Photographs void of meaning?

The coursework asks us to ponder the notion that photographs might not be used as a means of expression or communication.  I don’t think there is such a photograph.  At the most simple, the photograph is a communication of someone’s interest.  They took the time to shoot the image, so there must have been something there.  At the most complex there is of course the constructed image where meaning is in everything from the lighting to the props, etc.

I guess photographs that are errors or taken by small children could be considered in this way (no meaning).  But even photographs such as these could be deconstructed by a keen photography student to have some kind of meaning.=)  Something along the lines of ‘the innocence of child play’  or ‘the chance photograph.’ As humans, we are wired to categorize and make meaning, so I think all photographs carry meaning, whether it is the same to different people or even wrong because the impression of the viewer in making meaning is a part of the deconstruction of texts.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s