This is kind of what I was getting at when I started this thread. And I've really enjoyed all the responses so far. It's really interesting to know how we all approach photography. I agree that all images do say something, and that the message varies from person to person.Originally Posted by mtbbrian
I'm interested to know if we have a specific message in mind, such as a social or political or philosophical statement, when we make an image. A shot of the incredible redwoods we have where I live says pretty much one thing: "Ain't nature great?" But an image of a clear-cut stand of redwoods says a totally different thing to many people: "Logging is bad" "The photographer must be an environmentalist" "Look at all the money our timber company made here" or any of a myriad of messages. I guess it keeps coming back to the fact that all our interpretation of visual stimuli are different and subjective. I could feel totally different about seeing the image of the clear-cut than if I was actually walking through it amongst the stumps. Which I have...
It does help to know the intent of the photographer, but I think that, as I said previously, and image should be able to stand alone, without a caption. All the great images of our time stand alone, without any explanation. They explain themselves.
But does an image need a specific message? No. The message, if there is one, should whatever the viewer wants it to be, or, since we are ultimately in charge of our emotions, whatever we allow it to be.



LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote