Response to "Ways of Seeing"

First of all, I do not believe that photographs or cameras have absolutely no meaning at all. Yes, they can sometimes devalue things (can’t any statement, even paintings??), but they can also be extremely artistic and have a meaning and a point within themselves. If done in an artful and meaningful manner, you can capture the image. When someone takes a photograph, they are putting their own interpretation of the scene into it, just as Hals did with the painting “Regentesses of the Old Men’s Alms House” and “Regents of the Old Men’s Alms House.” In both of these paintings, he is projecting his own ideas and interpretations of the scene he sees before him. When a photographer chooses what they shall take a picture of, what angle, what they should include, where the focus should be, they themselves are also interpreting the surroundings.

                So, I do not believe that we are devaluing something just because we take a picture of it. I think it is the intent behind the picture, what the meaning is to the photographer, that would set the mood and the meaning to the people if they truly look. Also, a big part of this is how the image is used. Let’s say you take a photograph of Picasso’s  woagueaohu, and use this reproduction to explain the true meaning, how intense this time period and this war was at the time, no importance of the painting is lost.

Guernica and the Evolution of Consciousness- Picasso

Of course the true beauty and magnificence of the painting is not seen, but it still is able to send much of the original message of the true painting.  I do not believe that a painting’s meaning becomes transmittable unless the people who take and use the pictures try and attempt to make the picture into something it is not. This problem is far from a problem of cameras being evil or anything like that, but is more an issue of society and how easily we devalue things that have great meaning. As a society, we get too wrapped up in the monetary value of things or what we can get out of it. We attempt to manipulate the images to fit our own needs and situations. This is not, however the only way that the interpretation of these paintings changes. As long as there is a person viewing the painting other than the artist themself, the image’s “meaning is either modified or totally changed.” This is just part of what we call context.  Depending on the audience, their views, their past, their knowledge of history, they can interpret Picasso’s painting in many different ways. They will put emphasis on one part of the painting rather on than on another, which may, or may not be the original intent of the artist. For example, I know a bit of the history of this painting from my Spanish class a few years ago. This influences how I see the painting. Although I have information about the actual event in history, the painting would still be interpreted in a completely different way by someone who has been in war or have seen the repercussions of it. Although the picture I have put above is a reproduction, does it still not have a significant message?