Can a photograph speak for itself?

Would it be more accurate to say that we speak to the picture? Our reaction is based on our life experiences, how can we know what the photographer's experiences were? Me, I just take pictures of things that catch my eye. I've never been good with hidden meanings or messages.
 
'In other words, a picture does not (and cannot) "speak for itself" in any universal manner.'

Very true, I don't know where I stand on titles, but some information is good or helpful. Some times it is in the image itself: sunset with the Eiffel tower tells you a lot. Other times the location and year steer you in the right direction. And finally sometimes a title is needed.

I like to know what camera, film, and sometimes f stop. I know that is childish and/or egocentric being a photographer that obsesses on process.

Again, thanks for the provocation, I like it: anything to get me thinking.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Many people believe that a photograph should "speak for itself". But what (if anything) does this mean?
Click to expand...
It simply means that an image itself elicits a response from the viewer. That response may or may not be the same for each viewer. If you title an image, the title may either constrain or enhance the range of responses. If you elect to title your images, choose your titles carefully.
 
A photograph can't speak for itself anymore than a table can. Context is vitally important; one of the reasons why internet memes are so annoying and funny. If a photo speaks to you, then you are actually speaking for it.
 
Roger, just a personal observation, FWIW. I am interested in this topic but will not go to your site to read about it. I strongly feel that if you are going to introduce content, you should do so here on RFF and not repeatedly direct this audience away from RFF to your site. Personally, I feel it is a misuse of your mentor role and this community. Once in a while for something special is fine. We all do that. But for you it is now the norm. Sorry, but it seems inappropriate to me.

John
 
Roger Hicks said:
The latest piece on my .eu site was prompted by a common reaction to my previous piece about titles. Many people believe that a photograph should "speak for itself". But what (if anything) does this mean?
Click to expand...

Roger, read and loved them both for the "food for thought" content. Maybe a bit too philosophical for the many here but that's no problem for me.

While I tend to disagree with as much of what you say in these two pieces than I agree with, I really love you prompting me to think and consider your points.

FWIW, my thoughts of this have evolved over the years from meaningful caption phrases to sentences to explanatory paragraphs. Even to the point that the paragraphs need some bolding or underlining to provide a short identification of the specific photo.
 
johnwolf said:
Roger, just a personal observation, FWIW. I am interested in this topic but will not go to your site to read about it. I strongly feel that if you are going to introduce content, you should do so here on RRF and not repeatedly direct this audience away from RFF to your site. Personally, I feel it is a misuse of your mentor role and this community. Once in a while for something special is fine. We all do that. But for you it is now the norm. Sorry, but it seems inappropriate to me.

John
Click to expand...

I, personally, don't see this as inappropriate in any way.


On to the subject at hand:

In my opinion, a well chosen title, the product of the same creative mind that produced the image, can add dimension, context, further insight into the photographer's thinking to the photo.

Roger's example of a photo of chairs with the title, "The Life of Chairs," illustrates this very effectively. I think this title adds dimension to the image.

I think the fewer "rules" we have governing creative processes, the better. This reminds me of statements like, "I never crop." I don't dodge and burn;" I don't do any post-processing;" etc. I have my own purist streak (more than a streak), but I don't expect others to adhere to my personal rules. I think this is an example of that.

- Murray
 
I was translating to Russian one of the RFF members memoirs about studying photography as art with GW, recently. It was good reminder why none of GW photos needs title and why they talk to me.

I don't think it needs explanations. Very banal (most popular) photography yells its stories at you. GW didn't like it, but many of his photos yells at me. Even if it would be with title, I don't need it. I see it on the picture.

Salute,
Ko.
 
One way of answering this is to ask why do we make black and white photos when a color photo suffices? Or why do we insist on buying expensive lenses that are not just sharp and accurate but have lovely bokeh or beautiful color rendition? The answer in both cases is that we do not want the photo to be literal and "speak for itself" but instead we very often want it to be interpretative.

In my view an artistic photo is often at its best when it is a little ambiguous. This is because it allows the viewer to interpret it within their own frame of reference and therefore "own it". Photos of this sort at least remind me somewhat of poetry - poetry can often be ambiguous in this way and speak not to itself but instead speak directly to the reader or listener's own psyche. Thus it might have a different meaning for everyone looking at it.

I suppose a highly literal photo can "speak for itself" but my view is that if it does, it may not end up saying very much. Having said that I have no objection per se to the photographer putting a title on a photos - it tells you what he thinks it represents. I frequently do this myself. But of course the viewer is always free to make his or her own interpretation of it.
 
I have many photos hanging around my house, mine and other photographers. While they all have titles of some sort, the title is not visible while they're hanging. Despite that, they still speak to me about what they are, what they represent etc. The ones of my family are obvious, but I have a Trent Parke print that I have no idea what it is called (I forgot long ago but I think it's purely descriptive). But that doesn't mean that the photo cannot speak for itself. It doesn't need context to be understood, any context would probably ruin my enjoyment.


benlees said:
A photograph can't speak for itself anymore than a table can.
Click to expand...

But a table can speak for itself. My table tells the stories of many meals, kids doing homework and art, and many other things that happen at a table. It's written in the texture, paint drops, pencil marks, dents, and so on.
 
Roger,

I have to respectfully disagree with your statement:

In other words, a picture does not (and cannot) "speak for itself" in any universal manner. It is always the intermediary in a transaction between the photographer and the person looking at the picture.
Click to expand...

Once a picture and photographer are parted, it can do nothing but speak for itself. The creator is no longer there to act as an interpreter.

In many ways it is like an 18 year old leaving home and making their way in the world without their parents. They say many things, not always what their parents would like, and not always the same thing to all people, but none the less, they speak for themselves:

To pretend that one's own response is the only possible or logical or legitimate reaction is feeble-minded in the extreme.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
For sure an interesting subject...
When I was a student, my (rude) teachers once told me something like this: from now on, don't bring us ever again any photograph with words, texts, explanations or titles: if the image doesn't say it without words, you've failed. You're just learning to express visually, so if you put words next to your photographs, you'll cheat yourself and feel it's your photograph that's talking. Besides, every word can just have one gift to a photograph: to give it limits. And that's bad. The joy of images is, precisely, to live away from words... Don't write!
J.
 
I'm not sure I entirely agree with either side of this discussion.

I would have been sorely tempted to title the pictured piece "Mind and body" which tips the assessment over to the bits of people and the bits of surrounds that are captured - as well as the whole elements like shoes.

And I don't know whether I should "see" something more deeply in Roger's "reflections" or have I already seen too much.

But this picture may particularly effectively illustrate the issue - because clearly the perspective of the photographer (Roger) is what makes this image anything. The oddity of the disconnection within the image, being preserved (permanently?) rather than resolving as you walk past.

To me the main purpose of giving a work a title is to give it that credit - to say it is worth titling, it is a work rather than simply an unvalued image.

And as such, the main issue with "Untitled" is not the lack of memorability as much as the subtle message that it isn't worth naming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top