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

[pixmedic]

...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?

I submit that, in the reference of this movie "the last dragon" (great movie BTW, I miss the 80's) that the use of the "N" word was in fact, OK.
I was not offended at all by this. I don't think anyone was. and yet, there the "N" word is, for all to hear. and it was fine.
so yes. you can use the "N" word in a manner that is not intended to be negative or offensive, and actually HAVE it not be negative or offensive. It is possible.

 

[Overread]

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.

Leave the lens cap on
Take photos of lens test charts
Take a photo of a brick wall
Use the camera to photocopy text documents

Eh most of the lens testing photos are (outside of testing and presenting technical capabilities) very dull photos and don't hold any emotional connection. It's a utilitarian use of photography which can have a technical merit but which has no artistic or emotional context. Heck go look at CCTV pictures and you've a wealth of dullness.

 

[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.

"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?

Apples and parsnips! The "N" word (By which I assume you mean the derogatory variation of "negro") is a slang term, meant to be offensive and belittling. "Snapshot" on the other hand is a descriptive term meant to indicate an image which was taken quickly, but has assumed the meaning of "poor quality image" through common mis-use.

 

[amolitor]

some stuff Overread said which I forgot to quote, oops

Even there, there's a potential for difficulty. A picture of a test chart might well evoke a feeling of nostalgia. "Ah yes, I remember that, my old Mamiya 7 with the bent lens mount!" or whatever. You wind up with an audience of one, but most photographs really just have an audience of one anyways.

The lens cap, sure. Photographs that are indistinguishable from one another, and of which you have many, is a good start. It's a brick wall -- but which one? Any reaction or memory tha photographer has is diluted to almost nothingness.

Don't be dismissive, don't just think up a quick example and decide it's a dumb experiment. Think it through for a minute or two, it's just 120 seconds of your life and there might be something rewarding in it.

 

[Steve5D]

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.

And this is really he crux of the issue, and the disintegration of your argument.

"Art" is subjective. As such, you're not qualified to discern what is and what isn't art, despite your belief that you are. If I see a photo of a baby seal, I see a photo of a baby seal. Period. It means nothing to me other than it's a picture of a baby seal. To someone else, though, it's a picture representing what they see as the senseless slaughter of these innocent animals. Does that make it "art"? I don't know; don't really care. The point is that something which means absolutely nothing for one person may mean the world to another.

And that's okay.

Where your argument fails is in your apparent belief that one cannot create an image which doesn't evoke emotion in some way. Given that, every photograph ever taken is art...

 

[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.

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.

If I make a photograph and post it for c/c, (assume that I am not making pictures for specific consumption like most baby shots or portraits), viewers can critique/comment for technical approach and execution without being involved in any connection with the photograph.

But, just because I have a history here of trying for pictures that are 'meaningful' in some undefined way, others can infer that I believe it has some meaning to the greater audience and judge the image on whether it resounds with them or not.

I see lots of pictures here that are totally meaningless to me, either because the picture has no connection to my psyche or that the connection is there but the cliche has been over-used and thus lost its impact (babies in slings) or just because the attempt is badly done and thus breaks my willingness to give in to emotional connections.

I still can critique them on a technical basis but the emotional impact that the photographer believes is there (generally because of a personal connection to the photo) isn't there for me.

 

[PixelRabbit]

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...

Ok, so you made the effort to stop your vehicle, grab your gear, set up the shot, process the shot, and the result was something that you were satisfied? happy? thrilled? with (ut oh, an emotion, the picture is saying something to you), enough so that you showed it to at least one person prior to now who also felt some level of appreciation? enjoyment? satisfaction? (ut oh another emotion, it said something to them to!), enough so that he purchased it and hung it in the den.

Then along comes dear John who has an emotional connection to these particular rocks, they say something to him about a time in his life.

Whether you want to admit it or not your rocks are talking.

 

[tirediron]

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...

Could it be that "saying something" means something different to different people? In my mind, if you like an image, it must say something to you, however subtely, for you to like it. It doesn't need to scream and hit you over the head, but...

 

[amolitor]

You should just stop pretending that you understand what I said. You've now collected together some things I did say, with some stuff I didn't say, and arrived at a conclusion which is obviously wrong. Well done.

Either go read what I wrote and make an honest attempt to understand what I am driving at, or drop it. Or not, whatever. Sticking words in my mouth and drawing idiotic conclusions isn't fair, though.

 

[Steve5D]

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?

Apples and parsnips! The "N" word (By which I assume you mean the derogatory variation of "negro") is a slang term, meant to be offensive and belittling.

I just spent the last seven weeks working with a 22 year old black kid from Los Angeles who, every time he saw a friend, black or white, greeted them with "Whassup, *****'?"

 

[The_Traveler]

I thought this definition and quotation might be of interest.

Being counterdependent is to take a position in relationships to ensure one is not dependent on others foremotional security status etc.To some degree it is healthy to seek to be emotionally independent of others but this needs to be balanced with the ability to be appropriately engaged with others.
Where the habit of maintaining emotional distance too predominates this can be associated with and cause mental health and behavioral difficulties. Where counterdependency is the state of refusal of attachment, the denial of personal need and dependency, and may extend to the omnipotence and refusal of dialogue found in destructivenarcissism, for example.[SUP][1][/SUP]
This can be managed through passivity or passive aggressive behavior or through more active rejection of authority figures or social mores that support interpersonal relationships.
Counterdependent people can reach the point where their self-identity arise from their acts of opposition and defiance and their behavior can be very disruptive, making it difficult for them to hold down jobs or maintain relationships of any kind.
From a psychodynamic viewpoint such behavior patterns are thought to result from a deep-seated fear of intimacy, which, having lead to emotional isolation, is paired with an increased neediness for the feared state. This explains why counterdependents are sometimes locked into approach-avoidance conflicts in intimate relationships.

from Counterdependent - Psychology Wiki

 

[amolitor]

NO! IT'S NOT TRUE!

I DO LOVE YOU, LEW! I DO!

 

[Steve5D]

Could it be that "saying something" means something different to different people?

AND WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

It's subjective. I took a picture of some rocks. I guess if pulling over on the highway and sticking a camera out an open window qualifies as "setting up" the shot, then I'm guilty. But, to me, it's just a snapshot. I resized it for the web, but did no real processing to it. There was no intent, whatsoever, for it ever to be considered "art".

If someone views it and sees it as art, though, that's fine. If someone looks at it and says "Hey look: rocks", that's fine, too.

But does one take precedence over the other? I look at some of Picasso's work and I see some stuff I wouldn't line a bird cage with. Others see the same thing and proclaim it to be art. Which is the correct view, and why would one negate the other?

 

[Steve5D]

You should just stop pretending that you understand what I said. You've now collected together some things I did say, with some stuff I didn't say, and arrived at a conclusion which is obviously wrong. Well done.

Either go read what I wrote and make an honest attempt to understand what I am driving at, or drop it. Or not, whatever. Sticking words in my mouth and drawing idiotic conclusions isn't fair, though.

You need to stop whining.

You've taken the position that "art" must evoke some emotion. Thus far, you've been a remarkable failure at backing up that position...

 

[amolitor]

Wait wait, is it "art" that I say must evoke some emotion? Or is it that every picture evokes emotion, and is therefore art? I can't keep track of what you imagine I have said any more, sorry.

Protip: I haven't talked about "art" much at all in this thread.