Portfolio Task 5 - How to Read a Photograph

In general we think of text for reading and images for viewing, but we do in fact read photographs and this can be recognised by anyone familiar with the adage "a picture is worth a thousand words". Having read "How do we read a photograph" ( Clarke, G (1997) ‘The photograph’) this has become abundantly clear to me, as stated in the first paragraph we do in fact read pictures and this involves "a series of problematic, ambiguous, and often contradictory meanings and relationships between the reader and the image", this is referred to widely throughout as 'photographic discourse'.
The first main point made is about the "problematic nature of the photographic image as both arbiter of meaning and trace of the "real"', essentially the problem that becomes apparent when people think of pictures as depicting the truth. In reality a photograph can only show what was present at the time and that itself is accurate, but everything outside of the frame that has bought about the culmination of that image cannot be seen and herein lies the problem. A photo is essentially a product of a photographer and thus shows one side of the situation they are portraying, by default a photograph cannot be biased. This is how photographer's adopt styles that can be defined by certain traits, however as stated in "How to read a photograph" "The image is as much a reflection of the "I" of the photographer as it is of the "eye" of the camera".
Roland Barthes explains that there are two levels to a photograph, the "denotative" and the "connotative", and they can be broken down in their simplest form to the literal appearance and meaning of elements of a photo and the connotations that can be derived from these things. For example a picture of a person stood alone, they are the only person in the picture and that is a fact, but it could be seen that they are alone in the world or an outcast, this is a connotation that can be interpreted in various ways.
The text continues and speaks about Lee Friedlander's photographs, explaining that he has "broken up the surface of the photograph so that an ordered, three-dimensional space is simultaneously questioned and altered". Essentially this is making the point that we are not really looking at a landscape, or at a person, or at a bowl fruit but that we are looking at a photograph of that particular thing and it is only a representation of that.
Essentially it can be said that even by acknowledging the subject matter of a photograph, let alone the intricate details, we are in fact reading it and making our own judgements on the meaning of it. These judgements may boil down to preconceived stereotypes or relate to a persons own views on any given subject matter but as soon as a link is made between these things in a person's head this is how they perceive it and in fact how they have read it. Due to this two people can be shown the same picture but derive complete different meanings from it depending on how they interpret the given image. It should also be remembered that a photograph is only a select frame of an overall bigger picture and that although you can only see what is shown you, it will have undoubtedly have been affected by its surroundings.

Ryan McGinley (2005) "Lily, black eye"

Initially this we can say that this is a portrait of naked, at least from the waist up, woman with a bruised eye that is about to light a cigarette, on a beach. In relation to Roland Barthes' terms these are the "denotative" elements of the picture, they can be seen by anyone instantly and would not be questioned however it is the reasoning behind them that brings about questions and in turn the "connotative" thoughts or connotations that these elements imply. Is this woman completely naked, why is she naked, why does she have a bruised eye? etc.
The subject seems to be actively looking away from the camera, this may be due to the wind, which appears to be blowing her hair and possibly sand in her face, or it could be linked with her bruised eye, Is she avoiding eye contact to avoid judgement from the photographer or is she simply looking at something else? Although the subject is shown alone we do not know if other people were present and/of they were in fact in the same situation as her. Again a picture is as much about what it shows as it is about what it doesn't show. Although the contents of this image can be easily seen and aren't really disputable the reason for them and the situation that bought it to fruition is left entirely to the person looking at the photograph. If paired together, the bruised eye and the subject being alone, the viewer conjures up various emotions in relation to these factors and may start to question the bigger picture. This is when it becomes apparent to them that the photograph they are viewing is only a small part, that the photographer wanted to convey, of a much larger series of events and that alone it cannot tell us more than the "denotative" elements described earlier.