Recomendaciones para Futuras Investigaciones

The camera, as a visual recording apparatus, captures everything visi- ble in the direction it is pointed, not just the photographer’s intended sub- jects. For a photographer, it may be impossible to appoint any single object in a landscape photograph that triggered the decision for originally taking the photo. On the other hand, photographers may often describe the con- tents of a photograph as inaccurate in representing their actual perception of the scene (Van House, 2011, p.130). One of the reasons is that photo- graphs only capture a small portion of the photographer’s perceived reality. Furthermore, photographs may convey other meanings compared to what the owner originally intended to express (Becker, 1995). This implies a lim- itation to the significance of the contents pictured in a photo for the as- sessment of perception (see also chapter 1.2.2.3). Not everything that is perceived is photographed, and not everything that is visible in a photo- graph has been perceived. What are the differences and, conversely, what are the similarities between perceiving and taking photos? What is the meaning of the photograph, if its pictured contents are of rather minor importance to the assessment of landscape perception?

 Relationships and definitions

Photography has been described as a “reductive way of dealing with the world” (Sontag, 1977, p.63). This definition emphasizes the procedural and exclusive character of photo taking. The photograph, as a result of this process, is both an “interpretation of the world” as it is a trace of the pro- cesses that preceded its creation (Sontag, 1977, p.120). The perceptual processes that precede the creation of a photograph can be considered as its context (Becker, 1995). This context is directly related to what Ittelson (1973) defined as environment perception and Unwin (1975) called land-

scape experience. This notion of perception was later coined landscape perception (Zube, Sell, & Taylor, 1982). Landscape perception is the eve-

ryday form of perception that is connected to purposeful, meaningful, goal- oriented and directional action. In landscape perception, the environment

surrounds the observer. The observer is part of the landscape and interacts with it (Unwin, 1975). It is the observer that brings landscape perception and photo taking together. Unwin regarded the observer as having three components (Unwin, 1975, p.131).

• the physical relationships of the landscape observer and land-

scape,

• the observer's perception of the landscape, and

• the nature of preferences for and valuations of the landscape.

While this classification may raise some concerns, it is suited to un- derstand the intermediary character of photographs. The photograph is im- portant as it forms a bridge between these mental and physical, and con- scious and unconscious components of the observer (Edwards, 2002, p.69). The observer’s physical relationship to the landscape is traced in the

location, time and, perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent, the direction of

the photograph. These traces form a connection to the context of the photo. Note that this relationship is completely independent of whether it is possible to later identify the location of a photograph, the time it was created, or the direction it is pointed to. Importantly, the function of the photograph is that it constructs a relationship, and this relationship links to an observer’s values and perception at a specific time and space (Becker, 1995). How is this achieved?

The most obvious physical relationship is the location of the photo- graph. Someone who wants to take a photo must first move their body to a physical location. Investing energy to move somewhere is an important form of valuation (McIntyre, Moore, & Yuan, 2008; see Harvey, 1973, p.158, for a description of the link between physical location and value). Movement is central to perception. It is the base for Gibson’s theory of

affordances (see Gibson, 1950), which influenced many of today’s notions

of perception. In the context of tourist photography, Urry (2002) explains affordances as constraints to behavior and perception along certain possi- bilities (p.155). Photographing always occurs in some relation to body movement. This is independent of whether the photographer explicitly

moves itself somewhere to take a photo (1), incidentally happens to be somewhere and takes a photo (2), or photographs as part of another activ- ity carried out in the environment (3). These types indirectly relate to a photographer’s perception of the landscape as well as to the preferences for and valuations of the landscape, albeit in slightly different ways.

In the first case (1), a valuation is possibly most strongly expressed. Out of an enormous number of available alternatives, the photographer

explicitly chooses to visit a specific place at a specific time. Perhaps equat-

ing the photographer here with an observer is misleading. Ittelson (1973) wrote “One does not, indeed cannot, observe the environment: one ex- plores it” (p.149). Whether a photo is taken during this exploration de- pends on the prior goals, predispositions and expectations of the photog- rapher; in other words, the motivation that underlies our daily actions. For this reason, before discussing case two (2) and three (3), a brief paragraph on motivation and action is inserted.

Actions can be classified into either driven by intrinsic or extrinsic mo- tivational factors (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Because people feel rarely forced to take photographs, the actions accompanied by photographing are primarily intrinsically motivated. Intrinsic motivated behavior is said to be most im- portant for human well-being and the fulfillment of basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In contrast to extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation is characterized by higher degrees of self-determination and people’s free choice in engaging in activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p.233). Thus, intrinsically motivated activities are those that people do naturally and spontaneously, when they are free to follow their inner interests. In addition, Lux, Kogler, & Fabro (2010) interviewed photographers and found that the majority of photo taking activities is connected to positive affective

states (i.e. positive emotions). Conversely, affect factors, such as excite-

ment and joy, are central to intrinsically motivated behavior (Reeve & Cole, 1987). A particular high degree of intrinsically motivated behavior is re- flected, as an example for case one (1), in the practice of ‘photo-walks’. Among other motivational factors, photo-walks are practiced for experi-

encing, rethinking and understanding the (often unnoticed) everyday Conceptual approach - 57

spaces of urban environments (Pyyry, 2015). While the resulting photo- graphs may be shared for reasons of self-representation, or archived for purposes of memorization, the main motivation of photo-walks can be seen in the act of understanding, experiencing and perceiving itself.

The second case (2) can be best described as spontaneous photog- raphy. People take photographs whenever something ‘noteworthy’ hap- pens (Koskinen, 2005). This is increasingly practiced as cameras and mo- bile phones become devices of everyday life (Van House, 2011, p.127). What is considered as noteworthy depends on the context and situation. It seems possible to assert that this type of photography has a tendency to be inclined towards the perceived external stimuli provided by the envi- ronment. Such stimuli could be surprising events, a person that draws sud- den attention toward themselve, or changes in weather, lighting and other transient conditions. Nevertheless, to be able to perceive these stimuli, a person must have first physically moved to the place, which in turn is al- ways bound to some activity. People always do something and the envi- ronment provides incentives or limitations for certain activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gibson, 1950). This is why this form of photography is difficult to distinguish (and perhaps inseparable) from the third case.

In the third case (3), photography casually accompanies an activity. The difference to spontaneous photography may be seen in the explicit motivation of carrying a camera to take photographs. This type of photog- raphy often accompanies typical activities carried out in the environment (see also Crang, 1998). Interestingly, through this ‘piggyback’ relationship, photo taking is linked to a very personal form of perception, one that is normally not accessible to academic researchers (Dodman, 2003). Despite recent shifts in the everyday practices of photo taking, photography re- mains mainly attached to a wide array of leisure activities and, in particular,

family and tourist activities (Cox, 2013; Urry, 2002; Crang, 1998). Interest-

ingly, these activities are usually strong expressions of personal prefer- ences and are therefore characterized by high degrees of intrinsic motiva- tion (Goossens, 2000).

While intrinsic motivated behavior most clearly reflects an individual’s internalized values (Deci & Ryan, 2000), the values expressed in these ac- tivities are complex. However, complexity here does not mean compli- cated or difficult to understand (as similarly applies to perception; see It- telson, 1973, p.142). Values appear complex due to an enormous wealth of possible human activities photographing may accompany, and not when viewed in the specific context of a photo. As an example, consider a family on an afternoon walk through a park in a city in autumn. The children may notice a heap of leaves, which is turned into a spontaneous playground. Here, the environment provides an incentive for action, bound to a specific place. This action may be perceived as memorable by the children’s par- ents, which in turn triggers the action of taking a photo. Although the pho- tograph of the scene captures a very personal value, this value is indirectly related to something that may also be of value to other people. It is easy to understand value in this context because our personal value system resonates, in some way, with the values exhibited in the example.

The temporal relationship between photographs and perception is ap- parent in the examples above. Time and space are not separable. But dif- ferent photographs are taken at different times. Conversely, perception changes over time as personal and collective values, preferences and mo- tivational factors change. This seems obvious on a large scale. While pref- erences for certain activities continuously change, bound to an individual’s experiences, so are the patterns of photo taking permanently modulated. But the influence of time not only operates over long periods. For example, landscape experience is equally influenced by the sequence in which dif- ferent views are perceived (Steinitz, 1990). At any one time, only a fraction of the landscape can be seen. But the temporal order in which views are perceived produces patterns, surprise and contrast in relation to one’s memory and anticipation (see the above; Unwin, 1975). These personal responses to landscape are to some degree reflected in the temporal pat- terns of photo taking. For example, in a photo survey for investigating en- vironmental conditions and perceptions within cities, Moore et al. (2008) found that self-directed photography particularly allowed studying how ex- periences and perceptions of participants ‘unfold over time’ (p.60).

On the contrary, it is clear that photographing is not a continuous pro- cess. Photography is selectively employed to capture important moments (Lee, 2010; Lux, Kogler, & Fabro, 2010; Goh, Ang, Chua, & Lee, 2009). The definition of importance here is, as highlighted before, bound to a personal scale. This scale in turn is related to the context in which a photo is taken. Larsen (2005) notes that the sequence of photographs tells stories that ‘accentuate’ personal values and perceptions. Perhaps it can be asserted that photography has a tendency to be used to capture the more valuable personal experiences and perceptions, or as Susan Sontag puts it, “Pho- tographs are […] consciousness in its acquisitive mood” (Sontag, 1977, p.2).

The third and last physical relationship is difficult to account for be- cause it can be conceived in more ambivalent and contradictory terms as the temporal and spatial relationship. The direction and exact frame of a photograph are both intentional and unintentional. A slight movement of the hand that is holding the camera may partly be unintentional, partly un- consciously directed, and to some degree consciously performed to in- clude (or exclude) perceived aspects of the scene. Here, photography and perception share the commonality of a soft transition between conscious and unconscious effects (see chapter 1.1). This connection may be best explained with the link between ambient vision and the background ele- ments visible in a photo. The human brain does not consciously notice everything that is perceived at a specific moment of photo taking. Hence, the orientation and contents of a photograph provide an equal limited base for estimating the photographer’s actual perception. Nonetheless, there is always an intention connected to the creation of photographs. Aesthetic judgment plays a role in pointing the camera and choosing a frame that best represents the photographer’s intention (Ramesh, & Pinaki, 2010). Quite often, this intention will be difficult to read (Garduno, 2010). This is why images often appear ambiguous. Their meaning remains unspecific when judged solely on the basis of their pictured contents because mean- ing emerges from context (Ramesh, & Pinaki, 2010; Becker, 1995).

1.3.4.2. User motivation in the context of photo sharing in com-