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