The executive summary: "A new study from MIT neuroscientists shows that the most memorable photos are those that contain people, followed by static indoor scenes and human-scale objects. Landscapes? They may be beautiful, but they are, in most cases, utterly forgettable."
What's omitted, but totally obvious to me, is that wildlife (and especially bears) definitely qualify as human-scale objects!! KIDDING!!
Cheers...
Brad
Posted by Bill Chambers on June 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM
This is what happens when a bunch of brainiacs with way too much time on the hands venture into the world of art. There are some things in life that you just can't quantify IMO.
That's true, Bill, and you're right, Brad, about wildlife, for sure, but in reality I did assess the images they posted with the article in the same way they did. And I don't know what that means. I have to think about this.
Posted by Larry Reitz on June 14, 2011 at 12:16 PM
More memorable? Probably. More marketable to those looking to hang something on their wall? I sincerely doubt it, although people in the landscape changes the equation.
I've always felt that the bottom line in "memorable" is that a photo connects with a viewer somehow. Different connections for different people and interests. The piece is interesting to me as a measure of the "average" of a large group people, leveling out the individual connections.
As photographers we individually "clump" around our individual interests, but I kinda wonder if the spectrum of people in the study might also accurately represent the spectrum of interests among photographers, too. Just look at the wide range of possibilities in photo "genera" and try to average that out. Wildlife is supremely interesting to many of us here on NPN but there's a whole generation out there that thrives on Lady Gaga and is more likely to plug into paparazzi than critter cams. How does it all mesh together into "photography?"
Posted by Jim Sabiston on June 14, 2011 at 1:08 PM
I wouldn't fret over it. I am a student of human awareness and the study focuses on a rather finite memory function. The human mind has evolved to be particulary sensitive to those things that are most likely to be immediately important to it - other humans being at the top of that list, faces in particular. This is due to the vital importance of social interaction within human social groups - hence the many sightings of the face of certain religious persons in toast, stains, etc. We are hyper-sensitive to this sort of thing.
That said, what is memorable has little to do with what is 'art'. The memories our art may speak to are of an emotional nature, not a graphic figurative one. We are making an entirely different connection to the viewer than what these scientists are testing for.
"The human mind has evolved to be particulary sensitive to those things that are most likely to be immediately important to it - other humans being at the top of that list, faces in particular."
Yeah, just look at FaceBook! How many landscape/avian/fauna/flora shots do you see there? How many shots of people doing things they likely should not make public do you see there?
It would be interesting to see a study of those images without an anthropormorphic context to see which types of images are most memorable.
It would be interesting to see a study of those images without an anthropormorphic context to see which types of images are most memorable.
Amen to that. As Jim S explains so well, the study was trying to get at visual triggers in the brain at a very basic level, and it just happened to use photos. They could just as well have taken the subjects for walks. It's all about brain function and little about photography.
But can we learn something from the results? You bet! In our world of taking photos for hire and selling stock to businesses, photos that include people outsell "pure" nature photos about 10 to 1. And among those, photos that show faces and especially their reactions to the surroundings outsell back shots about 10 to 1. It's really all about the people in nature and little about grand nature without a soul in sight.
The study wasn't designed to examine reactions to the latter, but a study that did that would be extremely interesting to all of us I bet.
Guy, I might be misinterpreting you, because it sounds like you're saying people who like a fine Cabernet are "worth" more than people who like Coca Cola. If you're not saying that, I apologize. If you are saying that, I completely disagree.
Barbara, I'm just saying that one has to know their audience. If you try to please everyone (or even a majority) you will end up with a low common denominator.
I have to be honest: the images that pop up in the NPN landscape gallery consistently blow me away more than any other gallery here. And yet if I try to remember specific photos, I remember more of the outstanding shots from the wildlife and avian galleries.
Maybe all the landscape talent we have here blends together too well.
Discussion
13 repliesRan into this article this morning - and thought some might find it interesting. it's a report on a study by neuroscientists at MIT
Title: What Makes an Image Memorable?
URL: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-image-tend-pictures-people-wide.html
The executive summary: "A new study from MIT neuroscientists shows that the most memorable photos are those that contain people, followed by static indoor scenes and human-scale objects. Landscapes? They may be beautiful, but they are, in most cases, utterly forgettable."
What's omitted, but totally obvious to me, is that wildlife (and especially bears) definitely qualify as human-scale objects!! KIDDING!!
Cheers...
Brad
As photographers we individually "clump" around our individual interests, but I kinda wonder if the spectrum of people in the study might also accurately represent the spectrum of interests among photographers, too. Just look at the wide range of possibilities in photo "genera" and try to average that out. Wildlife is supremely interesting to many of us here on NPN but there's a whole generation out there that thrives on Lady Gaga and is more likely to plug into paparazzi than critter cams. How does it all mesh together into "photography?"
That said, what is memorable has little to do with what is 'art'. The memories our art may speak to are of an emotional nature, not a graphic figurative one. We are making an entirely different connection to the viewer than what these scientists are testing for.
Oh, and what Phil said!
Yeah, just look at FaceBook! How many landscape/avian/fauna/flora shots do you see there? How many shots of people doing things they likely should not make public do you see there?
It would be interesting to see a study of those images without an anthropormorphic context to see which types of images are most memorable.
--P
Amen to that. As Jim S explains so well, the study was trying to get at visual triggers in the brain at a very basic level, and it just happened to use photos. They could just as well have taken the subjects for walks. It's all about brain function and little about photography.
But can we learn something from the results? You bet! In our world of taking photos for hire and selling stock to businesses, photos that include people outsell "pure" nature photos about 10 to 1. And among those, photos that show faces and especially their reactions to the surroundings outsell back shots about 10 to 1. It's really all about the people in nature and little about grand nature without a soul in sight.
The study wasn't designed to examine reactions to the latter, but a study that did that would be extremely interesting to all of us I bet.
The real question is: memorable to whom?
Guy
Guy
Maybe all the landscape talent we have here blends together too well.
Max