Using visual material: some examples

Time is short in class, and lots need to be done: language proficiency in all skills, some culture, some exam-prep...all this leaves little time to read long texts, or even extracts, and even less time to engage with - and work with - such texts.

An alternative is of course to try and practice similar skills on a different basis, by using visual material.

The process will really be the same as with texts:

close-reading/watching/looking: what do we see, what is absent, what are the elements of the photo?
asking questions (which kind, to what end);
interpreting, and comparing understandings (and what they may be based on);

You can practice those skills in short bursts within a lesson: there is no need to take the whole teaching time to do so.

Practicing 10 or 15 minutes regularly (every week for example, but more often if you can) can help embed those skills in learners, without jargon, without abstract concepts or stuff to learn: watch closely, think about what you're shown, why, how it could be interpreted, discuss, challenge, ask, ask some more, explain, exchange.

All these above are also present when reading, so we can work on our learners' critical reading skills by attending to their visual reading skills as well.

Let's remember Susan Sontag's famous edict: 'To photograph is to frame; to frame is to exclude' (in 'On Photography').

Have a look at the examples below - there is text along with the photos, click on the down arrow

One subject in two photos: LeBron James -
First show the picture on the left, then the one on the right

These are two magazine covers featuring the same person: basketball star LeBron James. It really doesn't matter if learners don't know who he is - it's probably better of they don't :)

What you want to do here is get learners to follow our three steps to interpretation: Observe; Interpret; Evaluate.

So to start off with, you first show the picture on the left (from 'Sports illustrated'), and ask learners to observe and pick out all the elements they can, for example:

Profile picture; brown background; Title/sub-title ('power'); Stubble; Bulging muscles; tattoos; Headband; eyes closed; serious expression; light on face; sports jersey;

Then they have to interpret those elements, e.g. concentration; focus; physical power; dedication; Ready for the game (even though that photo surely was not taken just before a game); link picture to publication (and audience).

You then do the same for the picture on the right ('GQ'), where all the elements are the opposite of the previous picture (e.g. light, pastel colours; suit and tie; neat moustache and no stubble; full-face and not profile; wry smile; title and sort of publication).

In both cases, interpretation should focus on WHO we are being shown, or perhaps, WHO are we being sold? Who is the real LeBron James?

Evaluation can then focus on different aspects: relationship photo-publication-audience; stereotypical associations (black athlete) vs. breaking stereotypes (black entrepreneur); Why does each publication approach the same subject that way...etc.

Perspective matters: from Grandeur...to nothingness - three times the pyramids of Egypt

These are three pictures of the same subject: the pyramids of Egypt. Show each one in turn, starting with the one showing the pyramids at ground level, then the one from inside Pizza Hut, ending with the one from above.

Again, follow the three steps to interpretation and evaluation (Observe; interpret; Evaluate), focusing on what each image suggests.

For example, image 1 ( at ground level): difference in size between people/camels and pyramids = pyramids look gigantic, alone in the world, in the middle of a huge desert - majesty, grandeur, History etc.

Image 2 (from the inside of Pizza Hut) demeans all that, or belittles it: association fast-food and historical site; trucks and buses visible: pyramids as background, as tourist attraction and not as historical object

Image 3 (from above) reduces those pyramids to an appendix to the sprawling, giant city; contrasts isolation of pyramids in pic.1 with them being a part of the city; negates history/millenia-old object; reduces their size (they look tiny now).

How does our perception of what the pyramids are change according to the way we're shown them? How does our interpretation of the pyramids change? What is then the power of photos, of perspective, of angles and choice of framing, influence our interpretations?

President Obama presenting his Medical Bill at the White House

a very simple one here which you can analyse in 5 minutes by focusing on basic elements, and formulating critical questions, e.g. Why are those people wearing doctors' blouses? Are doctors needed at the White House at that moment? Surely not, so why are they wearing them?

Your terrorist is my freedom fighter

A brilliant drawing by Tom Gauld: observe the symmetry between left and right sides: what does that suggest?

Three times Obama: who are we being shown...and sold?

Those three magazine covers depict President Obama in a particular way: get your learners to observe and ask good questions to link the visual clues to a message.

For example, 'A New Hope': words, eyes looking in the distance (future=hope); light around him; colours behind vs suit; facial expression (serious but not sad)

'Climate crusade': casual wear (coat, shoes etc.); background of quiet water and nature; sitting on a rock; looking in the distance; title

Time magazine: tie half-undone, top-button of shirt undone, laughter (intimate, relaxed), not looking at us, casual attitude, leaning back, title (what he knows)

Three paintings...to think about American history

This is perhaps a bit more difficult, but not that much really - if you attend to details, look carefully and are not afraid to give it time.

The first painting is very famous, and reproduced countless times: 'American Gothic', by Grant Woods (1930).

The second builds on the first: it's an echo of it, and also a criticism - 'Ella Watson' by Gordon Parks (1942 - she was a cleaning lady at the White House).

The third echoes the first two: 'The new American gothic' by C. Vasquez (2017)

These can be used to talk about history of course, how America was built according to history, tradition and myth - by puritan settlers for whom hard work (good, honest work, symbolised by the pitch-fork, plain dress etc.) was moral; Then by black Americans used as servants (so inferior class) as evidenced by the mop, contrasted with the American flag behind); then by the new wave of emigrants (who, unlike slaves, emigrated willingly even if because of economic hardship) who clean houses.

The pitchfork becomes a mop becomes a window-cleaning tool; notice how Ella Watson is alone so her 'partner' (to echo the other two photos) is a mop and her pitch-fork is a broom.

Notice the origin/colour (Woods' subjects are white; Ella is black; Vasquez' are mexicans) reflecting different waves of emigration (forced or not).

Contrast connotations of tools (pitch-fork: honest agricultural work = feeding, down-to-earth etc.; broom and mops and window-cleaning: subservient, low-class, disregarded)

Notice the backgrounds: plain but good, wooden house vs huge American flag vs typical American pick-up truck.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse