FIGURE AND GROUND

we are conditioned to accepting the idea
of a background. In other words, from
our normal visual experience, we assume that
in most scenes that is something that we look at
(the subject), and there is a setting against which
it stands or lies (the background). One stands
forward, the other recedes. One is important, and
the reason for taking a photograph; the other is
just there because something has to occupy the
rest of the frame. As we saw, this is an essential
principle of Gestalt theory.
In most picture situations, that is essentially
true. We select something as the purpose of the
image, and it is more often than not a discrete
object or group of objects. It may be a person,
a still-life, a group of buildings, a part of
something. What is behind the focus of interest
is the background, and in many well-designed
and satisfying images, it complements the subject.
Often, we already know what the subject is
before the photography begins. The main point
of interest has been decided on: a human figure,
perhaps, or a horse, or a car. If it is possible to
control the circumstances of the picture, the
next decision may well be to choose the
background: that is, to decide which of the
locally available settings will show off the
subject to its best advantage. This occurs so
often, as you can see from a casual glance at
most of the pictures in this book, that it
scarcely even merits mention.
There are, however, circumstances when
the photographer can choose which of two
components in a view is to be the figure and
which is to be the ground against which the
figure is seen. This opportunity occurs when
there is some ambiguity in the image, and it helps
to have a minimum of realistic detail. In this
respect, photography is at an initial disadvantage
to illustration, because it is hard to remove the
inherent realism in a photograph. In particular,
the viewer knows that the image is of something
real, and so the eye searches for clues.
Some of the purest examples of ambiguous
figure/ground relationships are in Japanese and
Chinese calligraphy, in which the white spaces
between the brush strokes are just as active
and coherent as the black characters. When
the ambiguity is greatest, an alternation of
perception occurs. At one moment the dark tones
advance, at another they recede. Two interlinked
images fluctuate backwards and forwards. The
preconditions for this are fairly simple. There
should be two tones in the image, and they should
contrast as much as possible. The two areas
should be as equal as possible. Finally, there
should be limited clues in the content of
the picture as to what is in front of what.
The point of importance here is not how to
make illusory photographs, but how to use or
remove ambiguity in the relationship between
subject and background. The two examples
shown here, both silhouettes, use the same
technique as the calligraphy: the real background
is lighter than the real subject, which tends to
make it move forward; the areas are nearly equal;
the shapes are not completely obvious at first
glance. The shapes are, however, recognizable,
even if only after a moment’s study. The figure/
ground ambiguity is used, not as an attempt to
create and abstract illusion, but to add some
optical tension and interest to the images.