After a trip to the Pulitzer Prize Gallery of Washington D.C.'s Newseum (a definite must-see), I still haven't been able to get this image out of my head. Posted on the gallery walls amidst an archive of annual Pulitzer Prize winning photographs, William C. Beall's "Faith and Confidence" continually generated the greatest number of admirers. What exactly is the appeal of this photo? Had I mustered the inquisitorial demeanor of a pushy journalist, I may have been able to assess the initial reaction of each passerby. "What do you think of this? Why do you like it? Is it the simplicity? The innocence? What emotions do you arrive at?" It's difficult to determine what goes through someone's head as they analyze visually. As they stand and ponder, cock their heads and squint, they visualize the image, then hone in on detail, focusing and filtering simultaneously. Atleast, this is what Visual Communication tells us. How these strangers visually criticized the image is only known to them. But I'm positive that every single person in that velvet-blue room had interpreted this photograph differently than the person standing next to them. So back to the beginning...what made me recall this image for this blog? Perhaps it's the lasting effect of "Image memory," i.e. the constructed mental images/lasting impressions that pictures create in our minds (Hilligoss and Howard). Or maybe it's the modality of technology that subconsciously draws me towards the spontaneous, "snapshot-like" quality that only a camera can create (Rose). Alas, my first interpretation of "Faith and Confidence" (or for any image), begins with perception of form. I find myself organizing the photograph's elements into figure and ground, foreground and background, and grouping objects by color, shape, and size. The subconscious assigns hierarchy within image, a process that is outlined in Hilligoss and Howard's gestalt theory. Visual Communication dictates that
“visual representations let us grasp spatial relationships and actions more quickly than verbal explanations do” (Shneiderman 206-7).
The gestalt theory iterates that which our mind automatically performs. In assessing the image above, the policeman and child are characterized as main focal points, figures separated from an unfocused crowd of spectators. These larger objects become more significant than the objects in the background. Next comes spatial organization. A certain continuity is expressed in the manner in which these forms address one another. At first glance, the body of the figures form a loop or a circle, an effect of close proximity and similar orientation. Color becomes a main distinguishing factor because it focuses our attention. The deep black of the policeman's attire indicates authority, power, and distinctiveness. Its juxtaposition with the child's muted, simple, and lightly shaded clothing expresses innocence, naivety, and humbleness.
But the composition of the photograph is only one factor in my acclamation of Beall's work. What I appreciate the most from this photograph is its potential for narrative. When we look at images, we assign meaning to its form. Why did the author depict it in this way? Where was it taken? At what perspective is the image taken from? As critics, we may never know the historical and social factors tied to the images we analyze. But perhaps it is better to criticize blindly, solely based off of our own perceptions. When I look at "Faith and Confidence," I imagine the photograph is taken during wartime, an image that represents the humility of American policemen in general. It is as if the small child symbolizes peace, a token for mercy that the policeman addresses and respects. The fact that the group of spectators in the background are focused on some event outside of the frame of the photograph indicates two things. 1, the image is most likely procured during a public event. I'd like to think that it was taken during a rally of some sort, or perhaps a protest. And 2, the subdued background tones and unknowing spectators indicate that the shot was spontaneously, and by a camera, offering a sense of validity to the image itself. These factors make the image all the more tangible and, well, heartwarming. (For the actual history of this image click here)
In Visual Methodologies, Rose iterates that the technology that produces an image affects how viewers determine its form, meaning, and effect (Rose). Perhaps this photograph were to be produced by other means. Would the effect of the image change? Is this true for all images? Suppose the image was used as military propaganda. How would the meaning of the photograph change? Lets experiment...
By removing the background and superimposing the photograph upon a US military poster, "Faith and Confidence" takes on an entirely new meaning. What does it gain? What does the image sacrifice? Is the validity affected by removing the spectators in the background? Suppose that this is your first time viewing the image. Do you criticize this image in a different manner than the original? Here's example two...
The image reads as a movie-still or the title image of a film. How does this effect your analysis of the image? What do you notice first? Does your method of critique change from image to image?
It's interesting how technology can completely alter the way we interpret images. The different contexts in which images are seen has a direct effect upon the image memory they instill within our minds. What are your opinions on technology and image?
Sheena,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I absolutely loved reading your post. It was so well-written and clear. It was really academic, but I could still hear your normal tone. Really good post!
I had never seen the William Beall’s “Faith and Confidence” photograph before, so I found this post to be really new and refreshing for me. I think it’s interesting when you say that every person in a room can interpret images differently. I think that’s so true and we saw that in class on Wednesday when we were looking at images and describing them. I’m sure that if you did ask people in the museum what their thoughts were (by the way- it’s a good thing you didn’t do that…) they would all be different.
When I saw the image, I for some reason saw the policeman as someone more than just a policeman… perhaps he is the young boy’s father or uncle. I felt that the way he leaned into the young boy showed some sort of familiarity- more familiarity than just a policeman on the street and a stranger child. In addition to the people who are in the forefront of the image, I believe that the people in the background serve a purpose, as well. It was really awesome to see how the image changed without the background because it gave it an entirely different meaning. Without the environment and the spectators on the street, the image looked sort of bare. The relationship between the man in the uniform and the young boy becomes the main feature of the image and I feel as if the artist purposely captured the background. A lot of questions come into my mind about the one man in the background: What is his nationality? Why does he look content looking at the boy? Why is he by himself? Had he been a victim of any racial prejudice at this time in America? Why is he so focused on the interaction between the young boy and the officer while everyone else is focused at something in front of them? When I first saw the photograph, I was initially drawn into the focus of the picture, but after looking at it for a few moments, I realized that there was a lot going on behind them that really impacted the overall image. So, yes, I think that removing the background and superimposing the photograph like a military poster does give it an entirely new meaning. I’m not certain that it gains validity in my perspective because it was so highly edited and designed to take on a specific meaning. It doesn’t seem natural to me like the original photograph does.
This showed me how much technology can really change the way we interpret images. In an era where digital photography and Photoshop are part of our daily lives, I wonder how the art of photography has changed for the better or for the worse. I think that technology in regards to images depends on what the artist is trying to achieve. If the goal was to have a U.S. military poster and they didn’t need the background images or felt that the poster didn’t gain anything from having that, then technology is clearly beneficial. However, if the point is to capture an image in its natural environment and to capture a moment exactly as it is in reality, then technology could affect the validity of the image and how it is interpreted to an onlooker. I suppose that my opinion changes depending on the goal of the image.
Also, Sheena, did you do image changes yourself? If so, I’m really impressed. Thanks for taking the time to do all of that for us. It really showed me the importance of technology in images.
Sheena-
ReplyDeleteI too agree that the different contexts in which images are seen do have direct effects upon the image memory that is instilled within our minds. I think that images that read as movie-stills or images with title titles definitely affect my analysis of the image. For me, it’s hard to articulate how my critique of the image would from image to image, but I know it does. Just by looking at the picture that you posted, William C. Beall’s “Faith and Confidence,” my original perception of the photo has changed from seeing the original compared to the photo in a different context.
When there is text used in the photo, it makes me ponder more about the text and how it relates to the photo instead of just focusing on the photo itself. Originally, the way I looked at the first picture, I looked at the child and the way he peered into the soldier’s eyes. I also noticed the people in the background and the old-looking man observing them with a smile. However, on the next version of the picture, which has the quote “above and beyond the call of duty” posted as its title, there are many differences. First, there is a caption which effects the way we are going to analyze the picture and second, there is a different background; there aren’t people standing on the sidewalk, but there happens to be a variety of different shades of gray with a white out image of a soldier’s upper body. To me, I felt the way this image was portrayed was significant to me because it allows the viewer to really hone in on the soldier and the child. We see what looks like affection and hope in the boy’s eyes; the caption makes me think about the solider and his purpose in life. Like stated in "Visual Methodologies," this just goes to show you that the technology that produces an image affects how viewers determine its form, meaning, and effect (Rose).
It is interesting to consider just how important the background is to the foreground. After all, like in any artistic production, there are people and mechanisms behind the scenes that allow the show to be presented in its full fanfare. Photographs happen to be no exception, and I had never considered that until you displayed the different possibilities between making the picture a piece of military propaganda or making it a scene from a movie (if you did that by yourself I am very impressed, by the way). The effect is startling! When looking at the military propaganda picture I found myself less involved in the outcome and context of the photograph. Maybe its just my bias opinion of the military (and the biased use of the word propaganda) but when I look at the picture with this frame of mind I am inclined to roll my eyes at another example of military one-sidedness. Instead of seeing the innocence of a child I see the impressionability of a child being taken advantage of by an older imposing man. There are no people in the background to observe the event and contextualize. Instead the two characters are alone and the result is almost a bit creepy.
ReplyDeleteTake away the people in the background, remove the figures that are for some reason standing at the edge of the sidewalk like it is the roof of a building, eliminate the sordid city streets and the entire meaning of the picture changes for the worse. There is a boldness to this child when he is surrounded by older people. The young boy crossed the line with doughy-eyed inquisitiveness and rather than be met with the backhand of a reproachful lawman, he seems to be rewarded for his curiosity by the smile of someone he can look up to, an officer of the law, a peacekeeper. The people in the background illicit a theme of hope and purity in the foreground. Every figure in the background, except the older man, is observing some public event. It is highly populated to be sure, but amidst all of the commotion, this peacekeeper finds the time to indulge a young boy. Adorable.
nice work sheena!