Preface
The “Culturally Related Interpretation of Photographed Gestures” is concerned with the general difficulty in the use of photography in design investigations and development. Images and photography play an important role in design and are used in different phases of the process: During the research and the development phases and in presentations as well as in communication in general. As the results of design projects, such as products, image pictures, advertising etc., generally have to meet international requirements, we asked the question, whether the use of photography in design projects can satisfy the requirement of standardised international comprehensibility. What determines the quality of an image or a photo? Is it “only” comprehensibility? Ist es aesthetics? Should photos only be used quantitatively? In order to investigate these questions, we photographed different finger gestures and let these photographs be interpreted by people from different cultures. The summary of results, which follows later, should confirm the hypothesis, that images are not always universally usable as they are subject to different cultural criteria.
Religion, art and science
The picture – and later photography – have always played a particular and sometimes controversial role in society. This is particularly clear in religion, art and in science. We will take a short look at the role of imagery in these subjects, before we concentrate on the use of photography in design research and development.
The visual representation of biblical events and in particular Jesus Christ became predominant in the 3rd century, in order to convincingly communicate the Christian religion to the “common people”. This was – when the question of belief is put aside – more of a “fictional representation”: that is the creation of an image around an idea in order to be able to dispense with text. The background is understandable, as illiteracy was still widespread at this time. The intention was to answer questions about the person Jesus Christ and the associated relationships . However, the initial aim of “persuasion” ultimately led to the widespread destruction of religious art in the 16th century, which followed the reformation and in which the greater part of Europe’s figurative representation of Christian events[?] and figures were destroyed. (Belting, ibid., p.175). The legitimacy of a figurative representation of God – as well as of Mohammed – has been repeatedly questioned over the centuries (the Byzantine Iconoclasm or the more recent Muhammad cartoons controversy in the Danish press being two prominent examples). The question about the shift in values between figurative content and representation on the one hand, and the “truthful” depiction on the other, certainly has its roots in religion: it has, however, also been a part of the discussion about the scientific use of images ever since.
Another oft-discussed aspect of the image can be seen in the implications of photography as a “provider of truth”[?]. In the case of the Shroud of Turin, it was the photograph made by the Italian photographer Seconda Pia that first showed the “positive representation” of a man believed by many to be Jesus Christ.
“ […] The question of whether or not the shroud is genuine is not relevant here. Even forgeries are only popular where authenticity is important […] the origin of the shroud has become even more mysterious through the possibility of it being a forgery. If Jesus was not wrapped in it, then his likeness has been simulated using colour – and then with a real corpse, as no painter in the middle ages could have depicted anything anatomically so correct as the shroud. This opens a review of the long prehistory of photography. The shroud received worldwide attention as it was photographed for the first time. The picture on the shroud was similar to a photographic negative. The photographer Seconda Pia suddenly saw,“... a positive image of the body, which only appeared as a negative on the shroud [ on the glass negative of his photograph …] His image was doubly «genuine» in the sense of the historical authenticity of the shroud, in as far as one believed in it, and in the sense of the technical authenticity of his unadulterated photograph […] A photographic original is not the print – and neither is it the negative, which all the prints are made from – but rather the body, whose aura was transferred to the photograph. […] In his famous essay on the ontology of the photographic image, André Bazin comes to speak of the Holy Shroud of Turin, «as showing the synthesis of relic and photograph». Photography, he explains, «forces us to believe in the existence of objects which it represents. Its image is based on the foundation of its creation, that is, through the ontology of the model. It is the model. »“
In the early part of the 20th century, Walter Benjamin addressed the question of whether photography could be art, and if so, how it differs from hitherto existing art. The answers to Benjamin’s question are relevant for our discourse about the use of photography in scientific work, as here, too, photography is credited with the exact reproduction of a selected moment, which is not possible in the visual arts in this manner. Furthermore, here – as in religion – the question of originality and the “more truthful or real depiction” is posed. According to Benjamin, the aura of the original (which differs from that of the reproduction through the “here and now”) is lost and, in addition, the cult of the (art) object is lost through the accessibility – through the transcendence of space and ownership.
“[…] It is usual that one gives oneself account, for example, of people’s way of walking, even if only crudely, and by no means will one know more about their countenances in fractions of a second of their ‘stride’”. Photography, with its resources: time-lapse, enlargements, makes this possible. Now one learns through photography about this optical sub-conscious for the first time, just as one learns about the libidinal subconscious through psychoanalysis. Structural texture and cell tissue, which technology and medicine are used to dealing with – all of this was originally more closely related to the camera than the atmospheric landscape or soulful portrait. At the same time, however, photography opens the physiognomic aspects – worlds of pictures, in which the smallest details live, well enough hidden and interpretable, in order to have found refuge in daydreams: but now, large and phraseable as they have become – they are able to make the difference between technology and magic visible as a purely historical variable. […] Therefore even the models of someone like Hill are not far away from the truth, as long as “the phenomenon of photography” was still a “a great secret experience”, even if the truth was nothing other than the knowledge, “of standing in front of a device that can create an image of the visible environment in a fraction of a second, that appears so lively and honest as nature itself”.
When we then omit the cult of the object and concern ourselves with the content of the object-representation, this is still no guarantee for a “real” interpretation of the picture content. Much worse, however, is that most of the time, we no longer ask about the content of a picture in the majority of cases and seldom make ourselves aware that even the perspective chosen, the time selected and all the other “personal” aspects make up a large part of the motive and thereby determine the “individual” picture content.
“Vilem Flusser spoke of pictures no longer being windows but rather «instead of imagining the world, [they are,] in truth, disguising it», until one, instead of critically decoding his pictures, is projecting them “undecoded” out into the world ”.
Qualitative and Quantitative Uses of Photography in Design Research
Can one use photography in scientific work at all? The way people look at photos (technical images) and draw conclusions about the image and in particular about the perceived content, varies from person to person. There are not only differences in the perceptive process and the resulting formation of criticism between cultures and societies but also within a society.
The differences in perception and analysis of perceived situations results from differences in experience, based on different living situations. Every culture goes through different stages, in which common events take place, which in turn, influence the culture and thereby each individual in the culture. Regardless of whether the viewpoint extends over several centuries or several days, previous experiences influence future decisions (analyses).
These experiences affect cultures as well as subcultures and individuals. The experience of a culture (as expressed through the socially accepted opinion), in turn, affect its sub-cultures, which, in turn, shape its individuals. This makes clear that an individual is influenced by many factors, which, in turn, leads to perceived objects being differently criticised, analysed, interpreted and judged by individuals.
So when using photography (or images as renderings that appear photo-realistic) in developing products or services we have to keep in mind that the opinion of an individual can only be an interpretation of what is seen. A single statement from an individual can not be seen as being representative and should not be taken as a benchmark for the development of products. It is only after a common thread becomes clear amongst a number of individuals that their responses can be used for further analysis. Should individuals provide similar or identical statements / analysis, the question should be asked whether these individuals belong to a very small sub-subculture or even know one another and whether the similarity in their responses may be due to their having had similar or the same experiences. In this case, statements from this micro-culture or this group should be treated as if they came from an individual. Can photos convey generally shared quantitative and qualitative information to an individual? As already mentioned, “visual questioning” is particularly important here. Are we dealing with an “answerable” or an “unanswerable” question? In the case of an unanswerable question such as, “Is this motive attractive?”, we have a qualitative visual question and a qualitative answer is expected. This type of answer is, however, difficult to evaluate in scientific research.
How is quantitative information evaluated?
How is quantitative information evaluated? Can a technical image contain qualitative information? When does the change between qualitative and quantitative information take place and where does it occur? In the object that is sending or in the individual that is receiving? Can an object, that reproduces another object, create qualitative information? What is necessary, in order to create and evaluate qualitative information? Can qualitative information be neutrally evaluated?
In the following, we would like to describe three design projects, which are concerned with just these questions:
1. Visual Ways of Representing City Boundaries (completed project)
2. Gender-Specific Waiting at Bus Stops (completed project)
3. Culturally-Related Interpretation of Physical Gestures [Alternative: Body Language] (project in progress
Find some examples attached on the following pages.
Michael Dorka and Alexander Schnepp.
