Martin Doerr wrote:
> We have made studies in the past about classifying picture contents.
> For us it seems to be important to distinguish between the depicted
> scene or item and the way of depiction as an expression. It seems to be
> relevant to capture the intended use (e.g. documentation of a landscape
> versus use of a landscape as a symbol) and the possible use (e.g.
> a snapshot showing by chance another detail of documentary value).
> I can imagine that SHIC for instance can be used in multiple functions.
> I attach my favorite, Thomas Bewick's Orang-Utang. This was intended
> to be documentary, now it can be used to document Thomas' knowledge.
There are a number of elements between which one needs to distinguish to be
able to categorise a picture, and these can be grouped under three
categories:
1) the material nature of the object
2) what is depicted
3) the meanings/interpretations of the depiction
Then you can move down to describing under: 1) what materials the picture is
made of; the method of production; 2) what is shown in the picture; cultural
style of the picture (which can be separate to cultural styles shown in the
picture eg a painting of a cathedral could be an impressionist painting of a
Gothic building); 3) allows for various interpretations of the image, adding
additional information about the social context etc.
I find that people do tend to confuse their own personal interpretation of
the picture with how the creator of the picture intended it to be perceived.
I certainly find that it is very helpful to try to keep style separate from
means of production, and the description of what is depicted from
interpretations, connotations and contextual information.
Janet Davis
|