Does a photograph have to tell a story or convey a feeling?

[gloriamint]

Photographs may deliver some sorts of feelings. It is in the viewers view that what they want to see from that photography.

 

[peter27]

Does a photograph have to tell a story or convey a feeling?

No.

Some do, some don't.

Reasons for this vary.

Most do.

Creating something devoid of meaning is very difficult.

 

[The_Traveler]

Does a photograph have to tell a story or convey a feeling?

No.

Some do, some don't.

Reasons for this vary.

Most do.

Creating something devoid of meaning is very difficult.

Well, we should be proud because there are many photographers here who do just that, picture after picture.

 

[peter27]

Does a photograph have to tell a story or convey a feeling?

No.

Some do, some don't.

Reasons for this vary.

Most do.

Creating something devoid of meaning is very difficult.

Well, we should be proud because there are many photographers here who do just that, picture after picture.

Oh come on now Lew, are you trying to tell me that you didn't know this place is positively crawling with clever dicks?

 

[gsgary]

Oh come on now Lew, are you trying to tell me that you didn't know this place is positively crawling with clever dicks?

Im not saying anything

 

[PixelRabbit]

Every time a thread like this one comes up I have a short glimmer of hope that it won't degrade into generalities and arguments over semantics but it never fails to disappoint me.

Here is a question, EXACTLY how specific and pointed does a question have to be for some of you to leave the box you have built of your personal truths around photography and look at different views and areas with an open mind instead of trying to close every door with a definite yes or no answer that catches all or even better scoff at the question?

Nobody seems to be able to discuss abstract concepts and questions like "should a photograph have meaning?" without trying to make these threads into something bad, how dare we think beyond the mechanics and generalities and want to discuss concepts, ideas and thoughts that are more intangible, undefinable, open to interpretation and opinion.

For ONCE I would love to wake up, grab my coffee, open TPF and find that one of these threads actually generated a respectful, open discussion about the idea or concept presented by the OP instead of degenerated into exactly what we see here for the bazillionth time.

 

[rexbobcat]

How do you know that you have created something beautiful? You know it, because it takes people's breath away. Even the 19th century ideals of simply making pretty pictures were about emotional connection, albeit in a somewhat narrow way.

What do you mean by "emotionally sterile wall art" hanging everywhere, rexbobcat? Do you mean like hotel room art, office art, that kind of thing?

Yes, the kind of art that is nice to look at, but isn't necessarily evocative that hangs in hospital waiting rooms.

And technically something doesn't have to be beautiful to be fine art. It just has to be created with the sole intent of beauty.

That's why I don't consider most postmodernism to be true fine art - not because it's not beautiful to look at, but because most of it seems to have some sort of "message" instead of just being made for aesthetic purposes.

That being said though, it's a very vague line since everyone has a different interpretation, and sometimes people will project their own meaning into a piece of art, even if the artist did not intend for there to be any.

 

[peter27]

Every time a thread like this one comes up I have a short glimmer of hope that it won't degrade into generalities and arguments over semantics but it never fails to disappoint me.

Here is a question, EXACTLY how specific and pointed does a question have to be for some of you to leave the box you have built of your personal truths around photography and look at different views and areas with an open mind instead of trying to close every door with a definite yes or no answer that catches all or even better scoff at the question?

Nobody seems to be able to discuss abstract concepts and questions like "should a photograph have meaning?" without trying to make these threads into something bad, how dare we think beyond the mechanics and generalities and want to discuss concepts, ideas and thoughts that are more intangible, undefinable, open to interpretation and opinion.

For ONCE I would love to wake up, grab my coffee, open TPF and find that one of these threads actually generated a respectful, open discussion about the idea or concept presented by the OP instead of degenerated into exactly what we see here for the bazillionth time.

As I say, creating something with no meaning is practically impossible. Photos do tell stories and do contain a message; whether or not they convey to others what the photographer intended is difficult to know. When a photograph is taken the photographer includes ideas, concepts and notions that they are aware of, but they also include things that they are not conscious of. From a careful analysis of work presented it is possible anyway to learn something of the photographer - if not the photograph.

Often the problem is we take things too much at face value, without considering for a moment what could be under the surface. How often do you see the word snapshot used as a dismissal? How easy it is to take a photo apart on technical issues - seeing beyond these is more demanding but also very rewarding.

My Position remains the same: No, a photo doesn't have to tell a story or convey a feeling, but you're more likely to find rocking horse poo than one that doesn't.

 

[SCraig]

... Often the problem is we take things too much at face value, without considering for a moment what could be under the surface. How often do you see the word snapshot used as a dismissal? How easy it is to take a photo apart on technical issues - seeing beyond these is more demanding but also very rewarding.

That's all I ask: Take my photographs at face value. Period. End of story. There is no hidden meaning, there is no story behind them, there is nothing under the surface. I don't pretend they are "Art", and to be quite honest based on what I've seen that is considered to be artistic I don't really want them confused with it. I don't shoot abstracts or anything difficult to understand. They are primarily bird and wildlife portraits and what you see on the surface is what I intended.

 

[The_Traveler]

Yes, the kind of art that is nice to look at, but isn't necessarily evocative that hangs in hospital waiting rooms.

And technically something doesn't have to be beautiful to be fine art. It just has to be created with the sole intent of beauty.

That's why I don't consider most postmodernism to be true fine art - not because it's not beautiful to look at, but because most of it seems to have some sort of "message" instead of just being made for aesthetic purposes.

That being said though, it's a very vague line since everyone has a different interpretation, and sometimes people will project their own meaning into a piece of art, even if the artist did not intend for there to be any.

That's where we differ.
My argument with post-modernism is not that there is an idea but that the importance, the value of the image seems to be almost minimal. Everything that is the basis of photography as an art seems to have little or no value in the exhibitions I've seen lately.
The reviews are all about the clarity of the idea and not at all about the execution of the photograph as an expression of the idea.

From my POV an image doesn't have much worth as the product of an individual if it doesn't reach out and grab some part of my consciousness.
If its just pretty capture, it might as well have a calendar underneath it.
I want to see the mind and eye of the photographer who sees something and captures that to show me.

All that being said, I just came across the site of a street photographer named Peter Turnley.
His work is wonderful and certainly as good as I've seen and perhaps the best.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Every time a thread like this one comes up I have a short glimmer of hope that it won't degrade into generalities and arguments over semantics but it never fails to disappoint me.

Here is a question, EXACTLY how specific and pointed does a question have to be for some of you to leave the box you have built of your personal truths around photography and look at different views and areas with an open mind instead of trying to close every door with a definite yes or no answer that catches all or even better scoff at the question?

Nobody seems to be able to discuss abstract concepts and questions like "should a photograph have meaning?" without trying to make these threads into something bad, how dare we think beyond the mechanics and generalities and want to discuss concepts, ideas and thoughts that are more intangible, undefinable, open to interpretation and opinion.

For ONCE I would love to wake up, grab my coffee, open TPF and find that one of these threads actually generated a respectful, open discussion about the idea or concept presented by the OP instead of degenerated into exactly what we see here for the bazillionth time.

As I say, creating something with no meaning is practically impossible. Photos do tell stories and do contain a message; whether or not they convey to others what the photographer intended is difficult to know. When a photograph is taken the photographer includes ideas, concepts and notions that they are aware of, but they also include things that they are not conscious of. From a careful analysis of work presented it is possible anyway to learn something of the photographer - if not the photograph.

Often the problem is we take things too much at face value, without considering for a moment what could be under the surface. How often do you see the word snapshot used as a dismissal? How easy it is to take a photo apart on technical issues - seeing beyond these is more demanding but also very rewarding.

My Position remains the same: No, a photo doesn't have to tell a story or convey a feeling, but you're more likely to find rocking horse poo than one that doesn't.

Now that I have a full coffee into me and I've ranted I'll take some time and respond with my own thoughts

I agree with you on the bolded part but a little different, I think it is impossible to create a photograph that doesn't elicit a response from us. That response can be anything from dismissal for a myriad of reasons to touching us profoundly and a million points in between.

The photos we find effective today in the digital world where we are visually inundated tend to be photos that provide us with something we didn't have or haven't seen prior to viewing the shot, we have a personal connection to, or fall into a genre that we personally enjoy but each and every effective photograph catches our attention and makes us stop and look for more than a cursory glance.

The photographs we look at, and I mean REALLY look at, not the ones we skim over as our brain quickly relays that it is shot of a rose, puppy, kitten, Grand Canyon, Eiffel Tower, waterfall etc... catch our eye for a reason, they hit a personal trigger for us that makes us stop and THAT is what I think we should all be striving for, it's not necessarily a "feeling" but it certainly can be, but we have to hit that trigger in each shot we take to make it effective within our intention while taking the shot.

Whether that trigger is teaching us what engine part A and part B look like and how they fit together, a beautiful bird, or a piece of art that expresses our own emotions you have to hit it and make people stop first and look at YOUR shot of the engine parts, bird, waterfall, event etc to infinity.

In the case that you have no interest in "competing" with the other stuff that is out there and you enjoy this hobby on a personal level I would venture to say that the same applies, you have to hit your own trigger, you just have a much smaller audience to cater to

 

[Steve5D]

If you want to call your photograph art then yes there need to be feeling.

And I acknowledge that you have that opinion.

But that's all it is...

Art without feeling is like food without taste.

But it's still food...

 

[Steve5D]

Have to? No, but I think the more successful photographs usually do.

Defining "successful" as one that either tells a story or conveys a feeling.

Define "feeling"...

Feelings, nothing more than feelings,
Trying to forget my feelings of love.
Teardrops rolling down on my face,
Trying to forget my feelings of love.

Feelings, for all my life I'll feel it.
I wish I've never met you, girl;
You'll Never Come Again.

Feelings, wo-o-o feelings,
Wo-o-o, feel you again in my arms.

Feelings, feelings like I've never lost you
And feelings like i've never have you
Again in my heart.

Feelings, for all my life I'll feel it.
I wish I've never met you, girl;
You'll never come again.

Feelings, feelings like I've never lost you
And feelings like i've never have you
Again in my life.

Feelings, wo-o-o feelings,
Wo-o-o, feelings again in my arms.

Feelings...

(repeat & fade)

If ever there was a reason to permanently ban someone...

:mrgreen:

 

[Steve5D]

It does put you in a rather awkward position when someone says "good means that it makes some kind of an intellectual and emotional connection with the viewer" and you'd like to dismiss that idea, though.

It's not an awkward position at all.

And where was that idea dismissed? It's fine if that occurs. My point is that it doesn't necessarily have to...

 

[amolitor]

The word "snapshot" is used dismissively, but should not be. All a "snapshot" is, is a picture that has meaning and connection for a smaller audience. It may well make up for that limited audience by the intensity of the connection. The blurry polaroid of grandma at her 97th, and last, birthday, is just a snapshot. It means nothing to you, or to me, but it means a very great deal to her children and their children.

Allied to "snapshot" is "vernacular photography" where meaning is built up from a collection of "snapshots" taken together as a record, as a narrative perhaps, but at any rate as a larger document of something like humanity or society or life. It's snapshots re-thought, and understood in the context of those fragments of intense personal meaning that a snapshot has. While the snapshot of grandma means nothing to me, 10 snapshots of 10 grandmas begins to mean something to me, as I begin to understand that each of these has an intense personal connection for some people I do not know. I begin, perhaps, to get a little sense of what grandmas mean to people in such and such a society.

Something as apparently bland and uninteresting as a product photograph, if done well, is all about creating an emotional connection with a potential buyer. The banal but technically perfect picture of the Stratocaster -- if it's working as intended -- makes me want to rock out. It makes me want to possess that object.

Professional portraits, wedding photos, etc, are from this perspective really much the same as snapshots. They're technically good ones, but they connect with a very small audience, they have emotional weight for the bride, groom, and family and (as a general rule) for nobody else. They're not even as interesting as vernacular photography, being polished and artificial, they tend to give any personal interest. They're beautifully crafted memory cues, and not much more.

And so it goes. Art is something else entirely.

rexbobcats' hotel/hospital/office pictures mostly exist to match color schemes and create mood. But, together with the bedspread, the wallpaper, and the fabrics used in the chairs, they contribute, in however small a way, to whatever overall feeling the room creates. Well done, the room is restful, or excited, or efficient. Admittedly these are probably the weakest of any category *I* can think of, but still, there's a little something there.