My project will be a series of 20 photos that will explore the interaction between the written language and the visual language. Mainly, how does words visually communicate something? I used a mixture of graffiti text, commercial signs and different languages. So far, I went to Colonial and took photos of signs, graffiti, English letters and Vietnamese characters.
Below I have two approaches. One is a more graphical approach in which there is no outside context. The other one is more reliant on the scenery. I know that people in the class liked the one on the left, but do you think that the series can have both styles and still seem unified?
Another question is about the readability of the text. Should the text be readable or should I crop the text? If the text is not readable, then the viewer must interpret the words based on the visual elements.
My last question is about one last image. This photo wasn't shown in class last time and I was wondering if it fits with the rest. I was thinking of comparing photos with text. In this photo, an old Vietnamese photo is next to graffiti text. What do you think? Does the style match the rest?
I really like the way you use scenery and words Diego.
ReplyDeleteThe combination of the two is really intriguing such as seen with the fence picture and the mailbox picture and with the one that looks like it's an overlap of scenery and text.
I think by including scenery in your images it gives more of a depth perspective to the images then a flat aspect as seen with the image that is predominately red and says Orlando Weekly.
Having both styles might make it a little less unified then sticking just to one but if you have an even amount of both somehow I think you may be able to make it seem unified.
I also think that whether you include the full text or not does not matter too much. I will say though that not including the full text makes its nicer for our imagination and makes the audience really look at the image longer to figure out where you are and what the text might say.
As for the last image - I think that your last image delves completely into a different idea then the ones above. So just pick what you prefer.
I love these, Diego!
ReplyDeleteAs far as the last image, I think if you reframed (or, well, cropped) the doorway on the right out of the picture, it would fit in very well with the rest of the images. I love the faded hibachi chef picture, and to be honest, this is probably my favorite image along with the Orlando Weekly one.
I don't see why you can't have elements of text both discernible and abstracted beyond legibility. I see two common themes in most of the images--graffiti and commercial (both english [legible] and vietnamese [illegible]) text. The juxtaposition of one on top of the other, or inclusion of both, are great metaphors, and I can see the link with Aphasia strongly here. You may want to author an artist's statement or essay that succinctly puts this forward, explaining your inspiration from your experiences in the service-learning class.
Hey Diego,
ReplyDeleteI think the text unifies both styles but you do have to be aware of the vintage point in which you take the pictures to be able to capture that element. The readability of the text i think is one of the hardest aspects to make a decision on. Personally i think that you could convey such powerful messages if you crop or leave just the right words, but that of course could be extremely difficult. Your main focus is "how do words visually communicate something," so i think that it would be interesting to see the messages that you can capture with certain fragments of words. The following is just funny but i thought of your project:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/the-most-ironic-signs-of_n_518329.html#s76992
That last image i think goes with the rest if you have more gratifies like that...but look at the vantage point of that one, it does distract the viewer from the message....
I hope this helps. I really like the style and the idea so keep it up.
Jenni
Hey Deigo
ReplyDeleteI really like the direction that this is going.
To answer the first question-I believe that they both work for the sake of what you are doing. The thing that makes it work is that you are not focusing on the background; the main point is not the scenery, but the words and how we interpret them. What makes it work I think is the idea that the surroundings (or lack there of) influence how we look at the words and how we can interpret their meaning. So both using the scenery and leaving it out can work beautifully.
Second-Again, I think you can do both. In the top right picture that says "Orlando Weekly" though we can read the text, there are still elements that create a question and leave it open to be deciphered.
Third-The last picture definitely works with the rest; but I also agree with Jenni that it would work better if there are more wtih this kind of view. Since most of the other pictures you have shown so far are more close up, this one would tend to draw our eye to it since it shows so many more elements. BUT-again, if there were others like this, then the combination of close up and farther away would keep us looking at each image instead of focusing on just this one as central.
Well done so far Diego!
Your classmates all make really good points, Diego. I too think that you can include a variety of different "types" of images, and that you can bring them all together in terms of you edit the final series (interspersing them among one another in a rhythmic manner that makes the viewer consider ideas of text and language differently as we make our way through).
ReplyDeleteAs far as the final image - I too think it's very strong, I absolutely love the faded red image and its relationship to the red object next to it - and then the simplicity of the graffiti tag works well also, and absolutely relates to the content of the class. I'd just think about including others that function in this manner as well, and not having this be the only one will illegible graffiti marking without any other discernible text.