A Film Art approach to an image vs a Practices of Looking approach to an image.
Firstly, the books’ titles have some standout, inherent differences. Practices of Looking refers to the act of a viewer. The title implicates that the book is going to highlight concepts oflooking, thus placing its weight on the idea of viewers, lookers, the people observing the media. Film Art would appear to be focused more around film, the media itself. So already, just from the titles, we have a viewer-centric approach, and a media-centric approach.
The keyword in Chapter Two of PL is interpellation. The chapter asserts that images interpellate viewers, evoke meanings from these viewers. The meaning is henceforth, in the hands of the viewer, who can interpret the image in a plethora of different ways. FA Chapter 2 focuses on the form of the image, the complex system that causes viewers to react the way they do. FA asserts that meaning viewers make comes from this reaction, that images have “cues that can elicit a particular activity from the perceiver.”
So using these viewer-centric vs. image-centric, let’s dissect the possible meanings of an image:
Both sides would agree on the referential meaning. A black woman standing against a wall on a sidewalk holds a white baby in her arms. Neither side would argue these denotations. Now let’s be interpellated. We’re immediately compelled to look for meaning—for symbolism, for messages, for contradictions, anything we can analyze and put a reason behind. As a viewer, I could point out two concrete, referential meanings that lend to something more implicit. The image is constructed from only two colors- black and white. The characters in the image are constructed from two different complexions—black and white. Thus, despite the characters’ differences, they come from the same core, the same set of building blocks, the same basic units. The image provoked me, the human viewer, to come to my own personal conclusions.
Now from an FA perspective. The image has a complex form, a system of symbols that combine together to elicit a reaction from the viewer. Let’s say that the fact that the inhabit the very front of the depth of field draws immediate attention to the characters. The woman and the child this merit a primary reaction, as they are the front and center of the image. Then, there is a notable contrast of complexion between the woman and the child, since they are so physically close to each other. Essentially, the placement of the characters works in this image to provoke the viewer into responding with a reason—a reason as to what the contrast is, why the characters are in the foreground.
