• To what extent do you think the strategy of using objects or environments as metaphor is a useful tool in photography?
• When might it fall down?

This task is based on chapter 4, Something and Nothing, of Charlotte Cotton’s book The Photograph as Contemporary Art which is the text book included with the first module of the course, Expressing Your Vision. The chapter begins by stating:

The photographs in this chapter show how non-human things, often quite ordinary, everyday objects, can be made extraordinary by being photographed.

Charlotte Cotton, The Photograph as Contemporary Art, Chapter 4

This is a bold claim and one that I think is demonstrably false. My reasons for taking issue with this sentence are twofold, first that the subsequent images whilst not featuring people, all contain artefacts that are man made, whether is it the grater in the work by Fischli and Weiss, the drain in the photograph by Jason Evans or the wall in Wim Wenders Wall in Paris, Texas, 2001. In each case the absence of figures does not equate to non-human things, quite the reverse, all the works are about human things, about the impact on the world of humans and the traces that they leave behind.

My second issue with the statement is ‘…everyday objects, can be made extraordinary by being photographed.’ I understand that what is and is not extraordinary is a judgement, there is no definitive list, however, I am not sure that photography has the power to change the nature of something to such an extent. I recognise that, for example, in fashion photography it is possible to take a photograph of a model and in post production to enhance the model’s features to make them appear more attractive and that this could be regarded as transforming someone from being ordinary to extraordinary. I remain to be convinced, however, that the same applies to a brick wall or a mop and bucket.

Leaving aside Cotton’s claims, to come to a judgement about the use of objects or environments as metaphors, it is first necessary to understand the definition of the term. A metaphor is defined as ‘a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else.’ so the use of man made objects or of environments that have been created or modified by human activity can be considered to respresent people in photography even if there are no figures present. However, in order to do so it is necessary for the objects selected to function in a broad sense, the viewer must be able understand what is being represented. An example of a object that probably has universal understanding is a skull. Although this is not a man made object, its signifer as a symbol of death or mortality is probably understood by societies and cultures around the world. When it comes to man made objects or environments, on a basic level they serve as metaphors for human activity and so can indicate the presence of people without any being present in an image. However, in order for the metaphor to be more precise it is necessary for the object to have familiarity and meaning to the viewer and this may not always be the case.

The lack of universal recognition is one of the reasons why the use of objects and environments may not work effectively. Going back to the definition of a metaphor , the key to its use is the object has to be ‘regarded as representative or symbolic of something else’. In many cases objects can be perceived as symbolising a variety of different things and so their use may not be altogether straight-forward. Another problem with the use of metaphors is touched on by Susan Bright in her book Art Photography Now. In it she states:

It is important to note that many of the images are less succsessful as ‘one-offs’ and need to be seen in sequence or in a series in order to make comparisons between them…

Susan Bright, Art Photography Now (2005)

I think Bright is correct in putting forward the implicit idea that because metaphors are representative or symbolic, their use within photography is strengthened by repetition and so their use might fall down when used in a singular image.

Despite Cotton’s somewhat over-blown claims, and the need for a commonality of their symbolism for them to work most effectively, I think that using objects or environments as a metaphor is a useful tool because, as noted above, the objects and envrionments are evidence of the presence of people even if none appear in an image.

Sources

Cotton, C. (2014) ‘Something and Nothing’ In: The Photograph as Contemporary Art. (3rd ed.) London: Thames & Hudson. pp.114–135.

Bright, S. (2006) ‘Object’ In: Art Photography Now. (1st ed.) London: Thames & Hudson. p.108.

(S.d.) At: https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZTSB&pc=MOZI&q=metaphor (Accessed 07/06/2020).