As is true of most messages, the producer of an image has an intended meaning behind it, but they are unable to be fully in control of the meanings gleaned by their viewers. In their article "Viewers Make Meaning," Sturken and Cartwright discuss the concept of interpellation, or the ability of an image to interrupt a procedure in order to question someone or something formally. This means that since an image poses a question, that leaves space for viewers to disagree or dislike an intended message, even if it is not the response that producers preferred for their viewers.
What I found to be one of the most interesting parts of Sturken and Cartwright's article was the discussion of "taste" and how that is affected by the producer-viewer relationship. Aesthetics are culturally determined, and taste is individually interpreted. People with a high taste level are those who have been educated on that which is considered to have high aesthetic quality, and that which isn't. They have been trained to appreciate "the finer things," but the finer things are socially determined by an individual culture.
One example that the article gave was museums. While studying abroad last semester, I was had the tremendous opportunity to visit several incredible museums, housing some of the worlds finest art. However, it is evident which pieces of art the museum curators deem the most aesthetically pleasing, which plays a large role in shaping what is considered tasteful, and what isn't.
 |
| The Uffizi Gallery |
Two of the most prominent museums I got to visit in Europe were the Uffizi in Florence and the Louvre in Paris. The Uffizi is one of the oldest and most renowned art collections in the Western world, housing some of the most significant pieces of art work from the renaissance. When you walk into the Uffizi, the halls and rooms are lined with incredible paintings and statues, but the curators make it clear where you are supposed to guide your attention. There is particular emphasis placed on works such as Botticelli's
Primavera, as well as Giotto's
Madonna Enthroned with Child and Da Vinci's
Annunciation. The curators ensure that the viewer knows the paintings which are the most valuable. Whether there is an entire wall dedicated to solely to one work, or a specially lighting, or prominence in the set up of the room, the viewer is aware which works are important to know for acquiring a high taste level.
 |
| Botticelli's Primavera |
In a similar way, the curators of the Louvre in Paris ensure that the viewer knows which pieces of art are of importance to viewers wanting high taste. When you walk down the left wing, you head through a corridor lined with marble statues, and up the staircase to where the
Nike of Samothrace is housed. It becomes immediately evident by its isolation that this is a work of great importance.
 |
| Nike of Samothrace |
Also, when you enter the room dedicated mainly to the work of Jacques-Louis David, and the Neoclassical painters, The Coronation of Napoleon, David's most revered work, is housed in the most central point of the left wall.
 |
| David's The Coronation of Napoleon |
Despite the fact that curators very intentionally highlighted the most "prominent" works for viewers, I often found myself, despite the clear message of where to focus my attention, being drawn to other works. My favorite work in the Ufizzi is Botticelli's Birth of Venus, which is actually displayed less apparently in the same room as Primavera. Similarly, in the Louvre, I was drawn to a painting on the opposing wall of The Coronation of Napoleon entitled La Liberté Guidant le Peuple by Eugene Delacroix.
 |
| Botticelli's Birth of Venus |
 |
| Delacroix's La Liberté Guidant Le Peupel |
This goes to show that a producer can put out an image with an intended message or meaning, but ultimately, it is up to the viewer as to what they will glean from a message. They can interpellate the image however they chose, whether that be negatively or positively. The power is undeniably in the hands of the viewer.
