Framing Thought
This project investigates the dialogic relationship between visual subjects and their framing devices, specifically exploring how nationalistic and sociocultural symbols dictate the interpretation of an image. I am exploring the central question:
What are the dialogic processes behind the framing of visual images and meaning? How does understanding these dialogic structures help us dissect engrained (sociopolitical or sociocultural) power structures?
By placing identical photographs within different symbolic frames and presenting them side-by-side, I aim to expose the “silent dialogue” that occurs between the viewer’s existing biases and the visual cues provided. This methodology serves to dissect hidden sociopolitical power structures, revealing how institutional symbols can weaponize or sanitize a single reality depending on the cultural lens applied.
Ultimately, this work challenges the notion of “objective” sight. It examines the recursive loop of cultural framing: how we, as a society, frame our culture through icons, and how those very icons, in turn, frame our understanding of the world. Through this juxtaposition, the project seeks to reveal the engrained power dynamics that govern our visual literacy and political empathy.
Bibliography
1. Laranjo, F. (2014) ‘Critical graphic design: Critical of what?’, Modes of Criticism, 1. Available at: https://modesofcriticism.org. (Accessed: 22 April 2026) – from reading list
In this essay, Francisco Laranjo questions the ambiguous use of the term “critical” within graphic design, arguing that work is not inherently critical simply by addressing social or political issues. Instead, he outlines different modes of criticality, including reflexive practice, disciplinary critique, and engagement with broader societal conditions.
This text is relevant to my practice as it challenges the assumption that visual experimentation alone produces critical meaning. While my work explores how framing devices such as flags or symbolic icons alter interpretation, Laranjo’s argument prompts a deeper question: does the work merely illustrate bias, or does it actively construct conditions in which viewers confront their own assumptions? His emphasis on design as a form of inquiry supports my approach to collage not as aesthetic composition, but as a method for testing how meaning is produced through context, selection, and perception.
2. Drucker, J. (2014) Graphesis: Visual forms of knowledge production. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. – from reading list
In Graphesis, Johanna Drucker argues that visual forms are not neutral representations of information, but active producers of knowledge. She introduces the concept of “graphic interpretation,” emphasizing that design structures how information is understood by shaping the conditions through which it is perceived. Rather than conveying fixed meaning, visual systems construct interpretive frameworks that guide how viewers read and make sense of content.
This is relevant to my practice, which investigates how framing devices influence perception. By applying different symbolic frames to the same image, I explore how interpretation shifts depending on the visual structure imposed. Drucker’s argument supports the idea that these frames do not simply alter meaning externally, but function as interpretive systems that produce distinct readings. This positions my use of collage not as aesthetic manipulation, but as a method for examining how meaning and knowledge are constructed through visual form.
3. Gómez-Peña, G. and Fusco, C. (1993) The Couple in the Cage: A Guatinaui Odyssey [performance]. – topic
Guillermo Gómez-Peña and Coco Fusco’s The Couple in the Cage (1992–1994) explores how cultural identity and “otherness” are constructed through pre-existing colonial and national frameworks of understanding. By presenting themselves as fictional “undiscovered Amerindians” displayed in a cage, the work reveals how audiences interpret unfamiliar bodies through inherited narratives shaped by colonial history, exoticism, and institutional authority. The reactions of viewers ranging from belief to amusement demonstrate how perception is guided not by what is seen, but by what cultural expectations already exist.
In relation to this project, the work is relevant for its focus on how cultural and historical frameworks shape interpretation of identity and difference before direct engagement with the subject occurs. It highlights how meaning is not neutral but constructed through social and national narratives that condition the viewer’s reading of visual and embodied information. This directly connects to the project’s investigation into how symbolic framing devices influence interpretation.
4. Shibuya, S. (2021) Headlines. New York: Abrams. – method
In Headlines, Sho Shibuya paints over the front pages of The New York Times, using the newspaper not only as material but as a framing device. While much of the original content is obscured, the recognizable layout and authority of the newspaper remain intact. This frame situates the work within the context of daily news, implicitly signalling “what happened today.”
As a result, the painted surface becomes a subjective response to current events rather than a direct representation of them. The work translates information into atmosphere, where colour and composition reflect an emotional reading of the day. This is relevant to my practice, as it demonstrates how a frame alone can impose meaning. Even without explicit content, the New York Times format conditions the viewer to interpret the image as timely and significant, suggesting that context can define perception as much as visibility.
5. Tillmans, W. (2005) Truth study center. London: Tate Modern. – critical position
Tillmans’ installation resists the logic of the singular frame. Rather than imposing an interpretive structure, Truth Study Centre distributes material across tables in a way that stages the instability of meaning — proximity creates association, but no arrangement is authoritative. The viewer’s navigation becomes part of the work’s meaning-making, and the “truth” of the title is deferred rather than delivered.
This functions as a productive counterpoint to my own methodology rather than a direct precedent. Where Tillmans suspends the frame to expose the contingency of interpretation, my project imposes frames explicitly, testing what happens when symbolic authority is made unavoidable rather than withheld. Placing the two approaches in dialogue raises a question my work needs to answer: is an imposed frame a more honest or more coercive form of meaning-making than one left deliberately open? Whether imposing a frame is more honest or more coercive than withholding one remains genuinely unresolved.
5. The Warburg Institute (no date) Virtual tour: Aby Warburg: Bilderatlas Mnemosyne exhibition at Haus der Kulturen der Welt. Available at: https://www.sas.ac.uk (Accessed: 22 April 2026). – critical position
Aby Warburg’s Bilderatlas Mnemosyne (1920s) is an unfinished visual research project that assembles images from art history, mass media, and cultural artefacts onto black panels. Rather than presenting a fixed narrative, Warburg employs juxtaposition to produce meaning through visual relationships, allowing images to be reinterpreted across different historical and cultural contexts. This approach positions the display as an active site of knowledge production, where meaning emerges through association rather than being inherent to individual images.
In relation to this project, Warburg’s methodology is significant for its use of juxtaposition and contextual framing as mechanisms that generate interpretation. By placing identical or related images within different symbolic frameworks, the project similarly activates multiple readings shaped by sociopolitical context. Warburg’s emphasis on the migration of symbols and cultural memory reinforces the idea that visual meaning is contingent, constructed, and dependent on the conditions in which an image is encountered.
Leave a Reply