What’s in a photograph?

What’s in a photograph?

Is it merely the record of an event that happened to occur in front of the camera? Is it an expression of the photographer’s vision, or more so, the interpretation of the viewer? 

Where does its value lie? 

In the intent of the photographer, the craft of the image, or the attractiveness to the consumer?

The answer to these two questions is probably all of the above. I think though at its deepest level the answer is the information in the photograph. Something occurred in the mind of the photographer that compelled them to take a picture and then massage its traits so as to best represent the feeling that photographer had just before the moment of capture. The information describing that feeling is wrapped up in the fundamental building blocks of the image and delivered to the viewer so that they may share in that feeling.

There are problems with this transfer however. Despite the inarticulate nature of visuals as a pure conduit of emotion, I think the bigger challenge is actually in the differing life experiences of the photographer and the viewer. The environmental conditions that trigger an emotional response in one person do not always do the same to another. So, even if the message is pure, the intended emotional impact may not be there.

What I think this ultimately means is that the value of the photograph is registered in the viewer. Now, the photographer is a viewer too and “gets it” better than anyone. But, for any given photograph to impact a wide number of people it has to speak in a language common to most people. That’s a double-edged sword. Qualities that appeal to the masses aren’t bad, but crafting imagery to meet this appeal leads to prosaic, cookie-cutter work. Individuality must be measured.  Too much and nobody gets it. Too little and everybody gets bored.