The article written by Morris deals with the meaning behind a photograph. Morris states "A captionless photograph, stripped of all context, is virtually meaningless. I need to know more." However, I disagree with this. A captionless photograph may not be meaningless to everyone. People often connect their own thoughts and ideas to the unknown. They derive from the familiar and give it a symbol. When I look at old photographs I tend to create a story behind them. I think that a captionless photo has a meaning to each individual...even if that meaning is simply "nothing". Who knows...maybe i'm thinking too much into it. However, I do understand what he's getting at.
True, once we have context the story behind the photograph changes. During our last class we discussed Pistorius and  how he murdered his girlfriend. He had an ad that said "I am the bullet in the chamber" followed by the Nike "Just do it" logo. Without context this would seem like a normal ad. However, when looking at it after knowing he had committed murder you start to surround yourself with questions. Is he notoriously violent? Did he murder his girlfriend with a gun? How will this change the future of advertisements? 
We often give meaning to the unknown and this is called symbolic interactionism. We give meaning to ordinary things, like photographs. Even though this may be the case, I do agree with Morris that we are unable to gather the true meaning of a picture until we know the entirety of the story behind it.


https://www.google.com/search?q=pistorius+nike+ad&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=aVkkUcrZPMjLqAHS-4HwCQ&biw=1125&bih=559&sei=a1kkUbWnEY79qAHe3YGQAQ#imgrc=yBHr3YjPVZv_mM%3A%3BDH9mZ-digHoMAM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi2.cdn.turner.com%252Fcnn%252Fdam%252Fassets%252F130214105230-pistorius-nike-ad-horizontal-gallery.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cnn.com%252F2013%252F02%252F14%252Fbusiness%252Fpistorius-nike%252F%3B640%3B360