gloriamint
TPF Noob!
Photographs may deliver some sorts of feelings. It is in the viewers view that what they want to see from that photography.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.... 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.
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.
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.
If you want to call your photograph art then yes there need to be feeling.
Art without feeling is like food without taste.
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)
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.