A Rainy Day at Central Park

New York is a city characterized by the lack of privacy and amount of people on the streets, one would be lucky to have the opportunity to move around without bumping into someone. This image, A Rainy Day at Central Park, offers a rare occasion in the Big Apple, distance. Looking at this photo, utilizing semiology and psychoanalysis, we can see that it contains all of the signifiers that can explain why it was such an empty day in Central Park.
Starting in the foreground of the image the tiles are slightly wet meaning that the photo was taken sometime after it was raining out. This is backed up by the drooping branches of the trees or the grey in the sky all of which are signifiers that it was at one point raining before this image was taken. Moving on to the people who are in the image, there is someone in the background with an umbrella, this signifies that it is still sprinkling out, and we can assume that it is rather cold because everybody that can be seen in the picture is wearing a coat.
Going off of the idea that it is a rather dull and gloomy day in this picture we can then ask the question. Why is there anybody in the park on a day like this? Focusing on the couple to the right we can see that the person closest to the camera has a paper in her hands with her legs crossed in a fashion that is aimed away from the individual they are with though they seem to be listening intently. The person next to them is leaning forward saying something fashioned in a relaxed and open manner facing more towards their companion. From this we can conclude that they are having an informal conversation, which is contrasting to the stereotypes about New York, the stereotypes being about a lack of personal communication.
If we look at the background of the image it is clear that nearly everyone shown is walking with a companion adding to the case for contrast against their stereotypes. Going back to my question, it is very possible that the people at the park are there because it is a chance to get away from the crowded streets of New York and take a break or have a conversation with a friend without someone being nearby to hear. In a city where people are shoulder to shoulder more often than not it brings to attention the idea that there are still introverts in that society that need their breaks.
Humans are social beings, but the question that remains to be answered is “how social are we?” We often talk about New York as busy and crowded but it is often not contemplated about where and when people go out for alone time. New York is also seen as a place that could very quickly turn dangerous just due to the immense amount of people, but this image challenges that narrative. Looking at the pairs who are just leisurely having conversations it seems as if this insanely crowded city is just as safe as a small town of just a few thousand. It is hard to find images that are in sharp contrast to the stereotypical narrative of New York, but those stereotypes leave out a large portion of people who don’t fit in with those normalities taking away their voice and personalities allowing for these ideas to spread even further without the voice of opposition.

Commentary on Rachel Tanur's Works: Cuban Boys

How does the ambiguity, or the lack of personal knowledge the viewer has of an image and the subjects affect the amount that the viewer can trust the photographer and in what ways does that ambiguity impact that subject? When an image contains nothing that signifies to the viewers the whereabouts or the actual age and gender of the subjects should we trust the photographers explanation about who those subjects are? Using a semiological approach one can interpret the signs that tell this image’s story which allows for the previously asked questions to be assessed in the context of this photo. Looking at Tanur’s photo, Cuban Boys, I couldn’t help but think about Steve McCurry’s photo Afghan Girl. Afghan Girl shows the subject as if she is fearful and the author gives her no name, this makes her an object as the photo gained popularity due to her eyes, after years she was found and recalls being angry that someone took her picture. Cuban Boys has a very different feel to it. Looking at Tanur’s image in a semiological and psychoanalytical way we can decipher a basic identity of the two subjects. The subjects in the photo cannot tell us their own identity and because there are no names connected to them in the image, therefore we cannot confirm or disprove the photographers claim that they are indeed two boys from Cuba. The two in the image are smiling which is a commonly accepted sign of happiness, this gives the general audience the feel that this is a photo meant to be viewed in a positive way. The two are staring directly into the camera which gives viewers the impression that there is some form of consent between the subjects and the photographer about the image. Both are wearing worn out clothes, this us a sign that shows us that they are not rich or from a wealthy area, this is backed up by the state of the building around them as the walls are chipping. I get the idea that the two may perhaps be siblings or good friends by the way that they are embracing each other. In contrast to McCurry, Cuban Boys gives at least the illusion of identity, we see the situation the two subjects are in. The relationship between the two, whatever that may be, portrayed by their body language towards one another. Their smiles capture their feelings at the time, though their clothes also offer insight into their possible financial situation. Afghan Girl merely offered an image without context, there are some small emotional clues that one could draw from her facial expressions but it offers no identity and takes a level of dignity away from the subject. As far as my question, though there is still a level of ambiguity to this photo it at least gives that illusion of individuality and personality. That being said, because there is ambiguity and very little outside context to this photo it is difficult to make a case for the author about trust. The author says that these “boys” are Cuban but there is nearly no outside evidence to prove that these subjects are from Cuba. The author also says that the two are boys, but it is still only an assumption for the audience to take this as truth. The two are wearing what many would claim to be male gendered clothing and they have short hair which is a common signifier of male gender. That being said aside from those two things there is nothing outside of subjective signifiers to prove that they are boys especially when one takes into account the fact that they seem to be lacking money. Gendered clothing is somewhat of a luxury, in areas where money is lacking clothing is often just given out. Subject ambiguity sacrifices a lot of factual material and forces the viewer to dive deeper into an image for information. This makes the viewer question the boundaries of trust between the author and themselves. There is ultimately a right and a wrong way to go about giving ambiguity to the subjects of a photo, I find that Tanur’s image is an ethical way to go about keeping ambiguity as where McCurry’s image is much less ethical, this is backed up by the lack of backlash to Cuban Boys and the large amount to Afghan Girl. These two images are examples on opposite sides of the spectrum. Where Afghan Girl removes personality and the voice of the subject Cuban Boys allows the subjects voices and personalities to tell the story of the image.