Does a photo need to say something?

[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

[hilaryyb]

Hey guys,
I have a roomie who sent a Wii points generator to me yesterday, but some reasons all the codes are expired, first off, is it legal to useit?
sorry if "Help Files" ain't the right place to ask for this, i'm new to this nice community

[james holcombe]

From my point of view, a photo has to say something for the one looking at it or the one taking it.
I would call it engagement. When a photo doesn't say anything to me, usually I don't like it.

[imagecolorist]

you are right

[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.

[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

[drg]

Photographs show something, otherwise they are mute.

[rajbrijesh]

Yes definitely.

[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

[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).

[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.

[mushaisa]

You don't have to say something but people should feel something when they see your photographs

[JadynH]

In my own opinion, I think it would be more attractive if a photo is conveying something to your prospected client or critiques. that would add up more spice to your art works.

[cfl211]

photos dont speak

[Eleanor Maw]

As long as a photo is enjoyable or interesting it does not have to say something, just make sure it is a quality photo, only show your best work unless you are demonstrating what went wrong with a photo you took and want some advice.

[bigmikee]

I think that photography as art (like any kind of art) should put questions, but not give answers to them leaving a space for thinking. that's real art to me

[jasontrott]

I think that photography as art (like any kind of art) should put questions, but not give answers to them leaving a space for thinking. that's real art to me

I do agree with the bigmikee..... The art needs to have continuous learning to make your skills polished and keep your edge sharpen.

[patrickjohnson]

we can't listen the photo's voice but photo always explain us, what it want to say, So I think there is no need to photo say anything.

[imagecolorist]

Great and true conviction

[Angie Alger]

Great and true conviction

Totally true.

[TitaniaX]

Photography is art in any ways...it's allways something new on it and specific from others. You can see and feel a lot from pictures.