Does a photo need to say something?

[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.