Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
No. It should not. It's a good thing when it does, but it's not a requirement. This "something to say" is often replaced with "impact" and "wow!" factors, which for many people is the one and only requirement.
I think the only thing a photo should have is being originated by photographic means. And often, this is what the photo ought to say.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
antiquark
Derek Ross
Except for the photos produced by this device, which are heard and then seen:
http://www.seeingwithsound.com/
nico
Well-known
Richard, do you remember the title?
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Photos never say anything. Ultimately, photos can be about nothing. It's the photographer.
"Photography is nothing--it's life that interests me." - Henri Cartier-Bresson
"Photography is nothing--it's life that interests me." - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Last edited:
colker
-
a photograph should carry some mystery with it. otherwise it's not good.
right now i am totally crazy about manuel alvarez bravo's work.
right now i am totally crazy about manuel alvarez bravo's work.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
Photographs are made for many reasons. If the photographer's intention is to tell a tale, explain events, etc., then I suppose the success of the photograph can be judged on how closely the viewer's response matches the response that the photographer sought to elecit.
But generally, I don't think that art needs to have something to say -- that is, a message from artist to viewer. Louis B. Mayer (of MGM) supposedly said "If you want to send a message, send a telegram." I tend to agree with that.
But generally, I don't think that art needs to have something to say -- that is, a message from artist to viewer. Louis B. Mayer (of MGM) supposedly said "If you want to send a message, send a telegram." I tend to agree with that.
benlees
Well-known
I don't think a photograph, on its own, can be like an essay in the sense of it being a descriptive statement that is attempting to explain/convince a point of view- it is too cryptic. A good photograph does make you wonder what is going on but it doesn't tell you because it can't. It is two dimensional and happened quickly!
You have to look for clues. Intent is important and if the photograph is successful then the photographer has given the audience enough clues to figure out the puzzle. Of course, this could be as simple as ''isn't this pretty?'' to perhaps the less obvious ''rules in photography are for dumbasses'' or ''Goya was a cool dude''. A photograph can be read but not in the same way. In an essay intent is clear (thesis) but in photography intent is not always so.
You have to look for clues. Intent is important and if the photograph is successful then the photographer has given the audience enough clues to figure out the puzzle. Of course, this could be as simple as ''isn't this pretty?'' to perhaps the less obvious ''rules in photography are for dumbasses'' or ''Goya was a cool dude''. A photograph can be read but not in the same way. In an essay intent is clear (thesis) but in photography intent is not always so.
samuelphoto
Established
Spot on, Bob! I'll take a technically flawed photo with a compelling message any day over a technically correct image (exposure, sharpness, etc) that bores me to tears. Why else should it be that photography is taught in journaism programs?
back alley
IMAGES
i think it's the shooter that should have something to say.
peterm1
Mentor
Should, should, should, should should.
Truthfully I have trouble with "shoulds" in art. I can only speak for myself. And i think most artists wouldsay something of the same
Most of my images are designed not to be "truthful" in the sense that they are a mundane representation of a real world object or scene. (Rather perhaps they try to convey something of an "inner truth" what ever that may mean.)
Equally I don't think my photos necessarily try to tell a story either.
But they do try to provoke a feeling about the image or more accurately try to convey how I feel about the thing I photographed.
In this vein I have posted on Flickr a series of photos of my home city, (and some aspects of my life here) having recently returned to this state after 7 years absence. In it I am conveying my feelings about the city - the beauty in its streetscapes and funny little details. Maybe it works, maybe not but to me it is conveying a kind of inner truth that is not necessarily seen by a casual observer who walks down its streets.
Is this telling a story? perhaps.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/sets/72157610362797162/
Truthfully I have trouble with "shoulds" in art. I can only speak for myself. And i think most artists wouldsay something of the same
Most of my images are designed not to be "truthful" in the sense that they are a mundane representation of a real world object or scene. (Rather perhaps they try to convey something of an "inner truth" what ever that may mean.)
Equally I don't think my photos necessarily try to tell a story either.
But they do try to provoke a feeling about the image or more accurately try to convey how I feel about the thing I photographed.
In this vein I have posted on Flickr a series of photos of my home city, (and some aspects of my life here) having recently returned to this state after 7 years absence. In it I am conveying my feelings about the city - the beauty in its streetscapes and funny little details. Maybe it works, maybe not but to me it is conveying a kind of inner truth that is not necessarily seen by a casual observer who walks down its streets.
Is this telling a story? perhaps.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/sets/72157610362797162/
40oz
...
personally I hate when photos have "titles." Captions are fine, but IMHO if you have to tell me what to think about it, you failed I'm not saying I hate all titled pictures, just that a photograph should say what needs to be said. If I can't see it, it's not my fault. But 90% of the time, the title is simply restating the obvious as if I'm an idiot.
If it needs a caption, that's a different thing - an explanation, date, location, whatever. Captions are good, they provide context.
So yes, photos should say something, but it doesn't need to be more than a concept or a snapshot. A slice of life is fine without carrying heavy meaning. Consider that people who talk a lot rarely have much important to say. A photo could simply say "I have a camera." IMHO.
I'm not saying I hate all titled pictures, just that a photograph should say what needs to be said. If I can't see it, it's not my fault. But 90% of the time, the title is simply restating the obvious as if I'm an idiot.If it needs a caption, that's a different thing - an explanation, date, location, whatever. Captions are good, they provide context.
So yes, photos should say something, but it doesn't need to be more than a concept or a snapshot. A slice of life is fine without carrying heavy meaning. Consider that people who talk a lot rarely have much important to say. A photo could simply say "I have a camera." IMHO.
Last edited:
photogdave
Shops local
personally I hate when photos have "titles." Captions are fine, but IMHO if you have to tell me what to think about it, you failed
For me, half the fun of posting images in the gallery is trying to come up with clever titles. I'm not sure how often I succeed.
I agree completely.
sanmich
Mentor
IN MY HUMBLE OPINION,
which is the opinion to which I refer when I truely want to know what I think....
The pictures I appreciate the most are the one that I am not tired to look at.
Historical photos or pictures that carry something informative can be great but at the end, I can get tired of them. For me the best type of pictures, the one that leaves me truly amazed is the picture that stands by itself. 100% creation of the photog, zero interst of the situation.
When the photog has made gold out of dirt. Certain pictures of Kertez, HCB (two perfect landscapes), Koudellka come to mind. I'm also in love with the "swimming pool" of Martin Franck...
I have absolutely no idea if I make sense
which is the opinion to which I refer when I truely want to know what I think....
The pictures I appreciate the most are the one that I am not tired to look at.
Historical photos or pictures that carry something informative can be great but at the end, I can get tired of them. For me the best type of pictures, the one that leaves me truly amazed is the picture that stands by itself. 100% creation of the photog, zero interst of the situation.
When the photog has made gold out of dirt. Certain pictures of Kertez, HCB (two perfect landscapes), Koudellka come to mind. I'm also in love with the "swimming pool" of Martin Franck...
I have absolutely no idea if I make sense
colker
-
"you have the right to remain silent. everything you say can and will be used.."
colker
-
perfect sense. once you can "explain" an image it loses power. words and images are worlds apart.
btw... that book by Irving Penn is one of my favourite things in life.
hitmanh
dum de dum de doo
Me to.
All photos DO say something. That doesn't mean we, as the viewer, can always clearly undertsand.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
Why does something deep have to be "artificial"? All art is self-portraiture. In photography, you at the least tell people what you notice superficially, or maybe what you are aware of when you observe the world. It takes skill to go from there to deliberate seeing or showing with intent. I have been making digital collages since 1995. Some people get all wound up about the subject matter or the fact that it is not traditional photography. I always tell them that they are telling me much more about themselves, the limits of their seeing, their preconceptions and their beliefs, than anything about my work. That said, what you create as an artist takes on a life of it's own apart from your intent. I kind of enjoy hearing feedback that opens up ideas I never thought of or intended when I made an image. Ultimately you can't navigate by trying to please people, but you can navigate by what stirs them up. When people get irrational about art it can mean the art is touching on something they aren't ready to look at. Art can be like that, a way for the artist and the viewer to question assumptions and discover new ways of looking at things. Last summer I went to the Rencontre d"Arles, in France and presented my digital work in their portfolio review. It was the first time I havd presented this work in Europe. Everyone was surprised and many were delighted with this work, but found no place for it in the current scene. Even those whose cup of tea it wasn't, had praise for the skill and originality. One woman curator from an important gallery in Paris, looked at the first two images and began shouting that this was not photography and that it did not belong in Arles and she would not look at any more of it. I got offended of course in the moment, but remained polite. As I packed up and left I realized that since photography has always been about technology and change this woman had somehow missed that. There she was at the top of the art food chain and what I was doing so terrified her, threatened her view of the medium, that she lost control, insulted me even though I was paying for this consultation, and felt the need to strike me down. This was a big tell. If what I was doing could so upset one of the old guard when others were full of praise, I must be on the right track. Her rejection was actually like hitting a home run. Of all the comments I heard that week, I am most proud of the badge of her total rejection. Art can say what the artist intends or much that is unintended. Art can reveal as much about the viewer, intended or unintended. A picture is worth a thousand words as they say.
Last edited:
Thardy
Mentor
Sure it can. Some people like to discount Ansel Adams' work, but his photography helped in pointing out the need to conserve our outdoor national treasures. I don't know if he initially set out to do that, but I bet upon seeing the effect others used landscape photography for that purpose.
Also, photography of indigenous tribes might help to bring attention to how the modern world infringes on their lifestyle. Many people feel those cultures need to be preserved.