In Photography, What Puzzles the Eye May Please the Mind

By Ken Johnson, The New York Times

NEW HAVEN—Photographs are shameless. They’ll do anything to get your attention. They’ll show you celebrities in and out of their clothes, exotic creatures and objects, places and events that you would never otherwise see.

Another, paradoxical strategy for captivating viewers is to show them something they can’t immediately understand. Whether because of its visual complexity, its oblique perspective, its lighting, its degree of abstraction or the unfamiliarity of its subject, it’s the kind of photograph that makes you stop and think, “What the heck is that?” And it keeps you looking until you’ve figured out what it is you’re looking at.

The confounding photograph is the subject of an absorbing and thought-provoking exhibition at the Yale University Art Gallery here called "First Doubt: Optical Confusion in Modern Photography" [exhibition catalogue]. Organized by Joshua Chuang, the gallery’s assistant curator of photographs, the exhibition presents more than 100 pieces dating from the mid-19th century to the early 21st century. It was drawn mostly from the collection of Allan Chasanoff, who focused on acquiring confusing pictures, and is supplemented by photographs from the gallery’s collection...

READ ON at nytimes.com

Illustration: Karin Rosenthal, Belly Landscape, 1980

_____________________

Mike  (Thanks to David Emerick)

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Bill Poole: "Karin Rosenthal, whose image illustrates this post, worked on this series of bodies in water for many years. I know this because my sister and brother-in-law modeled for her on Cape Cod for several summers. They were reimbursed for their time in original prints, which are now displayed in their home. So I can tell you that while the optical trick may draw you into the image, what keeps you looking is the quality of the prints, which cannot be appreciated truly in a web image, and the underlying idea (for me, anyway) of human beings at one with nature. I knew that Karin's work was going to be in this show. What a treat to see it on TOP."

Comments

[Oronet Commander]

Absolutely, optical confusion is the main tool to build an original image from a conventional matter. Nevertheless, the very concept is completely subjective; for instance, I can see nothing confusing in the picture you used to ilustrate the post (I am rather primitive about females, you know). I've also had to explain tens of times what is in this picture

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oronetcommander/2668025857/

although I -and many other viewers- found it very evident. So, I think that you may use optical confusion to appeal the viewer and bring him to your image, but more and deeper things are needed to get the impression remain longer.

[Greg Smith]

its been my experience that photos that provoke a little thought (not a lot, though),
tend to score more connections with viewers, and it's the connection to the viewer that wins recognition and praise along with sales, not to mention satisfying personal sense of achievement.
It's a fine line and very vague, the one between just enough required viewer thought and too much, which loses the connection.
I find it tough to think a shot like that up, but every now and then I stumble onto one by accident. I've learned to keep my eyes open and my camera at hand.....can't collect images without a camera...
best wishes...

[John Camp]

One of my favorite never-ending art arguments:

The Eisenheim Altarpiece is a painting of the crucifixion by Grunewald (which you can Google) which is not only horrifying in itself, but also was originally hung in a hospital for dying people - not to inform them of the horrors of dying, but to show them how much Christ suffered for them, and that *his* suffering would bring them everlasting life after death.

Modrian, at the height of his powers, painted grids in primary colors, plus black and white.

Both are accepted as master painters of their time.

But which one, really, gives you something of substance to think about? Grunewald touches on death (and all of those issues), the meaning of suffering, the foundations of Christianity and all that entails, the relationship between dying people and their environment, and on and on and *on,* including such formal issues as painting handling and the used of color.

What do you really *think* about Modrian?

Which brings us to these photos. What do you really *think* about them? For me, not much. They're a kind of visual trick, without much content, and with even formal considerations suppressed by the demands of the trick. I look at Adams "Moonrise" almost every day, and take something away. I doubt that I'll remember "Belly Landscape" tomorrow.

JC

[Bron Janulis]

JC,

Are we to assume from your comment, that Mr. Kidd is a "realistic" painter?

I don't disagree; I guess that makes us "Philistines" in this strange "age of reason".

Bron

[Other MJ]

It's such a frustrating photo above. I want to see the rest. ;)

[Eolake Stobblehouse]

"What do you really *think* about Modrian?"

The question is if "thinking" is the only connection we can make? What's to *think* about your connection with a baby or a sunrise?

[Taylor Davidson]

I'll agree that the best photos are the ones invoking thought, bringing you back, making you think about them when the image is only in your mind and not your eyes.

Echoing Greg, the hardest thing is to make instantly accessible but everlasting durable images...

Part of me believes we can only stumble into that balance; they typically come from such small, serendipitous yet poignant slices of life that they are impossible to plan entirely.

[Rubén Osuna]

"In Photography, What Puzzles the Eye May Please the Mind".

That's the basic idea of the article "Photography as a Framing Art":

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Framing%20Art.shtml

.