Does a photo need to say something?

[Ronnoco]

I would strongly suggest the book "Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography" by Roland Barthes. It is a very good book and it makes you contemplate what an image actually is and means. You'll think of photography in a different light.:

I think your suggested book's title.Reflections on.... indicates a very individual perception of photography. Obvious question I suppose, but is the author a photographer?

I would strongly suggest Spring into Digital Photography by Joseph Jaynes and Rip Noel The emphasis of their book is on both professional and artistic photography.

I have been trained in an art school and received my fine arts B.A. in 2004, so photo crits have become second nature since then..:

I taught in an arts school, so photo critiques have become second nature to me since :blush2: I am sorry to say a few decades before that.

My whole take on photography is that sometimes you take a picture and try to convay a deeper meaning to the work and then sometimes you produce an art image that is all about 'the process' or technique. Its kinda like my internal struggle... do I take a stunning image just because its stunning or do I not take the image because it doesn't mean anything? :idea:

Not at all. Technique and art are integrated or you have a lousy photo. There is no such a thing as a great painter that cannot use brush or paint well and that is technique. In photography, the camera, lenses, filters, lights, tripod etc. are the tools that may produce the "art", but if they do, it is the technique that makes it art.

To use your words "do I take an image because it is stunning?" The obvious answer to that question is NO! You are the photographer. You use your photographic tools and technique to make the image stunning.

Ronnoco

[biggy smalls]

Not at all. Technique and art are integrated or you have a lousy photo. There is no such a thing as a great painter that cannot use brush or paint well and that is technique. In photography, the camera, lenses, filters, lights, tripod etc. are the tools that may produce the "art", but if they do, it is the technique that makes it art.

Ronnoco

I was only saying that sometimes the piece of art is about the subject depicted in the image, and sometimes the piece of art is art because of the process or journey it took to get the image. In contemporary art practice it is not always about image beauty, statement and purpose of the image is very important.

[Ronnoco]

I was only saying that sometimes the piece of art is about the subject depicted in the image,.

No, either you are not being precise or you are making the wrong interpretation. Art and photography are never about the subject per se, but rather about how the artist or photographer decides to portray the subject...what tools are used and what effect is created based to a large extent on the elements of design.

and sometimes the piece of art is art because of the process or journey it took to get the image. ,.

You cannot separate process from subject. The subject and the "scene" determine the technique or the process for creating the work. A piece of art is never art simply "because of the process or journey it took to get the image". To put it another way, great technique with no centre of interest or subject still results in garbage, not art.

In contemporary art practice it is not always about image beauty, statement and purpose of the image is very important.

Well, you may know what you are trying to say above, but it does not come through in this quoted sentence.

Ronnoco

[poker]

I think all photos or anything on display for that matter "say" something. Depending on the viewer the message may go through one ear and out the other. Or if the viewer is intrigued by the message then the viewer will stop and absorb more of what is being projected.

"A picture is worth a thousand words," but only those interested will read it....

IMHO

[Ronnoco]

I think all photos or anything on display for that matter "say" something. Depending on the viewer the message may go through one ear and out the other. Or if the viewer is intrigued by the message then the viewer will stop and absorb more of what is being projected.

"A picture is worth a thousand words," but only those interested will read it....

IMHO

Well, for that matter, your choice of garbage container and how you put it on the curb may "say something" as well, but nevertheless anyone who considers that kind of statement art could be characterized as having a screw loose.

Ronnoco

[WillCAD]

Photographs are like any other object - they can be used as art, as a form of comunication, as a way of record an event or a memory, or any one of a million other purposes. And the fun part is that a photo if often used for many different purposes all at once - sometimes even by the same person!

My photos are primarily a tool for recording my memories of a particular place or time or event. Looking at a still image often brings back the memories with a clarity and sharpness I can't accomplish on my own, even years after the fact.

My photos often work as a form of communication. When I'm in a beautiful place, I like to try to capture a little of that beauty in a photo. I don't try to make the photo beautiful; I just try use the photo to open a window on the beauty of the original subject. The photo is the road, not the destination.

Lately I have been trying to develop a new skill - to create photos that are, themselves, objects of beauty. I seldom try to say anything with these photos, I simply want to create something that is intrinsically beautiful, at least to me.

So far, I have never been the type to take a photo in order to send a message. But perhaps one day I will be able to use my photos to say something, whether it's something important to me, or something important to others. That's a very difficult skill, but maybe I'll get lucky one day.

In the meantime, I'll just continue to point my camera at stuff I think is pretty, and push the button.

[Ronnoco]

Photographs are like any other object - they can be used as art, as a form of comunication, as a way of record an event or a memory, or any one of a million other purposes. And the fun part is that a photo if often used for many different purposes all at once - sometimes even by the same person!

In the meantime, I'll just continue to point my camera at stuff I think is pretty, and push the button.

Perhaps the true distinction is between picture taking and photography. Picture taking is what you have defined above: pointing the camera and pushing the button. Photography is knowing the potential possibilities of all the equipment you have available as well as the effect of light, texture, colour, line, shape, composition and angles and then with good technique putting it all together to create an effective photo with some impact and a good centre of interest. Picture takers often take pictures with no real centre of interest and no meaning for any viewer but themselves. Photographers tend to make the effort to create an image that every viewer would find interesting and effective.

Photography takes more money, time, and effort than picture taking but many people do both depending on the situation. Continuing the distinction, one might say that a photo does need to say something but a picture does not.

Ronnoco

[WillCAD]

Perhaps the true distinction is between picture taking and photography. Picture taking is what you have defined above: pointing the camera and pushing the button. Photography is knowing the potential possibilities of all the equipment you have available as well as the effect of light, texture, colour, line, shape, composition and angles and then with good technique putting it all together to create an effective photo with some impact and a good centre of interest. Picture takers often take pictures with no real centre of interest and no meaning for any viewer but themselves. Photographers tend to make the effort to create an image that every viewer would find interesting and effective.

Photography takes more money, time, and effort than picture taking but many people do both depending on the situation. Continuing the distinction, one might say that a photo does need to say something but a picture does not.

Ronnoco

I don't think that's an 'A' or 'B' proposition Ronnoco; as Bill Murray once said, "there are many subtle levels."

Certainly there are people at both ends of the scale, but there are plenty who are in the middle, trying to take pics for themselves, but with varying degrees of consideration for the artistry involved.

Dividing photographers strictly into those two camps might also encourage people to similarly divide their photos - and that would be a terrible shame, because there are an awful lot of "picture takers" out there with great, untrained, natural eyes for composition, whose photos often rival those of the trained and experienced pros for artistry and emotional provocation.

Art isn't always created people who would strictly define themselves as "artists"; neither is photography always performed by those who would strictly define themselves as "photographers", so I think it's a mistake to try to pidgeon-hole people who point their cameras at things and click the shutter with little or no technical consideration as "picture-takers" and not "photographers".

I think anyone who captures an image with any kind of camera is by definition a photographer. It's only your interpretation of the relative value of their imagery that leads you to classify the people and the images in the "worth something" or "worth nothing" categories.

[moley]

If the camera's automatic functions auto-focus and auto-expose properly, and you happen to have composed the scene with a strong focal point, and it says something to the viewer ... but all unintentionally, is that a photograph?

Does it have to be a conscious effort?

[poker]

If the camera's automatic functions auto-focus and auto-expose properly, and you happen to have composed the scene with a strong focal point, and it says something to the viewer ... but all unintentionally, is that a photograph?

Does it have to be a conscious effort?

"you happen to have composed the scene with a strong focal point, and it says something to the viewer ... but all unintentionally"

If you composed a scene and hit the shutter release button, how can that be unintentional?

Someone's definition of your photograph might be entirely different from yours....that would be unintentional......but still valid since a viewer is free to translate what s/he sees.

"Does it have to be a conscious effort?"

Good question. We all have had those moments where you are browsing your newly printed/uploaded shots and find a shot that is a mistake but turned out interesting. Your desire to show others that photo becomes a "conscious effort" and the mistakes now becomes photographic art, perhaps?

This is just my own opinion of course.

Here's another question....

A photographer takes a picture, prints it, frames it, and now hangs it in his/her room. The photographer obviously appreciates his/her work BUT NEVER SHOWS IT TO ANYBODY!!

Is it art?

[Margutal]

If I take you as you phrased it "need to say something" the debate falls short very quickly...
I don't think an object has intrinsically any need of saying anything... But I am pretty sure you didn't mean this...

But this question is not really clear about what you mean...

Do you mean:
Has the Photographer through his pictures a moral obligation to say something?
or
Whatever the picture or photographer is saying does it have to be intentional?
or
Does any photographs say something regardless its intention?

As you can imagine we can spend hours trying to clarify this question.

I personally believe that a picture/photographer does not need to say anything, neither objectively or subjectively, that happens as a natural process in the art making...
I believe in freedom and everybody should do whatever they please with their own art.

However, the photographers/artists I admire the most are the ones who have or had an agenda and successfully show it in their work by the technical means they deem necessary. In that respect I believe that the more you try to show conciously and intentionally your idea, or the more clearly an artist have something to say and know how, the more I like that artist.

On a second line, if I like what he/she says and agree what what he/she depicts that becomes my favorites artists, as in art it is impossibl;e to set aside subjectivity that comes in different shapes, as many as human beings are in the world...

Do we need to open a new debate?

[sizlinspirita]

Every photo says something. What it says makes it how good it is.

[daq7]

Seriously, for many even their text doesn't say anything, so why should their photos?

[bradvictor1]

yes creative photo always say some thing to his watcher. Many of art i have seen yet and I found very curious thing about them, while looking photography I reach in dream with location of art or its beautiness.

[ConcernCitizen]

Absolutely yes! A photo should create something that its kinda unique for us to see. It should have a great influence to the viewers and so images must be meaningful.

[gaivie]

As someone who has had (thus far) a career split between "Fine Art" (as a painter of portraits and other subjects) and "Applied Arts" (as an art director and graphic designer) I have a bias toward photography that resonates in some way with the end user. It may be so personal that only a small audience can truly appreciate it, but I've found that art and photography work best when it 'serves' that end user (and client/customer/patron) in some way. When I was studying at the University of Florida in the early 70s I took a course from the now famous Jerry Uelsmann who had a low regard for commercialism and the "Applied Art" side students and our tendency to 'sell out' rather than create art for art's sake. (I was amused to see his work and endorsement appear in an ad campaign for Kodak a few years later.) His photos always said a lot to me, as enigmatic as they were, and were in no way diminished by his profiting from them.

I have recently been combining my experiences in a collaborative effort to let people choose how to best enjoy their personal and most meaningful photos (those that say the most to them) at http://www.yourphototopainting.com

[chipritchard]

I don't think it really needs to at all

[biggy smalls]

You must really get off on deconstructing everything people say. You have your opinion, I have mine. It seems like you come from a totally different school as I. To each one their own.

[Ronnoco]

You must really get off on deconstructing everything people say. You have your opinion, I have mine. It seems like you come from a totally different school as I. To each one their own.

Deconstructing the media or media literacy is a course that is even taught at the high school level. There is no emotional "getting off on" component whatsoever. You must have missed that course in your area. Moreover, I told you I taught in an art school.
What do you think teachers do, when they mark essays that deal with the nature of photography as an art form? They read carefully what the student has written and make comments, related to the "argument" or the "logic" of the expressed opinion.

I am a photographer and I have won awards in the Canadian Association of Photographic art. I have done television, production, direction and camera work. I have taught photography, computer animation, and several other subjects. I presented at the North American arts schools conference. I have been doing this, since before you were born.

So, you may have your opinion, but back it up, by telling me about your experience in photography.

Ronnoco

[biggy smalls]

Deconstructing the media or media literacy is a course that is even taught at the high school level. There is no emotional "getting off on" component whatsoever. You must have missed that course in your area. Moreover, I told you I taught in an art school.
What do you think teachers do, when they mark essays that deal with the nature of photography as an art form? They read carefully what the student has written and make comments, related to the "argument" or the "logic" of the expressed opinion.

I am a photographer and I have won awards in the Canadian Association of Photographic art. I have done television, production, direction and camera work. I have taught photography, computer animation, and several other subjects. I presented at the North American arts schools conference. I have been doing this, since before you were born.

So, you may have your opinion, but back it up, by telling me about your experience in photography.

Ronnoco

I didn't come here to be 'marked' or have every single word deconstructed. I posted my opinion, that is it. It is you that seems to have the need to dig your nose in everyone's statements. It gets old. Oh, lay off the condisending attitude, its not appreciated.

You've made your point clear... you're a great photographer, you've won lots of awards, you have more knowledge than I have. You da man.

I don't have to explain anything to you about why my opinion is the way it is. I made a statement of what I believe to be true. You don't like it, thats cool.

I'm done here.

[Ronnoco]

I didn't come here to be 'marked' or have every single word deconstructed. I posted my opinion, that is it. It is you that seems to have the need to dig your nose in everyone's statements. It gets old. Oh, lay off the condisending attitude, its not appreciated..

Anyone who can express himself/herself in a clear and literate manner and means what he/she says, has absolutely NO reason to fear his/her own words in deconstruction or in any other approach to discussion or argument. Mispelled characterizations ...(the word you are seeking is "condescending") and a comma after "attitude" instead of the required . period, limit the credibility of what you are trying to say. This is the real world and in business one is judged by one's spoken and written literacy level. A person's level of writing can also put their indicated educational credentials open to question.

You've made your point clear... you're a great photographer, you've won lots of awards, you have more knowledge than I have. You da man. ..

Wow! I must say this is the first time I have seen four sentences with only one capital letter and one period, followed by an incomplete sentence. Obviously I did not make my point clear either but street style illiteracy belongs in the street, in my opinion. I won't even try to explain the difference between experience, the desire to continue learning, and greatness. I am sure that I do not have the correct overly emotional street style to successfully communicate at that level.

I don't have to explain anything to you about why my opinion is the way it is. I made a statement of what I believe to be true. You don't like it, thats cool.
I'm done here.

If your opinion is of absolutely no value to anyone else but you, and indeed you have proven that, both by what you have said and the manner in which you have said it, as well as by what you have not said or supported, then of course, why explain anything?

I made the ridiculous mistake of assuming that you wanted to share your opinion and support it, in discussions in this column. That is the purpose of forums, by the way. You seem to have another agenda.

Ronnoco

[biggy smalls]

And what agenda would that be? I would really like to know. All I know is that I came to this board to learn something more about digital photography. That is it.

Oooooo, Mr. Pro is making fun of my spelling and grammar; it’s called making mistakes. I'm sure Mr. Pro doesn't make any. If you are such a great photographer than why don't you have a gallery? Come on, show your stuff expert. You seem to do a lot of talking but I don't see any action.

[pweb]

This one sure got 'off message'... Can we get back to the original question? It's a good one.

I don't think photos in general need to "say something" except to the person taking the picture--it was a point in time that was important enough to click the shutter (and probably do some editing in Photoshop). However, when you post pictures on the site, it's nice for everyone here if the picture has something to say, whether it turns out to be important to everyone or not. Pictures you posted days or years ago may not be as meaningful now, except to show yourself and maybe others how much you've progressed in your understanding of yourself and your equipment. Many times (even recently) I've posted a picture that I enjoy but was a dud on this site. That's OK--it makes me think more about what I'm doing with my photography. I appreciate all comments, constructive criticism and help, as long as they're well intentioned.

Our photography is a journey that we all take in our own personal way--no one's wrong, just different!

[Ronnoco]

![/QUOTE]This one sure got 'off message'... Can we get back to the original question? It's a good one.![/QUOTE]

I agree totally, and was about to suggest that as well.

![/QUOTE]
I don't think photos in general need to "say something" except to the person taking the picture--it was a point in time that was important enough to click the shutter (and probably do some editing in Photoshop).![/QUOTE]

Actually what you are talking about is picture taking as I defined it earlier. You take a picture for your own purposes, put it in an album, for example and take a look at it from time to time.

To use another analogy, story telling may have a limited relevance, limited interest and limited appeal depending on the individual nature of the story. It may only be a diary or a journal. Literature is defined as a work with a more universal appeal to a larger audience.

Photography can be equally defined as picture taking with a more "universal appeal". However to get that attention and that "universal appeal", certain techniques that mix the artistic with the technical are required.

It is not only posting pictures on a site, it is also publishing in a paper, folder, magazine,presenting, entering a competition and selling your work. To do all of this successfully, the photograph must have a universal appeal and must communicate something about the photographer and his/her point of view of the scene or subject being photographed.

Thank you, by the way, for bringing things back to the appropriate topic.

Ronnoco

[pweb]

We don't have to be professional or even advanced amateurs to consider ourselves photographers and to feel that our photos might "say something" to someone besides ourselves. Isn't that enough? Over the years, we can communicate, share and grow as photographers in the process.

By your definitions, I and most of the people who post on this site are somewhere inbetween simple 'picture-taker' and 'artistic photographer', so where does that put us -- neither, or in the wide gray area between the two? We may (or may not) be headed toward acheiving the artistic photographer level someday, but not necessarily motivated in the direction of "publishing in a paper, folder, magazine,presenting, entering a competition and selling your work." Hopefully the finer points of word definitions and categories aren't the main issue. Art is extremely subjective, as are literature, music and other creative forms--they defy all but very general, high-level definitions and even those can be debated.

Personally, I prefer letting natural subjects (birds, flowers, etc.) be their own artistic statement; I simply compose the subject and enhance it slightly to bring the viewer's attention to the moment that I was privileged to be able to capture through a photograph. Nature itself is overflowing with universal appeal and doesn't necessarily improve through applying much technique--you just need a good eye and know when to click the shutter, along with using the best camera settings for the situation (lighting, focus, etc.). To my mind, the key to nature photography is to capture the action, angle &/or color that holds the viewer's attention for at least a few moments (well, maybe that does take a certain level of skill and technique). Other people prefer stretching their imagination more and creating thought-provoking images that require more advanced use of photgraphic and photo-editing technique, but the resulting images often have a less-than-universal appeal. Does that make those creations a higher level of "art" than simple nature photography?

I don't mean to be argumentative--these are genuine questions that I hope people will consider. OK, I'm stepping off my soap-box now.