Is emotion important in images?

[kathyt]

I don't think entirely in terms of emotion, but in terms of reaction. Art can make me think, wonder, shout, recoil, or a million other things. It can also make me feel.

Very good point. Isn't that what art is all about? It sparks conversations, thought processes, and though positive or negative, can truly speak a thousand words. I can still think of a few images from 9/11 that have stuck with me over the years that really do stop me in my tracks every time I see them.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I just wondered how long it would be before someone jumped in with a picture to attract attention.

Forgive me Lew, I don't care much about internet forum attention,I was just kicking it around as an example to my statement. Had I wanted attention and been serious I'd have not posted one of the outtake shots anyway, some in the set rocked

 

[runnah]

Personally I almost ignore the intended emotional value of an image and focus on the the technical aspects. I care less about what a person is trying to emote but rather if they were exposed properly.

 

[KenC]

We seem to be discussing only images that we would consider "art" (whatever that means, and please don't start that discussion yet again!). There are of course others that serve some utilitarian purpose and which we would not expect to generate much emotional reaction. For the "art" image, certainly some kind of reaction is desirable. I'm not sure it has to be one most people would label as "emotional", e.g., an abstract might elicit a more intellectual reaction based on interesting lines, colors, etc. Of course it's not possible to draw a line between these, or perhaps there isn't one and the "oh, that's interesting" reaction really is an emotional one. In any case, I agree with all who said some kind of reaction is important. Why else do we show others the things we've done?

 

[imagemaker46]

Images themselves don't need to generate emotion to be great photographs. Some are simply the recording of an event. If I have a photo of a football player showing great emotion, I have captured his emotion, and someone may look at it and see that, if that's the case the photo works, but it doesn't necessarly mean it generates an emotion in the person looking at the photo. If this makes sense.

 

[amolitor]

It's not just art!

Advertising, to be successful, should generate a purely emotional response. The last thing you want your customer to do is to start THINKING!

News/documentary? In this modern era, news is often looking for that emotional hook as well, but that's because they're basically selling as well. A great news photograph conveys *something* bigger than what's in the frame, it captures in some sense the larger context of the news story, or at least makes us think it has.

Wedding/event photography? Very much like news -- every frame should strive to carry more than simple facts, it should carry a sense of the event and its emotional weight. It has a lot of help here, of course, because presumably the bride remembers the day, so the photographs mostly just have to cue memories. Still, well done wedding photos can take a complete stranger into a sense of that day.

The only photographs I can think of for which there is really no benefit to emotional connection are the ones with the purely factual purpose: evidence of a crime, electron microscopy of scientifically interesting objects, inspection images of welds, that sort of thing. These exist, but are surely a minority of images taken?

 

[manaheim]

I don't think people truly connect to a picture unless it stirs something in them emotionally at some level. Doesn't have to be any one particular emotion, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a strong one, but it has to be there.

As Andy said above, it is not necessarily emotion that one appeals to but also possibly intellect. I, and Andy and probably others, want to stir some reactions in the viewer. THe nature of that reaction is variable and can be mixed but the end result is involvement with the photo or its concept.

A great photo bot only evokes that involvement with a good proportion of the people who see it but any technical defects in the image are minor enough - in comparison - that they don't interfere with that involvement.

Oh yeah... hey... good point.

Though, really... intellectual stimulation in humans... I would probably argue that would also elicit emotion. When you get right down to it, we're emotional creatures pretty much before anything else.

 

[Derrel]

Seems like emotions are just chemical reactions! Emotions - body, causes, What Are Emotions?

 

[kathyt]

I am putting myself into the role as the viewer here. I am given a handful of printed images to look through. Each image no matter what it is will naturally provoke an instant conscious or unconscious internal response. We are visual human beings by nature. Whether an image is emotive or not is going to be based off of so many factors for each individual such as age, gender, religion, education, past experiences, culture, and the list goes on and on and on...... So to OP who asked this question....do your own images trigger any emotional responses for you? Joy? Happiness? A sense of peace? because if you have these sort of emotions when you look through your work, most likely your viewer will too with no puppies or kittens involved.

 

[unpopular]

Why? What kind of "appeal to emotion" do you feel is inappropriate for an image?

The most obvious example is Ann Geddes, but also HR Giger; emotion without substance.

 

[pgriz]

I am putting myself into the role as the viewer here. I am given a handful of printed images to look through. Each image no matter what it is will naturally provoke an instant conscious or unconscious internal response. We are visual human beings by nature. Whether an image is emotive or not is going to be based off of so many factors for each individual such as age, gender, religion, education, past experiences, culture, and the list goes on and on and on...... So to OP who asked this question....do your own images trigger any emotional responses for you? Joy? Happiness? A sense of peace? because if you have these sort of emotions when you look through your work, most likely your viewer will too with no puppies or kittens involved.

When I look at a scene, or a situation, there are usually specific things that attract my eye and my attention. These are embedded in a larger scene or situation which tend to obscure or take away from the elements that I was focused on. So as a photographer, I use various strategies to try to isolate what I liked from the "distracting" or enroaching elements. Sometimes I succeed, other times, not so much. But in any case, what I capture may be of interest to me, but not necessarily to anyone else. So I'm pondering if and how to create the link for the potential viewers that makes the image engaging for them as well. Creating pretty pictures isn't that hard. Creating images that engage the viewer, is another thing altogether.

What is somewhat surprising to me is the range of reaction that I get from different images - some that I think are OK, other gush over. Others that I think are really poignant, or inspiring, don't get much of a reaction. And there are those that I really like and others like as well, so I know that I'm not (completely) a contrary curmudgeon. So I'm trying to explore how people perceive emotion in the images they view, and perhaps share in the things they have done to create such emotion. I know that my own efforts in this area are very hit-and-miss.

 

[Mike_E]

Art, in it's essence, is simply communication placed under certain constraints. Photography is constrained to images at a specific (more or less) time, literature to the written word and so on.

Getting there in photography is mainly skill and a little luck. Unless it's the other way around .

Good photography speaks to any of the aspects of humanity in terms that those aspects can understand in ways that any other art form would. ~not mechanically of course but rather through connections of shared experience or individual insights spurred by the conversation that the viewer (in photography) has with the artist through the work.

 

[unpopular]

art is not communication!!

See COMICS & INFORMATION DESIGN, PT. 3: BUT IS IT ART?

Art is not intended to convey emotions and ideas, like an advertisement or illustration, but rather a way to understand emotion or ideas. When we look at art and feel something, WE feel that and we UNDERSTAND what we feel. This is independent of what the artist had felt or thought, and is in no way any less valid.

Successful art does not convey the world around us, it encourages us to consider the world around us.

 

[The_Traveler]

“What is art not? Well, as I’ve described it, Art is not about communication. Art is not a way of conveying information. It’s a way of understanding information. That is, creating a work of art is a means we have of making sense of the world, focusing to make it clearer, not a way of communicating some understanding of the world that we already hold. If you already hold a clear understanding of whatever then there’s no reason to create the work of art. So you don’t. In fact, you can’t. If you are trying to demonstrate some fact pictorially this is called illustration. Illustration is superficial, no matter how skilled, because it is secondary. The idea comes first and the illustration explicates it.”
- James Kochalka, “The Horrible Truth About Comics,” in THE CUTE MANIFESTO

​

I agree that art is not communication the same way that an illustrative image is.
Others have talked about this earlier and called much of what passes for art kitsch or pushlust because the ideas are already digested and presented to the viewer. There is no necessity for the viewer to be any more involved than just seeing.
However I disagree that there is no intent to communicate in art.
The artist says 'this is what I see and how it makes me think or feel. See this and understand or feel something.'
If the artist doesn't have any feeling or understanding or cannot incorporate that in his/her work, there is nothing to see - except for a technical representation.

And this

If you already hold a clear understanding of whatever then there’s no reason to create the work of art.

makes no sense at all. The artist must understand what he/she thinks and feels in order to recreate it in whatever medium is chosen.

 

[unpopular]

I disagree. Art is about exploring the world around us, not defining it into the conventions which we hold.

Art is not a sort of cheap facsimile of our experiences, it is an experience in itself.