3 Comments

Interesting point of view. If we were to go by this argument then this would be true of any art form?! Then how does one define visual language? Just thinking.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for your comment!

I'm not convinced that photography actually is an art form! I see it instead as a tool or as a medium that artists can use. When it comes to a visual language, photographically, I tend to think of this in terms of form rather than meaning.

Also, just to clarify, while I'm sceptical that photographs can be defined in terms of their meaning, I'm not saying that they don't communicate. It's just that I think they communicate by way of creating impressions rather than conveying meaning.

To take the example of Moriyama again, I understand the 'meaning' of the stray dog image because Moriyama has verbalised, has explained it many, many times. However, for many, or most, of his other images I cannot discern a 'meaning'. But when I look at his images of Tokyo, and particular neighbourhoods of Tokyo, relentlessly shot over many decades it conveys a powerful impression of the city and those neighbourhoods. But to have an impression is nott to understand.

I hope that makes some sense!

Expand full comment

Interesting argument Olli. Thanks for your response.

Expand full comment