These choices, literally, make the photograph. Hence, if we are to investigate the origin of meaning in photojournalism, we cannot divorce the image from the image-maker and his intentions.
Yet, although the photographer actively intervenes in what he shoots, we cannot deny the physical existence of the objects he shoots. Hence, there is also the issue of the photographed. We cannot completely associate a photograph’s meaning with its creator, we must also consider what it is created with. Therefore, there is a level of objectivity present in the meaning of the photograph. If we regard the photograph to be an empirical measurement, then it is plain and simple: what you see is what you get. However the dual nature of the photograph complicates matters: there is no view from nowhere, yet every view is equally factual.
After the photograph, there is the viewer, who is on the receiving end of this visual communication. To a certain extent, the viewer’s interpretation also shapes the meaning of the photograph. After all, the creation of meaning necessitates the viewer — if a photograph is not seen, does it mean anything? (I realise this is somewhat similar to George Berkeley’s fallen tree!)
Evidently, the problem of meaning in journalistic photographs is a thorny one. This has numerous implications on photojournalism as a whole. Who authors the photograph? Can different photos of the same event be equally trustworthy? Can photojournalism be considered an objective source of knowledge? To fully address this issue, one must examine the photograph through both epistemological and aesthetic perspectives.
Now I really hope that my research proposal gets approved. Meanwhile, there's more reading to do. ∎
Comments
Post a Comment