Missingby
levyj413Comment by posthumous: from the blurgeois pedagogues thread:
Here is another use of blur: to complicate and/or obscure symbols.
For symbols to work, they have to be known by the viewer. But if the viewer already knows what a symbol means, then the symbol is a cliche. This is the Catch-22 of someone who wants to create a meaningful work. The artist must come up with strategies to circumvent it.
In this photo, we have the symbol of the framed photograph. It is clearly a family photo of a child. To show that photo and not the child is a symbol of the child being absent. Next we have the symbol of the man in darkness. The darkness tends to represent the man's own misery. The man is clearly looking at the photo. This symbolizes the importance of the girl to the man.
If this were all there was to the picture, it would be a cliche. But obscurity complicates these symbols, and that obscurity is a combination of darkness and noise (blur). The obscurity does not help the symbols as symbols. Quite the opposite. For example, it is difficult to tell what is holding the picture up. Close examination reveals that it is sitting on top of a bookshelf, but the bookshelf is so dark and obscured as to be ghostly. The viewer ends up spending a lot of time wondering, what is the position of this child in the family, bringing up metaphorical notions like what is her role? and what is her status? Also, the high position of the photo causes the man to look straight ahead, with his chin up, in a position more proud than defeated. His whole posture echoes that. All of which makes the viewer want to look at his facial expression for additional clues.
Ah, but no such luck! The dark face, which in a slouched position would be a cliche, an expected piece of the puzzle, now becomes a mystery, a missing piece of the puzzle.
Photographer found comment helpful.
