Thoughts of sight occurred to me recently. The science of seeing, understanding the things we’re observing—in this case photographs. As separate individuals, there’s extremely wide latitude in what each of us sees when looking at any thing. Overall, we don’t think the same thoughts even when looking at the same object(s). This led me to contemplate the vast differences we have as humans.
Two questions I’ve asked myself recently in looking through photography social media platforms.
Viewers must be able to see an item, object, artwork—yes?
If portrait artwork includes a person or people in prominence, does it make sense to see the face of the people/person?
In the following portraits, which provides the most information for you to interpret, and offer your opinion?
As creators, we’re trained to fully express ourselves within each piece of art, and allow the viewer to interpret that artwork as they want. I have to accept that their interpretations of the work could be considerably different than what I hope. This approach may not work well for the perfectionist creator.
Understanding and interpreting artistic creativity is a subjective pursuit from the perspective of the viewer. I periodically contemplate the minimum requirements needed for viewers to come to their conclusions about the photographs I present. As noted before, many may not come to the same conclusion—if they come to one at all.
In which photograph does there begin to be enough information for you to effectively interpret what you see? Share your ideas in the comment section.
These differences are the hurdles of visual creativity for us as artists/creators. Thinking through as many necessities of seeing that’s required to convey full meanings and messages to viewers.
All of the above to say, if viewers cannot “see” artwork (excluding sound, touch, taste, and smell), how can it be fully understood when it’s shared?
As always, I thank you for reading this newsletter through.
Til next time…
Kenneth