Does a photo need to say something?

[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