What to do with the text
Here we go again…
An ongoing dilemma I have with this project is the application of text to the images. The use of text fragments is key to the desired reading of the work, but I have long struggled with how to present the text in relation to the image.
For a long time I was concerned that the text fragments (which are all ‘relay’ text rather than ‘anchor’ text, to use the Barthesian definitions (Barthes 1977: 41) could resemble captions or titles too much, disrupting the intended reading. I wanted the text to be seen as more of an equivalent to the image rather than an explanation of it.
I’ve tried various ideas here and here.
However, as I’ve evolved the visual treatment to its current incarnation where the images are actually rephotographed projections of original photos, I’ve become less concerned about the text being mistaken for a caption, and I’m getting more relaxed about positioning the text in perhaps a more traditional manner.
And now I have a deadline for making some work-in-progress to share…
Format study visit crit session
Next weekend I am on the OCA study visit to the Format photography festival in Derby. Part of the weekend is a work-in-progress crit session, so I am planning to take along a set of prints from the current batch of Assignment 4 work and get some feedback.
My main reason for wanting feedback is to see how people react to the images, what thoughts are provoked, what interpretations are placed on it. I want to see whether my intent is coming through at all.
So – having decided to take some prints (A3 I think at the moment) it has focused my mind somewhat on how I wish to present the text per image.
Ideally I’d like to pin this down before the crit session – the alternative is to print a mix of text treatments, I suppose, but I was hoping to have more of a definite direction in advance of the session such that the feedback can be focused on the overall effect of the images rather than deciding between text placement options.
Feedback please!
To this end I’d be very grateful to anyone reading this to give me comments on the following three text applications.
(click for bigger pics)
a) typed, below, centred
b) handwritten, below, right-aligned
c) handwritten, inset, left-aligned
Please let me know what you think!
Sources
Barthes, R. (1977) ‘Rhetoric of the Image’ in Image Music Text. London: Fontana.
Rob Townsend 
Not sure how much time we will have for critique. Brighton was 7 mins per person and not too much room. Depends on numbers.
LikeLike
Hello Rob, the three variations say three different things to me. In the first set (centred) the text is for me a caption. In the second set it is as if you are writing a note to your self about the image. In the third the text becomes part of the image. What do you want it to be?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ooh that’s a really nice simple way of describing them, just what I needed :-) … I think from those three interpretations it’s the second one – the ‘note to self’. Thanks – really useful feedback!
LikeLike
I am too troubled by my inability to see the text in the second and third sets, it’s tiny! (Is that your ever diminshing memory as you get older? I read the other day people who forget facts and figures are really super bright! Phew!!) And I simply can’t get past the handwriting fonts. So for me the first set works best but perhaps not for the reasons you are seeking. I think the rendering and image of the HSBC plate is perhaps one of the strongest I’ve seen in this work so far. It’s very striking! And this fragment of image receding into a void relaly conveys something tangible. Not much help for your question though…
LikeLike
Ah thank you. The prints for the crit session are A3 and if I ever exhibit will be larger so I’m not overly worried about the text size in these particular executions. I do think however that if/when I present the work digitally I will need to address this, as people view on such a variety of screen sizes! Thanks again.
LikeLike
I much prefer the handwritten versions to the typed, more personal and engaging. I like the second version as you can read the image and text slightly separately and in a different order (ie text then image or vice versa); on the third set, the text is more intrusive – this might be what you want, but I feel it distracts a little from the imagery and makes it harder to get a clear response.
LikeLike
Thank you, that’s really interesting regarding the ability to read image and text separately. I agree that the inset text isn’t working. Although I am having a bit of a wobble with the handwriting font. Think I might go for actual handwriting on the prints… (eek!)
LikeLike