Читать книгу Visual Communication - Janis Teruggi Page - Страница 47

Decisions about how tightly a photographer frames their image can make a significant difference in how viewers interpret its meaning. The famous wartime photographer, Robert Capa said, “If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough” (Bird, 2002). For many photographers, deciding how closely a person or event should be shot relates more to the skill and artistry of good photography rather than consideration of how they may be altering viewer perceptions. In an effort to create a more arresting or dramatic photo, the photographer may be presenting an image that distorts the reality of the event.

Similarly, cropping an image, an everyday activity for photojournalists and editors, might also be considered as a form of manipulation. The not‐for‐profit journalistic publication ProPublica reported on photos and videos taken during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 (Maass, 2011). Videos and still photos of crowds pulling down a statue of dictator Saddam Hussein in a public square rocketed around the world. News organizations reported it as revealing the US victory and the Iraqi people's joy at the defeat of a ruthless dictator. The close‐up shots seemed to show a jubilant crowd of Iraqis and US soldiers as they slung a rope around the statue and dragged it from its pedestal: a potent symbol of Saddam himself being toppled from power. But a more distant shot, without benefit of cropping, shows only a scattering of people in a mostly empty square, an image that likely would convey a different meaning from the tight rendering. The choice of the more dramatic image may misrepresent the event it is supposed to document.

The Saddam statue cropping is an example of visual framing. Framing theory offers us a way to understand how messages communicate different meanings. A frame, whether it's expressed verbally or visually, highlights certain aspects of a phenomenon or event while eliminating or minimizing others. We can't describe everything about any event – there are just too many factors. For example, imagine that you're describing a lunch with a good friend. You had a lively conversation, laughed about some of the funny things that have happened in the past week, and shared some worries about the future. You dined on Japanese food and drank tea. In talking about the lunch with a foodie friend, you might emphasize the meal and show your Instagram photo of the sushi. For a different friend, you might focus on the enjoyment of the laughs and jokes and post a photo of the good time on Facebook. As you can see, it's the same event, but you make choices about what you want to highlight for the person you're speaking with or what was most important to you.

According to Entman (1993), frames have four main elements: (i) defining aspects of a problem, (ii) identifying causes, (iii) making moral judgments, and (iv) implying solutions. For instance, if policymakers and citizens identify obesity as a public health problem that should be addressed, news stories or campaigns can be told with many different frames, and these frames have moral and ethical implications (Figure 2.5). If the message is “you should eat healthy meals and exercise more,” the campaign suggests the individual responsibility frame. With this framing, the problem lies with each person who should have the will and capability to alter his behavior. Such individual responsibility frames, some critics say, unfairly victimize individuals. If the message is “people who live in ‘food deserts’ in urban areas don't have access to healthful foods,” the problem is framed to highlight social or economic issues within cities and towns. Another frame could use fear appeals that graphically show the risks of obesity or even shame appeals. Thus, you can see that morals, judgments, and values imbue all human expression.

Figure 2.5 Example using “obesity” to illustrate elements of framing.

Source: Children's Healthcare of Atlanta/NPR.