Richards (1949) discusses the medium of poetry and the ways in which it may be approached, appreciated, and judged. His view is that "We cannot profitably attack any opinion until we have discovered what it expresses as well as what it states; and our present technique for investigating opinions must be admitted, to be woefully inadequate" (p.8). For Richards "Poetry itself is a mode of communication. What it communicates and how it does so and the worth of what is communicated form the subject-matter of criticism" (p.11).

His aim therefore, is to improve the technique of criticism by comparing numerous opinions and then studying "what may be called the same opinion in different stages of development as it comes from different minds" (p.9). By improving technique we have begun to establish criteria for more useful criticism. We set out by describing, then progress towards interpretation. This will enable us to explain the meaning of various works of art such as film, poetry and photography.

Boyum and Scott (1971) identify issues in the critical process as it applies to the medium of film. They start off by stating, "That film is not merely out there to be seen; it is rather something which we must create...what we register is thus our own creation, an imaginative construction stimulated and controlled by what we see and hear" (p.11). These creations or opinions result in different interpretations of a particular film. How does one account for the variety of responses? And within this assortment, is one person's view superior to another's?

If meaningful criticism is to occur, we must take into account the problems that develop when seeking answers to these questions.

Boyum and Scott group these problems into two general categories: "those which arise primarily from our own individual psychologies - our individual preconceptions - our individual tastes; and those which arise from the nature of the medium itself" (p.21).

Through sound criticism Boyum and Scott seek "an attitude which operationally should result in a more valid experience" (p.xiv). This "valid" or meaningful experience is obtained by going beyond the typical gut response, "I liked it". When we ask ourselves "why", we begin the critical process. These questions, Boyum and Scott argue, "demand development and will invariably lead to further questions about one's self as well as those about the celluloid strip" (p. 11)

. This study discusses both Richard's ten difficulties of criticism and Boyum and Scott's adaptation of his findings they apply to film. Here the photograph will constitute the object of criticism.

At least twenty people were asked to view and respond to one image. Two questions were asked, "What is it about?" and "What does it mean?" The responses hopefully demonstrate Richard's theory about "opinions in different stages of development as it comes from different minds". By applying Richard's difficulties to the medium of photography, we can begin to search for the sources of error in the interpretation of a photograph. This research attempts to demonstrate the importance of interpretation as Richards states, "a means to the attainment of finer, more precise, more discriminating communication" (p. 11).

Sources of error most commonly occur when the viewer lacks a full understanding of the image. Describing is only part of the process of interpretation. A critic must fully consider obvious components of the picture. From these elements, Barrett (1990) found, "a critic can determine what is relevant to providing an understanding and appreciation of the photograph" (p. 31). Richards realized this problem with poetry and set about to "provide a new technique for those who wish to discover for themselves what they think and feel about poetry and why they should like it or dislike it" (p.3).

By gathering and analyzing responses, Richards documented ten ways people go astray in interpreting poetry. The majority of respondents were English majors. Graduate students as well non-academic also participated. He starts with the most fundamental difficulty, making out the plain sense of poetry. A large proportion his of readers failed to grasp the overt meaning of a poem. They repeatedly missed the expressive qualities inherent in a poetic statement. Feeling, tone and intention were misconstrued as well.

A second difficulty in making out meaning, lies in sensuous apprehension. Some readers, through a mixture of emotional, sensory and intellectual wisdom, have a natural awareness to the "rhythm of poetry" (Richards 1949, p. 14). Less sensitive readers however, failed to recognize these qualities which produced difficulty in apprehension.

Next are problems associated with imagery, specifically visual imagery. Richards points out, "Difficulties arise in part from the incurable fact that we differ immensely in our capacity to visualize, and to produce imagery of the other senses" (p. 14). He notes that a "troublesome source of critical deviation" (p. 14), lies in the fact that the same line of poetry can generate two different images in two different minds, neither having anything to do with the image that existed within the poet's mind.

A fourth difficulty is the effect of mnemonic irrelevances. This trouble develops when a reader or viewer associates their personal past with the poem. These connections bound the reader to an experience that has nothing to do with the poem.

Another "critical trap" called Stock Responses, consist of beliefs and sentiments already fixed in the reader's mind. By bringing these stock responses with us, we deny all intentions on the part of the poet.

Sentimentality is a problem that occurs when one reacts based solely on emotion. Conversely Inhibition is a restraint which is imposed by one's own intellect. Both sentimentality and inhibition limit the reader or viewer from progressing towards meaningful interpretation.

When we hold certain convictions, valid or invalid, about the world we live in, we create confusion and hence distort judgment. This accounts for a problem known as Doctrinal Adhesions.

Another category of conflict lies in technique. When we have expectations of an author's work, Richards notes, "we are disappointed or do not recognize them if they are done differently". He goes on to state that, "Conversely, a technique which has shown its ineptitude for one purpose tends to be discredited for all" (p. 17). Richards calls this problem technical presuppositions.

General critical preconceptions, the last problem in Richards list, are previous held convictions concerning the nature of poetry. These positions lead us astray and can cloud our ability to make meaningful interpretations.

Richard's ten difficulties set a foundation for further research. Boyum and Scott adapted his theories to the visual medium of film. As unique a medium as film is, Boyum and Scott encountered similar problems in the critical act. Although the problems are under different headings, the context is much the same. Boyum and Scott's respondents however, were professional critics, and many of them fell into the same patterns of misinterpretation as Richard's naive readers did.

Boyum and Scott contend that the first principle in meaningful criticism occurs when one can support their interpretation with elements that occur within the film, poem, painting or photograph. This goal seems simple, but often the hardest to attain. These sources of error it seems, are associated with any critical act. To test this, a research study was conducted applying Richards's methodology using the photographic image.

Participants

Twenty three university students and staff (eight men and fifteen women) volunteered to partake in the research study. Ten of the participants were grouped together as a class and the remaining thirteen were met individually. To narrow the field of research, all participants were required to have training at an advanced level in photography. Participants were treated in accordance with the "Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct" (American Psychological Association, 1992).

Materials

For reasons of simplicity, only one 11x14, black and white, matted photograph was used as the image participants would respond to. A questionnaire was used to record their responses.

Procedure

After a brief explanation as to the reason of the research, a survey instructed viewers to look at one image then respond to two questions. The questions, "What is it about?" and "What does it mean?" were asked. No information regarding the photograph was given. The questions were designed to prompt the viewer first to describe, then interpret the image.

Most viewers did fall into the patterns that are mentioned previously. Although the viewers were considered advanced in their photographic abilities, the evidence clearly shows that the majority of respondents lack interpretation skills. The degree of elaboration ranged from one word answers to full paragraphs. When asked to follow simple rules, questions from the classroom group such as, "What are we supposed to do?", "Is this a test?", and "What do you mean?" were asked. When told to include both positive and negative impressions in their reactions, comments like, "The questions are so vague", "This is hard for us to do, we're so used to pleasing people" were made as well. Overall the individual respondents were less tentative.

More than half of the participants asked for information regarding the photograph prior to answering the questions. "Where was this taken?", and "Did you take this photo?" were asked. An explanation was given only after the respondents had answered the questions.

In response to the first question "What is it about?", all of the respondents clearly identified aspects of the photograph that were obvious. "It's about people absorbing the sun rays...", "People resting, relaxing in a public park...", "Many people sitting on chairs in different positions that suggest relaxation". Participants commented that this question was easy to answer.

"What does it mean?" included a variety of reactions. Twelve were extended descriptions of the first question "What is it about?". Four said it had no meaning and two responded negatively, "The way the people are sitting in their own separate spaces tells the viewer that the atmosphere is negative, something is not right". Another negative interpretation reads, "People don't know how to relax. They seem uncomfortable, stressed. This image is quite confusing".

Only five of the respondents offered meaning between the described aspects of the photograph. One replied, "This photograph reveals how isolated people tend to be from one another, even when they have clear common interests or enjoyments. The comparison of people to statues is an interesting way to illustrate this", "...the image says that art reflects the human condition, and when humans reflect, they resemble art". Another response, "It means that as soon as man came out of the cave, excess exposure to sunlight is a goal of mankind".

The wide range of responses collected contain sources of error in agreement with Richard's and Boyum and Scott's findings. Often answers included a fusion of more than one difficulty. The most common response was that it reminded the viewer of some pleasurable place they had been before. This agrees with Richard's obstacle of sentimentality as well as Boyum and Scott's private associations. These intrusions Boyum and Scott point out, "so obliterate the film that it can no longer serve as material from which the viewer can construct a legitimate experience" (p. 13). This is an important point to consider in our attempt at more effective communication.

Another difficulty encountered was a cultural conviction shared by many Americans. An overwhelming desire to take time out of our busy, hectic, stress filled lives to "stop and smell the roses" was found in these responses. This would fall under Boyum and Scott's culturally induced association. Our culture does in fact represent a fast paced society that often has no time for the simple things in life. This photograph, ironically shot in Europe, made viewers associate their lives to the lives of others depicted in the image.

Similarities between this study and the findings of Richards and Boyum and Scott confirm the problems associated with artistic criticism. One shortcoming however needs clarification.

Most people had a relatively easy time answering the question "What is it about?". However, as expected, "What does it mean?" proved a more difficult task. The word "interpret" seemed to guide the viewers through this question. When told verbally to "give your interpretation of the image", respondents felt better equipped to answer the question. This did not necessarily mean that they made more useful interpretations, they did however, proceed with less trepidation. Perhaps "What do you interpret the image to mean?" would have been more appropriate.

Suggesting a method that would eliminate these obstacles is impossible. What we have instead is a guide to understanding. An understanding about who we are in relation to the world we live in. As indicated in this study, the individual creates his/her own meaning based on their own existence. This fact invariably accounts for the variety of responses encountered in this study. That one's view is superior to another's, is only true when that person can offer more than just description and uniformed opinion. As research indicates, interpretation is not an easy task. Understanding the sources of error put forth by Richards and Boyum and Scott, will enable critics to communicate and interpret works more effectively and in turn more responsibly.

American Psycological Assosiation. (1994). Publication manual of the American Psycological Association. Washington, DC: APA.

Barrett, Terry. (1990). Criticizing photographs : an introduction to understanding images. Mountain, CA: Mayfield.

Boyum, J., and Scott, A. (1971). Film as film: critical responses to film art. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Richards, I A. (1949). Pracitcal criticism: a study of literary judgment. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & Co.