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

[amolitor]

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.

Where was that idea dismissed?

It's fine if that occurs. My point is that it doesn't necessarily have to...

You want to separate "good" from "says something" without defining what else "good" might mean.

 

[Steve5D]

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.

So, if I take a photo of something that I find meaningful, but never share it, it's just a "snapshot" because it will never mean anything to anyone else?

What utter nonsense...

 

[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.

Where was that idea dismissed?

It's fine if that occurs. My point is that it doesn't necessarily have to...

You want to separate "good" from "says something" without defining what else "good" might mean.

You seem to have this need for definitions. I'd refer you to your nearest dictionary for those.

To say that a photo has to "say something" to be considered art is simply ridiculous.

I took a photo of the Three Sisters (mountains) west of Canmore, Alberta a few years ago. It's a nice photo. It's a nice photo of some really, really big rocks. It's never "said" anything to me, though. The person who paid me for the print also likes it simply because it's a nice photo of some really big rocks. The photo hangs in his den.

It doesn't "say" anything...

 

[amolitor]

You have your dismissive hat on again, Steve. You're assuming that I am using "snapshot" as a perjorative in a paragraph where I actually begin by saying that "snapshot" should not be considered perjorative. Presumably because you want to pick a fight?

Not playin'

 

[tirediron]

...I took a photo of the Three Sisters (mountains) west of Canmore, Alberta a few years ago. It's a nice photo. It's a nice photo of some really, really big rocks. It's never "said" anything to me, though. The person who paid me for the print also likes it simply because it's a nice photo of some really big rocks. The photo hangs in his den.

It doesn't "say" anything...

Without meaning to derail things too badly, would it be possible to see that image Steve? I lived in the shadow of the three sisters (Fernie) growing up, and I miss the scenery there!

To re-rail the thread, I would say that if you like the image, and somene liked it well enough to pay for, then it does say something. It may not have the huge emotional impact of F.O. Thompson's "Migrant Mother", but it still has to speak to you on some level to appeal...

 

[Steve5D]

You have your dismissive jerk hat on again, Steve. You're assuming that I am using "snapshot" as a perjorative in a paragraph where I actually begin by saying that "snapshot" should not be considered perjorative. Presumably because you want to pick a fight?

Not playin'

If I use the word "kike" when talking about a Jew, but preface it by saying that I'm not using "kike" in a negative context, is it then okay to use it? Does it make it better?

"Snapshot" is universally used as a negative. Read any critique on this forum and find one where "snapshot" is used in a positive light.

It is what it is. The fact that you want it to be something else matters not...

(and, for the record, I detest the word in quotations in my first sentence. I only use it to make a point which, in all probability, will sail right over your head)

 

[amolitor]

You are a subtle man, John.

 

[Steve5D]

Without meaning to derail things too badly, would it be possible to see that image Steve? I lived in the shadow of the three sisters (Fernie) growing up, and I miss the scenery there!

Sure thing. My photo of three really big rocks, taken with a Canon G10:

 

[tirediron]

...Read any critique on this forum and find one where "snapshot" is used in a positive light.

I've used in a positive way in numerous critiques... to me a snap-shot is simply an image which has been captured on the spur of the moment, that is, one which is unplanned. Granted, it is used frequently in a negative/dismissive way, but it shouldn't be.

 

[tirediron]

You are a subtle man, John.

:mrgreen:

 

[tirediron]

Without meaning to derail things too badly, would it be possible to see that image Steve? I lived in the shadow of the three sisters (Fernie) growing up, and I miss the scenery there!

Sure thing. My photo of three really big rocks, taken with a Canon G10:

Where where you when you took that?

 

[Steve5D]

Without meaning to derail things too badly, would it be possible to see that image Steve? I lived in the shadow of the three sisters (Fernie) growing up, and I miss the scenery there!

Sure thing. My photo of three really big rocks, taken with a Canon G10:

Where where you when you took that?

Pretty sure I was pulled over onto the shoulder of the TCH...

 

[Steve5D]

...Read any critique on this forum and find one where "snapshot" is used in a positive light.

I've used in a positive way in numerous critiques... to me a snap-shot is simply an image which has been captured on the spur of the moment, that is, one which is unplanned. Granted, it is used frequently in a negative/dismissive way, but it shouldn't be.

"Frequently"?

That's like saying "I frequently get wet when I walk in the rain".

If I use the "N" word, but don't intend it to be negative or offensive, is it okay?

 

[Steve5D]

I would say that if you like the image, and somene liked it well enough to pay for, then it does say something.

The guy likes the Canadian Rockies, and he liked my photo of part of them.

But, even if it did say something to him, that doesn't negate my position. "Art" doesn't have to "say something". It's nice if it does, I guess, but it doesn't have to. Others here, though, seem to all but demand that a photo call to them before they'll consider it to be "art". That's fine for them, but insisting that such a position be universal, as Amolitor seems to be doing, is...

 

[amolitor]

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.

I realize that this is just a witty remark, but it suggests an interesting thought experiment. How would you make a picture that is devoid of meaning? It evokes no particular emotions or memories in anyone, not the photographer, not the viewer. It's just a dull blank slate to everyone.