Words vs. Images

1/31/06 8:55 AM Tuesday

This morning I read Chapter 6, “Through the Lens of Culture (1945-1975),” in Marien’s text (Photography, a Cultural History) In the section on Japanese photographers (pp. 330-339), I found myself reacting negatively to some of the words that were written. In particular, the paragraphs describing Yasuhiro Ishimoto’s photographic works struck me as JARRING in several instances. This led me to start thinking about the differences in my reactions to words vs. my reactions to images.

The passages that caught my attention were these:

Reference One: On page 335 is this sentence: “Responding to a comment by photographer Minor White, Ishimoto stated: ‘I studied at the New Bauhaus in Chicago, so I agree that my work can be said to contain American and German influences, but I do not agree that I have any Japanese traits.’” I found that an astonishing statement! Surely there’s a typo in that quote, such that it should read “…but I do not agree that I DO NOT have any Japanese traits.” Or does he really mean that he does not? My family has been known to be in this country since 1732, yet I could not honestly say I have no “German traits”, or French, or English, or Scots-Irish either! So – what does Ishimoto MEAN when he says this?

Reference Two: On page 337 is this sentence: “Misunderstanding Ishimoto’s disheartened perception of human relationships, Edward Steichen put two of his photographs in the exhibition of The Family of Man.” Now, what can that possibly mean? Does that mean that Steichen would have only chosen photographs by photographers who had an uplifting or ennobling perception of human relationships? Or is this said in response to the criticisms from photographers about how he used their material in a context different from their intent?

Reference Three: On page 337 is this sentence: “Ishimoto’s international reputation was sealed when he published the result of his six-year-long study of Katsura Rikyu, the so-called Detached Palace in Kyoto, Japan.” What does it mean to say that his reputation was “sealed”? Somehow that brought up the image for me of a coffin. Does it mean that this a good reputation, or a bad reputation? I can’t tell from what the writer says!

In all 3 instances, I found myself thinking that another way of writing the sentence or paragraph would have worked better. In the first instance, I think the quote is wrong, or if it is correct, than more should be said to explain what Ishimoto really meant!

In the second instance, I find this phrasing contradicts what we learned earlier, on pages 312-314, about the extraordinary show called The Family of Man, organized by Edward Steichen, and exhibited at New York’s Museum of Modern History in 1955, and abroad from 1955-1962. That is, Steichen chose photographs according to the purpose of the exhibit, and displayed them without regard to their “intended” purposes. And if that is so, what would it matter how Ishimoto felt as he photographed?

In the third instance, I am reacting as a writer. “That’s the wrong word!” I want to scream. “It implies more than you meant to say!” Or even, “That says it wrongly!” I am judging the choice of words, and the meanings that they convey. And I am evaluating them for their accuracy, and their effect. I do not do this when I view a photograph! I accept what the photographer photographs, as belonging in its place. And suddenly I found this odd, that I should have such strong subjective reactions to words, in a way that I do not have when viewing other’s images.

As an aside, I will mention that Microsoft Office’s spell check accepted the name of Yasuhiro Ishimoto as understood, but neither Katsura nor Rikyu nor even Steichen’s names were recognizable! Now, what does THAT mean? Also, when I misspelled Ishimoto’s name to be Ishomoto, the spell-check suggested the alternative words “shoot, shoots, shooter, or shoot-out”. So – how much does the software program really understand about the name Ishimoto? These ponderings will be put aside now to return to my main argument (and why would I use that word rather than to say “point”, as in “my main point”?). And, I will teach my computer these new names, by adding them to my “dictionary”, being careful not to add Ishomoto!!

Maybe my strong reactions to these sentences and to words and writings in general, are simply indicative of ME. That is, they are MY reactions, and tell more about me than they do about the actual text itself. On the other hand, I suspect these reactions may also tell us something about the differences in the ways in which we humans react to words vs. the ways in which we react to images. For instance, I can feel strongly that a particular word has been miss-chosen, or that a particular work of writing is factually or attitudinally WRONG. But have I ever had a reaction to a photo like that? I may not LIKE a photo, but I would not criticize it as being “wrong”, in the sense of miss-telling the story.

Yet I suppose there IS a sense in which photographs are similarly evaluated. Our text talks about the frequent criticism of photographs as being altered, or enhanced, or in other ways being dishonest. That is, there is an instinctively human pre-supposition that a photograph should be ACCURATE. It should show us what actually existed at the moment at which it was taken. Or perhaps that is just a culturally-induced pre-supposition that accuracy is important? In any case, many people react angrily to find out they’ve been “fooled” by a photograph, and they turn against the photographer or even against the field of photography (or a subset, such as digital photography).

Maybe these are two different issues. That is, I’m comparing apples to oranges. Both images and writings can be evaluated based on their accuracy. But the evaluation of whether an object SHOULD have been put into an image or a word into a piece of writing is a second issue, and it is THIS issue that I am addressing. Most of us, I hazard a guess, do not react to images by saying, “Why is THAT tree there?”, or “Wouldn’t an object such as x-y-z have been more appropriate?” Yet we DO react this way to the written word! At least, I do. I respond to each individual word, and question its relevance or worth. Well, not normally – my usual response is to take in all of a written piece of work, as one piece. However, there are instances, such as these 3 that I’ve referenced, that I find particular words interrupt my flow of response. And it strikes me as odd, because I NEVER have that reaction to images! They are what they are, yet writings are what we (as writers) make of them. And as audience, we evaluate the two medium differently.

And this brings us around to the issue of “Is photography art?” Or, in the same vein, we may ask “Is a photograph taken, or made?” I submit that our instinctive response to a photograph is that it is TAKEN, and to a work of writing is that it is MADE. Then again, maybe it’s because we’re only just barely into the second century of seeing photographs, and we’re already into, let’s say, the twentieth century of reading writings!

Maybe, however, this bespeaks more of me. Perhaps I am more of a writer than a photographer. Perhaps I see distinctions in writings that others wouldn’t notice. I know for a fact that I’ve often had the response from others that I am “quibbling” to object to someone’s use of a term. And perhaps if I were REALLY a photographer, I would feel the same way about photographs! I would react analytically. I would want to know why a photographer chose a particular point of view, an angle of perception, or a choice of lighting. And I would react angrily when I disagreed.

Well, food for thought... Now it’s time for food for the rest of me!

12:07 PM

More images by Ishimoto may be viewed at: Lawrence Miller Gallery