Does a photo need to say something?

[jackthegreenrat]

For me at least -
Art is something that makes me step back and take another look. If I can just look at a painting, photo, story, whatver, smile and think "That's nice", that is not art; it is just a nice painting, photo, story whatever. This is not to say that these images don't have value; they can be amazingly beautiful and make people very happy; they can also adeptly tell a story.
But for me, art makes me think, makes me look for different meanings, try to get inside the artist's head and understand why they chose that particular method/shot to express themselves.
Art makes me want to try to explain to someone how an image makes me feel, what the composition/light/shades/contrast does to me, how it affects me and my interpretation.
At the moment, I do not think my own photos are art unfortunately, but I am working on it!

[adina]

Sometimes I just want to look at something pretty.



For me, art doesn't have to have some deeper meaning, or some hidden agenda. If it is interesting to me, and visually stimulating, then I enjoy it.

Of course, I do have a fridge covered in "art"

adina

[PlantedTao]

Very often I try to find something that matches a feeling I have. On the other hand, a lot of times I photograph with nothing specific in mind. I just play it as it comes. If it's good, fine. I find 'letting it happen' relaxing, a playful vacation. Stimulating pictures almost always result. -Minor White, "Interviews With Master Photographers, by James Danziger"

This is exactly how I take photos - the scene is saying something to me (I just don't know what) and only later when I look at the processed photos is when meaning truly comes to them.

[DownByFive]

I don't think I've ever really tried to express anything through my photos. I mean, sometimes I'll try and do something dramatic, but that's not really an expression for me. But one thing have sort of found that I do is try to show how things we normally don't look twice at are actually pretty amazing...I've gone to school on the Palouse for several years, and always thought it was the most boring and ugly place. But since I've gotten into photography, I've learned to see a little deeper and realize that there is some pretty cool stuff around here....And that's what I try to convey in my photos. One of my friends from school (who has since moved away) always comments that he doesn't remember seeing any of the great stuff that I shoot, even though he lived here for five years. So I guess for me, photography is all about capturing the cool things that most people don't notice...

[Shyanni]

For me, photographs are a way to share the experience, usually the experience of encounters with wildlife. Each one is a thrill for me, and through sharing my photos I can relive that excitement. But I also enjoy capturing and viewing images that tell stories.
To answer the original question, I don't think photos need to say anything, but for both photographer and viewer, the experience is deeper and richer when they do. However, unless the image is contrived to express a particular message, I think it is seldom part of the initial creation process, at least for me. Rather it's something that comes afterwards with consideration of the result. The world is full of symbols and with a little imagination, hidden meaning can be project onto almost any image.

[KKKKCCCC]

Agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[adamagarthar]

may be or may be not.....
my opinion is
1.the photo without message should have to pull the eyes in by some attraction. it should wonder the viewers
2.there is no extraordinary photographic work is needed when great message stands in a photo