reading notes

"...the naivete from which this view emerges also gives rise to the common apprehension that because we are bombarded by visual images we must, as a consequence, be visually literate. viewing images is a learned, skill-based activity. the experience of viewing a visual image differs from that of reading a written text. the templates we bring to considering and interpreting images need not be modeled on our approaches to linguistic utterances. expecting from images what we expect from words ultimately leads to frustration, since they are fundamentally different communicative systems."

"using pictures in social research requires a theory of how pictures get used by both picture makers and viewers. in order to us photographs either as data or as data generators we need to have some notion of how viewrs treat and understand photographic images, where those viewers are informants or researchers. rub has drawn attention to the pitfalls awaiting people who take up photography as a research tool with too little awareness of the social practices surrounding photographic productio nand use.

...approached from either of this perspectives (1. art 2. precise record) )the photographic meaning is conceptualized as being contained within the image of itself....

... the role of the spectator in the process of constructing photographic meaning.... meaning is actively constructed... not passively received.

barthes considers photographs as "polysemic," capable of generating multiple meanings in vewing process

not objective evidence

in order to benefit social research, photographic methods must be grounded in the interactive context

"i consider photographs inherently ambiguous, their specifiable meanings emergent in the viewing process. this ambiguity is not a disadvantage or limitation; rather, the multiple meanings negotiated by viewers can ge mined for the rich data they yield."