Does a photo need to say something?

[Frog]

Boy I sure put a lot of ands in that one sentence didn't I....lol

[mdvaden]

I'm not much of a photographer, but I know what a photo's purpose is. And it varies.

For me, it's usually just to display.

Like my mushroom album. If that one was fully captioned, it would basically document. But I just like showing what's in the woods, so "display" would be the purpose, and the photos don't need to say anything.

For other people, I'm sure it's different. One photo that comes to mind, is the famous image of the Afganistan girl that was on the National Geographic years ago. That's in the league of photos that may say something or cause the looker to pose a question.

[Ronnoco]

I'm not much of a photographer, but I know what a photo's purpose is. And it varies.

For me, it's usually just to display..

It is never quite that simple. You cannot even display a photo for any purpose, unless that photo attracts the eye and communicates something to the viewer. Put another way, some excellent photos of mushrooms with great colour and forests in the background will certainly get people thinking about this item, whereas photos with lousy technique and sloppy care will only communicate to the viewer that you are a lousy communicator.

For the court, I once had to take a photo of a pile of snow, which some would say was only for the purpose of documentation. However, looking at it differently, my goal was to take a photo of a snow pile in such a way that it would visually explain how it became a death scene for one young student. The shot did need to say something to the viewer, despite even a lack of "artistic" purpose.

Ronnoco

[Irakly Shanidze]

gee, i have not posted here for ages...
the poric seems quite important to me. my personal believe is that photographs (or any other art work) must communicate. the logic is that while normal people communicate by means of talking to each other, or sometimes gesturing, punching, kicking and stuff, artists need more than that. it is their art that is a preferred means of getting their message across. certainly, the first intended recipent of art is an object (or subject) of inspiration, but then everybody else gets to benefit. this is a simplification, just to make my point less vague
irakly

[greghalliday]

Wow. Interesting post. Except it gives me a headache to read it.

[Selene]

IMHO, a photo should enable someone to see its subject in a way they may not have taken notice of or been able to before...a visual experience outside normal vision.

[Samanthakk7]

Hi,

You are absolutely right Manacsa. And infact Photography is an art that needs practice, skill and an eye for the unexpected.

[AgingEyes]

IMHO, a photo should enable someone to see its subject in a way they may not have taken notice of or been able to before...a visual experience outside normal vision.

That's easy. All I need to do is to use color filters, use color filters in Photoshop, paint my photos here and there with colors, tilt my camera, etc., etc. :-)

Actually, some do it quite often. I don't know why. Apparently some people like it.

[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

[shootme]

I get asked a lot and other people are often asked, "What are you trying to say with this photo?"
But personally I don't always shoot with a message in mind. If someone says "Gee, that picture is really _____," and no one else has that opinion, then I smile inwardly, feeling like I did something right. I like the idea of giving people an opportunity to interpret an image in any way they see fit. I know we all interpret images differently, but there are images we make with an easy-to-recognize, obvious message. There are also images we make that take some thought to analyze the meaning, if there is one at all. Which do you prefer? Anyone have a take on this?

This is a great thread, been going nearly 4 years. Personally I try (emphasize try) and take shots that say something to me each time I shoot, unless it's a technical photo, memory photo (family gathering, etc. shots). I append here a couple of photos which I tried to take for its artistic appreciation, "A Painter at his Labor".. The colors say something, the approach to painting tells me something, the direction of the painting, the artists fee, hand and brush, yet I don't include the entire body of the artist or his painting. For others, well it might not mean anything because it doesn't include the artist or his entire painting. The good thing about photo's is that they can mean something slightly different for each viewer, the ones that talk to you with some level of emotion good or bad are in my opinion great achievements. But I'm really only a novice learning his way.

[AgingEyes]

A photograph does not need to say anything. Period. The requirement that a photograph needs to say something is not in the definition of a "photograph".

[Loupey]

I suppose it doesn't need to say something. But it always does.

Someone please show me an image that says absolute nothing.


Better yet, someone come up with a scenario that achieves this. I could print a completely black rectangle (or white, or gray) and put a mat around it and frame it and it would still say something.

[Photo Kap]

In my personal opinion, photography is just like many other art forms. Meaning can be portrayed in the actual creation of the photograph, but the meanings that the photographer portrays are usually different than what the viewer sees. Each viewer forms their own opinions on what a particular photograph means. A more advanced photographer can assist viewers by making more obvious connections, but in the end, it is the viewer who takes their own message from the photograph.

For example, abstract art makes very few obvious connections. It gives the viewer more room for guesswork. The artist knows exactly why they created what they did, but it is harder to understand by just looking at the work. And sometimes, there is no meaning at all.
On the other hand, very literal art aims at giving the viewer no room for guesswork. It makes many obvious connections, in order to portray specific meanings.

I suppose it comes down to a mixture of emotions and feelings and meanings from the photographer, and the way that is all put forth. :idea:

Hopefuly that all made sense. I kind of confused myself in the explanation... haha

[AgingEyes]

I suppose it doesn't need to say something. But it always does.

Someone please show me an image that says absolute nothing.


Better yet, someone come up with a scenario that achieves this. I could print a completely black rectangle (or white, or gray) and put a mat around it and frame it and it would still say something.

Easy. Just take a look at my photos I'm not saying anything.

Sometimes it's the viewers who think the photo is saying something. One could have the shutter button of the camera accidentally pressed and, viola, a photograph. I don't think you can deny that a photograph is produced as a result.

Does that photograph say anything? I guess it's all up to the viewers. But then I'd find it funny somebody would try to find a meaning for such a photograph. Probably on the assumption that since it is a photograph, it could be art, it could carry a meaning, the photographer wants to tell us something and so let's figure it out.

Does the "photographer" mean it to say anything? He/she may not even know he has taken the photo

[ctg]

Honestly, we all have had great shots come out of some accidental action which shows that a picture is worth a thousand words . . . they tend to communicate something as an image. On the other hand we have all had our share of bad photos which fell to communicate anything more than a badly composed or executed photograph or image.
The sense of sight forms or communicates with the mind which forms preceptions unless you are blind. In which case the mind doesn't form a preception or image (by sight).

[ctg]

I append here a couple of photos which I tried to take for its artistic appreciation, "A Painter at his Labor"..
The colors say something, the approach to painting tells me something, the direction of the painting, the artists feet, hands and brush, yet I don't include the entire body of the artist or his painting. For others, well it might not mean anything because it doesn't include the artist or his entire painting . .

The good thing about photo's is that they can mean something slightly different for each viewer, the ones that talk to you with some level of emotion good or bad are in my opinion, great achievements. But I'm really only a novice learning my way.:thumbsup: For me, the use of a close up gives a sense of closeness to the artist which along with the casual aspects of the hands & feet, stretching over the work (but not showing the artist) produces a subtle aspect in which the viewer isn't so much looking over the artist's shoulder but identitfing one self with the artist.
I showed this page to a friend with the pretext of viewing the content in context of my own work, she responded on your photos as being like painting a still life. Which is what I felt as if I had become part of the artistic expression (in a present/future tense), perhaps a better title would be "Labor of Painting".

[shootme]

I showed this page to a friend with the pretext of viewing the content in context of my own work, she responded on your photos as being like painting a still life. Which is what I felt as if I had become part of the artistic expression (in a present/future tense), perhaps a better title would be "Labor of Painting".

Excellent perspective and for me just what I was trying to convey, the title Labor of Painting is excellent well done and thanks a bunch for the feedback. By the way the nature shots are brilliant, they take me away freedom...Peter

[drg]

Photographs show something, otherwise they are mute.

[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?

[Amatuer No.9]

IMHO, a photo should enable someone to see its subject in a way they may not have taken notice of or been able to before...a visual experience outside normal vision.

I agree. :thumbsup: A photo needs to say [U]BOLDLY[/U " LOOK AT ME"
the rest of the experience is up to you.

p.s. I'm new here ...so Hello Everyone !

[Frog]

Hello again Amateur9.
Interesting that this is your first post and in a thread that has been going on for quite some time and just pops up once in a while.

[Nicci]

The question is a very open ended.. Say something to who?

If I create something for me it only has to convey what I wish it to convey to me. That is all that matters. Now if I am creating something for someone else then it is their opinion that matters.

If we get into a discussion on "what is art?" (which is where this seemed to migrate to just from reading a few posts) then that is subjective. What I think is art may not be what you think is art. The argument is futile and off the subject of the original question, "Does a photo need to say something?" to of which I ask again, "to who?"

[daq7]

Yes. I am usually trying to say f*** you and the horse you rode in on. But in a nice way.

[arne saknussen]

Its not a question of "need to say something". Every photo does say something. Its just a matter of saying something important.
A photo can say "Here is my cat."
or a photo can say "Here is an example of man's inhumanity to man."
Its sorta like asking, "Does a book have to say something?" If it doesn't say anything, its blank, And even then it says, "This author couldn't think of anything." Not important, but it does say something.

[Henrietta]

Its not a question of "need to say something". Every photo does say something. Its just a matter of saying something important.
A photo can say "Here is my cat."
or a photo can say "Here is an example of man's inhumanity to man."
Its sorta like asking, "Does a book have to say something?" If it doesn't say anything, its blank, And even then it says, "This author couldn't think of anything." Not important, but it does say something.

I agree with arne saknussen. Every photo does say something. But not all of them say something important. Many people take pictures trying to say something really important. What for do we have photo exhibitions? What for do we go there? Do we go just to stare at beautiful images? No, we go to have a look and understand what the photographer wanted to tell us. There are many interesting projects where people try to tell us something, to show their attitude to life and what they want to change. Recently I found one of them. It's dedicated to “The 100 days of Active Resistance” . Just have a look and it will make you think about our life, our word life...