19th February 2024.

During this microteaching session, I was considering ways in which I could teach a form of media literacy using an object oriented approach. In my teaching practice on the Photography and Time-Based Media foundation course, I am very aware that students often rely on instagram and other image hosting platforms to gather images either for use in their own work or for image research purposes. While I recognise that this is a convenient way to gather visual material efficiently and discover related images, I am eager of providing tools for a more prolonged engagement with an image. This underscores one of my main teaching objectives across the different spaces I work in: to teach a form of media literacy through critical observation. 

In my workshop, I bought in a large selection of images, torn from National Geographic magazines printed between 1954-1994 and part of my personal archive. I specifically selected pages that did not mention the magazine or the year. 

These were laid on the table in the middle. 

I gave participants of the workshop 3 mins to select an image that resonated with them. I observed as they initially selected an image, before taking some time to go through the other pages, some changing their mind, some sticking with their original selection. 

I instructed participants to take notes what they can see in the image selected, being as detailed as possible. They were given 3 minutes to do this. It was interesting to observe the initial rush of notetaking as the obvious details were taken down which then slowed as participants started to really squeeze every detail from the image held in their hands. After a minute or so, I started to give prompts – encouraging participants to look at the colour, speculate on the scenario etc. 

When the time was up, I proceeded to give some context about the collection presented. I talked about National Geographic as a document which can reveal how the USA frames narratives – a westerncentric idea of travel. I also discussed the apparatus involved from the actual capturing of the image, to the printing process to distribution and finally, how this came into my possession. 

Participants were then instructed to spend another 3 minutes to consider these images as artefacts. I gave prompts about particular ways of identifying methods of image production and considerations of what might have shaped either the intentions of the photographer or the publication. I also encouraged participants to consider the intended viewer – who is this for? Are we still the audience? How does the fragment relate to the whole?

We then entered a short conversation about our different observations and what drew us to our chosen image. 

By situating these images as objects in the framework of object based learning, I hoped to start an exchange about the way we look at images; their physicality and their modes of production. Considering the life of the image before and after it encounters us invites a more critical engagement with a single image. This durational relationship with the image was fed back to me as a positive outcome of the workshop. Some of my colleagues suggested that I spend more time talking through the technical knowledge required when analysisng these images – for example how to identify an analogue versus a digital image and some terminology used when discussing printing processes.

I will certainly bring these suggestions forward and, on reflection, think it might also be useful to incorporate this into a discussion around how practitioners work with the image-as-object. This way, there is an additional practice based outcome which, in the context of studio practice, can cement the observation skills learnt in the session.