My initial reaction to reading Victor Burgins “Looking at Photographs” was one of content. I was very interested to see how photos are constructed, deconstructed and analysed! What i did not realise was that Mr Burgin had set out on a personal quest to make his analysis on photography the most confusing and frustrating piece of writing i’ve ever read in my entire life. It was filled with confusing adjectives, nonsensical writing (to me atleast) and a literal sentence that said, and I quote “The effect of representation requires that the stage of the represented meet the stage of the representing in a ‘seamless join'”, where is Leonardo DiCaprio when you need him? I may also note that this was at the end of the reading, due to this brain literally did this:
Starting off quite pleasantly Burgin states “It is almost unusual to pass a day without seeing a photograph as it is to miss seeing writing”. These says photographs are used to sell, inform, record and delight, but most recently photos have “nothing to explain” which can be seen heavily in the world of advertising. What Burgin claims we seem to be missing is the depth that photography can offer. Photography is halfway between paintings and film, yet it is fundamentally different to them. Photos offer themselves gratuitously, where as paintings and film are consumed and analysed with a certain precision. Up until the 1960’s and semiotic studies came into the picture (excuse the pun) radically reorienting the theory of photography.
This is when Burgin goes on to discuss semiotic theory, and boy is it a roller coaster. Semiotics is the study of signs and identifying systematic regularities from which meaning is constructed, which is easy enough to understand. The next step is to apply this to photographs, yet there is no signifying system upon which photographs depend. Tying in with Alan McKees reading of textual analysis, there is no “accurate” or “inaccurate” way in which we can analyse a photograph, yet there is a likely way. The structure of the symbolic order channels and moulds the social and psychic formation of the individual subject, in this case a photograph. Recent theory has moved to examine the ideological implications within photos in order to analyse them with context and sincerity. Now, I was lost for a bit there, but I started to understand Burgin a fraction of a hair more. When confronted with a photographic puzzle we analyse it so that becomes a being, more than shadow, light, tones and edges. By doing this we reject “impovrished reality” in favour of “imaginary plentitude” which took me a few re-reads to understand, but which found a connection to. That is what art is about, abandoning reality to be immersed by what your interpretation of a piece of art it; art is reality x10 because it is reflective and human in its beginning, middle and end. This reminds me of a quote by Marlon Brando, in which he says “The reason that they don’t have light in the theatre is because you are there with your fantasy. The person up on screen is doing all the things you want to do, in doing so the audience will lend themselves to the subject”. I realise this focuses on film rather than photography but they are within the same worlds and i believe it applies to all forms of art that people may connect with.
Burgin continues, applying semiotic theory to the example above. In this photo, as titled, a General watched his gardener as work. The full frontal gaze is attention grabbing, to which the gardener cuts off halfway through the frame, the sense of movement amplified via the image. The gardener is closer and more prominent to the camera, almost belittling the General, yet put into context, this photo is a snapshot of the discrimination of those times. To look at a photograph beyond the period of time is was taken is to court frustration, because the world has evolved socially since then and the photo is full of injustices. When analysing anything, context is key, and the same goes for this photograph as well.
Burgins utterly perplexing paper was interesting to read at times and completely confusing to read at others; I found myself agreeing with the parts i understood. Whilst I don’t believe Burgins target demographic was first year media students (more probable he was aiming it towards academics well versed in the theory of semiotic theory of photography) he could have toned down the confusing sentences and used a lot less brackets descriptions as it ruins the flow of the reading process, for me anyway. Despite the trouble I had, there were a few nuggets of wisdom that I enjoyed discovering.
