One way of beginning to look at images is to start from the commonplace understanding of images in academia. Images are understood as a kind of language, but instead of providing a transparent window on the world are now regarded as the sort of sign (a pictorial sign) that presents deceptive appearances of naturalness and transparence concealing an opaque, distorting mechanism of representation. That distortion is often understood as a process of ideological mystification.
s2art, Harbourtown, Melbourne Victoria Australia, 2009
I say academia because many would still assume that photography provides a transparent window on the world--it is a natural sign rather than a conventional one. Photography, unlike traditional aboriginal painting, does not employ a vocabulary or language of conventional pictorial representation. So it does not need to be re-translated by those with special skills and training (not everyone has these) to yield up its information.
This is the traditional view. Photographs just look like the world. We can see what a picture is of without having to learn any pictorial codes.
'Like' here is understood as resemblance: photos are like or resemble the things they depict or represent.
s2art, Harbourtown, Melbourne Victoria Australia, 2009 I say academia because many would still assume that photography provides a transparent window on the world--it is a natural sign rather than a conventional one. Photography, unlike traditional aboriginal painting, does not employ a vocabulary or language of conventional pictorial representation. So it does not need to be re-translated by those with special skills and training (not everyone has these) to yield up its information.
This is the traditional view. Photographs just look like the world. We can see what a picture is of without having to learn any pictorial codes.
'Like' here is understood as resemblance: photos are like or resemble the things they depict or represent.
Continue reading iconoclastic polemics .








