"what were you trying to say" with that photograph??? [Archive]

stradibarrius

26-Jul-2013, 16:06

Peter Gomena

26-Jul-2013, 16:17

I don't always have something to say in my pictures.

If someone asks me what motivated me to make a certain picture, I might be able to put it into words.

I agree that being inspired by light, angle, mood, is enough reason to set up the camera and snap the shutter. If the final print reflects what I was thinking and feeling at the time, and maybe if it resonates with someone else, I'm happy.

Leigh

26-Jul-2013, 16:47

Strad,

I agree completely.

I take photos because I think the resulting image will look nice, or neat, or cool, or whatever.

The "what are you saying" jerks are just showing that they have nothing to say themselves.

- Leigh

Kirk Gittings

26-Jul-2013, 16:58

The "what are you saying" jerks are just showing that they have nothing to say themselves.

Or maybe they are just trying to figure out why you bothered to take that picture. I oftentimes wonder that myself when looking at images and exhibitions. You are not a brainless shutter tripper. If one can't answer it maybe there was no inspiration. If you just wanted to see what random stuff looks like in a photograph you could use an unmanned probe with a random program to trip the shutter. But if you wanted to see what THAT looked like in an image then you probably had a reason conscious or not. Photography is an act of pointing "look at this". Why?

Leigh

26-Jul-2013, 17:13

If one can't answer it maybe there was no inspiration.
Is inspiration a pre-requisite for taking a photo?

I take a lot of photos that are strictly for documentation. I don't consider that inspiration. It's work, frequently difficult.

- Leigh

Ken Lee

26-Jul-2013, 17:18

I someone makes a statement or delivers a lecture, do we ask them "What were you trying to photograph" ?

Leigh

26-Jul-2013, 17:29

I someone makes a statement or delivers a lecture, do we ask them "What were you trying to photograph" ?
Excellent!

- Leigh

26-Jul-2013, 17:29

I guess if I were doing some sort of series of the plight of the homeless I would be trying to say something, or if I were a photographer in Afghanistan I would be trying to say something but can't I just take a photograph because I thought the lines, angles, lighting or person looked great and I just wanted t capture that.

Help me out, do you folks always have an inspiration when you hit the shutter? Am I so ignorant or lack the artistic senses to be trying to convey a higher message everytime I take a shot?

No need to have a higher message. But if you actually do want to tell a story or have a message and are good at photography, you can use photography to do that. But you don't have to. I've taken plenty of great photos just because I was there and had a camera (sports or family for example). I've also taken plenty just to see how an image would be recorded, to learn a camera/lens/film and had some pleasantly surprising results from such effort where ulterior motives or communicating something weren't really factors. (I still try to get good composition and lighting and such even for testing)

I think it's worth being aware that your photos can say things even if you're not trying. Perhaps to a viewer it's majestic or inviting or intimate or moody or any number of possibilities. You can use awareness of that to guide your making the photo, even though you're not after what you think it might say. Or maybe you want to use things like dark tones, soft focus, hard light, etc.. to portray something and use your photo skills to do that.

Sometimes I'm trying to portray a mood, but not actually say anything. I'm kinda quiet and don't feel a need to say things all the time. I like nature scenes "Because it looked cool" as much as the next person, and know such photos will be well received. But I also do a little abstract stuff, and can confidently say, "it's about the composition or tones and not about the rocks or clouds" or whatever. Saying you liked the lines/shadows/composition and took a photo because of that rather than the subject is legit art, perhaps a stronger level of art than trying to say something depending on who you ask.

Heroique

26-Jul-2013, 17:33

ROL

26-Jul-2013, 17:34

If someone comes to you and want you to do their portrait, are you trying to say anything other than I can make you look good even if your ugly?

Annie Liebowitz.

What was AA trying to say when he shot so many of his awe inspiring landscapes?

If he has to tell you, you'll never understand, a paraphrasing of a frequent refrain with which I deeply identify. If this doesn't ring true for you, landscape isn't for you (and you are certainly not for it).

I guess if I were doing some sort of series of the plight of the homeless I would be trying to say something, or if I were a photographer in Afghanistan I would be trying to say something but can't I just take a photograph because I thought the lines, angles, lighting or person looked great and I just wanted t capture that.

Documentary vs. fine art. One pays money (AKA, if it bleeds, it leads), one (likely) does not. ;)

Help me out, do you folks always have an inspiration when you hit the shutter?

The world is so overexposed as it is with imagery, what's the point of wasting resources, be it film or pixels, if you don't have something to say? (I'm not being rhetorical – you better figure out something if you want someone other than your mother to appreciate your pics.)

Am I so ignorant or lack the artistic senses to be trying to convey a higher message everytime I take a shot?

Apparently – see above. But you can always learn.

Doremus Scudder

26-Jul-2013, 17:57

A lot of my images are about what can’t be said.

Many others are about what has never been said – but could be.

Still others can be fully explained with a few simple words.

My very best images do all the above!

Amen! ++1

I don't snap the shutter, much less print a negative if I don't think the resulting image will communicate on many different levels.

Sure, you don't have to try to communicate with your photography, but I believe that the best photography (and art, literature, music, etc.) does communicate, and does so powerfully and eloquently utilizing the particular strengths and emotional-sensual language inherent in the medium.

So, "what are you trying to communicate?" is a valid question for communicative art of any sort. Even purely documentary photography has a communicative goal.

With non-verbal media, the communication that occurs is so often on that non-verbal level that descriptions are difficult if not impossible. Nevertheless, I find it useful to try to put my intentions into words if for no other reason than to clarify my own thinking.

Stradibarrius, look deeper! "because it looks cool" might, on closer reflection, be more specifically expresses as (for example), "The proportions of visual spaces, lines and shades have a subliminal emotional impact. That coupled with the subject matter..." You get the idea and, no, I'm not trying to be facetious. Don't get me wrong, I hate empty "Artspeak" with a passion, nor do I believe that art should be able to be described to be fully appreciated. But, as a tool for clarifying one's thinking process, and bringing the subconscious into awareness, trying to describe what we are trying to say has value. That is why teachers often ask this question; they want you to examine your own motivations in a more critical and conscious way. I think that is good.

Best,

Doremus

jcoldslabs

26-Jul-2013, 18:12

Hell, I just thought it looked cool and wanted to see what it would look like in a photo.

That's my primary motivation, too. I've never been able to answer the "why" or "what are you trying to say" questions about my work much beyond this.

If you just wanted to see what random stuff looks like in a photograph you could use an unmanned probe with a random program to trip the shutter.

In all honesty a lot of my photographs are made by pointing the camera somewhat at random and seeing how things look on the ground glass because I have never gotten good at pre-visualization. I feel like I photograph the way kids use fingerpaints: I grab hold of the physical object (the view camera) and play around until something looks cool or interesting. More than a few times I have set up a shot and then, after much fiddling, decided it wasn't worth it. Then, when I swung the camera around on the tripod to change lenses, I suddenly found that what was now randomly on the ground glass was more interesting than my intended subject. I guess I'm more of a manned randomized probe!

Jonathan

Greg Miller

26-Jul-2013, 19:16

Is inspiration a pre-requisite for taking a photo?

I take a lot of photos that are strictly for documentation. I don't consider that inspiration. It's work, frequently difficult.

- Leigh

I would say so. Even with documentary photography there must be a reason you decided to make the photograph. Otherwise what is the point? Isn't it arrogant to ask other people to invest time in looking at a photograph if there is no point?

I'm a big believer in connecting with your own feelings enough to understand why I was moved by a scene. Knowing that is what dictates where I stand, what to include in the frame. What to exclude from the frame. What shutter speed to use. What aperture to use. I'm not necessarily trying to communicate something literal. But I am definitely attempting to communicate to the viewer what I am feeling about the scene or the experience (which includes, sight, sound, smell, the feel of cold breeze on my cheek,...).

To me photography is a form of communication (a visual language; just like music is an audible language), and that generally translates into having the viewer feel something (the most compelling songs are the ones that make you feel something). If the viewer feels nothing about the photo then I have wasted their time. The worst thing that can happen to me is have a viewer see my photographs and feel nothing. And the only chance for that to happen is to understand my own feelings about the scene before I make decisions on how to photograph it. To me "the scene just looks interesting" is simply not enough understanding of the situation to have a good chance of making a successful and compelling image.

26-Jul-2013, 19:36

Often we are communicating things, which we can't explain with words, so "looks interesting" is an exceedingly concise/simplified description of what's going on in our heads.

Jim Jones

26-Jul-2013, 20:01

Vaughn

26-Jul-2013, 20:04

I like talking to myself visually, I guess. LOL!

Greg Miller

26-Jul-2013, 20:15

Often we are communicating things, which we can't explain with words, so "looks interesting" is an exceedingly concise/simplified description of what's going on in our heads.

"Looks interesting" is simplified, but hardly concise. The understanding needs to be deeper than that in order to consistently make compelling images. The understanding doesn't need to be verbal, but it does need to be clear - which is often a feeling, and what parts of the scene specifically evoked that feeling and which parts distract/detract from it. Without a clear understanding of that, then how can one possibly effectively frame the scene, choose a focal length, and make all the other decisions necessary to get that feeling across to the viewer? Photographers that have vision typically have a very clear understanding of emotion and how to communicate that in a unique and compelling way. Failing to have that understanding will mire the photographer in a world of mediocrity.

For example the 2 photos in this link (http://gregmillerphotography.com/images/demo1.jpg) were made less than 11 hours from each other from virtually the same tripod holes. Both evoke very different feelings. I would fail miserably trying to describe verbally what I was feeling at the time (that's why I am a photographer and not a writer), but stopping and being clear about was I was seeing and how I was emotionally reacting to the scene allowed me to make important decisions about how to make the photographs. Everything from framing, focal length, and exposure, If I had just a vague idea that the scene was interesting I would have no idea about what to include and exclude from the frame. That needs to be very clear - including too much, or excluding to much will confuse the viewer and cause them to react very differently than what I intend as the photographer.

Greg Miller

26-Jul-2013, 20:40

Some photographers feel the need to intrude into the subject; visually, verbally, or both. Some photographers are content for the viewer to enjoy or feel the subject with no comment from the photographer. Some photographers just don't care. In a free world we each can choose our own path, and let others do as they will.

I would agree with that. But then we have to talk about whether the photographer is photographer that makes compelling images, or just one of the millions of mediocre photographers that make images that are immediately forgotten (and I cannot fathom how a photographer who passively lets the viewer feel what they want can possibly make all the decisions necessary to create a compelling image - how do you decide what details to exclude from the frame if you don't know what you are trying to communicate?).

I would suggest that the most successful and most respected photographers are very clear about their vision, subject matter, and what they are communicating. They have a vision and are skilled at communicating and executing that vision. A writer who writes with no intent is just writing garbage. A song writer with no clear message is writing garbage. An instrumentalist who does not play musically is incredibly boring. A dancer who dances with no feeling is incredibly boring. We react to artists that cause us to feel something. If the artist is not clear about what they are creating, then any feeling on the part of the viewer is just random and mostly a matter of luck.

ROL

26-Jul-2013, 20:45

I'm going to give up part of my Friday night, to take another stab at this, as this is an important question far too few "shooters" ever come to grips with. First, I deliver the obligatory canard that all (good) art should move you - move you emotionally, intellectually... whatever. That also applies to any flavor of photography, documentary, fine art, landscape or portrait. And now I'm going to flip that and admit that many times I am only moved to move on to the next piece. That is, until I have researched the piece and the artist a bit in order to appreciate what the artist is "trying to say" with it. I may not agree with the artist's presentation, or what they were trying to say, but at least I've learned enough not to dismiss it from any preconceived experience or perspective. I would only recommend that you broaden your artistic experience beyond the photo-masturbatory internet forums into museums, art classes, and literature of any ilk, so that you may find your voice amidst the cacophony of shouts and whispers of the art world. The requirement to identify what you are trying to say will come full circle and hit you square in the puss when you are asked to write the much maligned artist's statement, regarding your own work. I can only hope that your work (of any kind) will be sufficiently manifest so that your "statement" may be delivered easily, and your art may enrich my world... and move me.

jcoldslabs

26-Jul-2013, 21:11

An artist's statement should be unnecessary in the visual arts--the art itself is the statement.

Jonathan

Leigh

26-Jul-2013, 21:16

I deliver the obligatory canard that all (good) art should move you - move you emotionally, intellectually... whatever. That also applies to any flavor of photography, documentary, fine art, landscape or portrait.
Your opinion.

Definitely not a universal truth, nor even a close contender.

- Leigh

John Kasaian

26-Jul-2013, 22:43

To ride shoot straight and speak the truth,
this is the ancient law of youth,
old times are past, old days are done,
but the law runs true my little son.
---Charles Davis

ridax

27-Jul-2013, 03:14

I strongly believe fine art is not about delivering messages. Just like science is a method of studying nature, fine art is just another, and very different, method to achieve the same - to study the nature. The artist's goal is learning him/herself through his/her own art practice. And the ones that make anything looking as art for the sake of delivering their would-be wisdom to the poor unenlightened audience, are not artists at all. And things they produce are not works of art - whatever similar to art those may look like. Those are merely pieces of propaganda. That may well be very fine propaganda of course... but that does not make it fine art nevertheless ;). And people that keep asking "what did the artist want to say?" are talking pure nonsense IMHO, and the reason they keep talking that nonsense is because they simply don't know what fine art is all about. My humble advice is to avoid that crowd altogether. Though if one really wants to arise questions, "what did the artist want to ask?" would do. Or in the other words, what was the artist curious about? What was he/she studying with this work of art?

(Yes surely art communicates. But communicating anything is NOT the prime goal of fine art. And it is surely not the topic to think on when taking artistic pictures or making any other works of art.)

I actually expect quite a lot of disagreement to the above.... Well, sorry folks but those are just some beliefs of my own. You may well read that as the artist's statement of mine. ;)

Brian Ellis

27-Jul-2013, 06:40

I'm not sure I'd call it "what are you trying to say" but I could explain to anyone who asked exactly what it was about the subject matter of a particular photograph that interested me enough to make the photograph. If someone can't at least do that it seems to me they're either totally inarticulate or they're just snapping shutters. Does that mean I'm "saying" anything in the sense of conveying a message with the photograph? Sometimes it does (most often with man-made objects) but often it doesn't (most often with landscapes).

I will say that sometimes a lack of appreciation for a particular photograph ("I don't get it - what's the photographer trying to say?") results from not knowing enough. When I was taking photography courses in the fine arts department of a university the instructors often would explain things about a particular photograph that I hadn't seen or understood but that caused me to appreciate what the photographer was trying to do even if I didn't necessarily like it.

Robert Langham

27-Jul-2013, 07:13

Something happens when you get the urge to reach for your camera and you ought to be able to talk about a little bit even though I am convinced it's not by definition a verbally-describeable urge any more than music is. I think visual excitement involves a different part of your brain.

My recent two trips to Shiprock found me brought up short before blank walls of rock and very spectacular gestures of light and geology.

99358 99359

Asking "what are you trying to say" is a very important question, but there may not be a verbal answer.

When you bump into something that is a squiggley and hard to grasp as this question, it is USUALLY an indication that your question isn't a fit for the situation. If you flip the question from the photographer-centric approach, to the subject-centered approach...for example: What is this SUBJECT matter trying to say?, then the air begins to clear.

What does subject matter usually want to say? "I am."

When I bump into something that makes me reach for my camera, it's usually a subject saying: "I am." I'm not trying to say anything. I'm a garden-variety idiot who just fell off a turnip truck with my large format camera and some film holders. I'm not anybody. The SUBJECT is the thing demanding attention. And when a subject demands, or whispers, for attention, I'm trying to learn to listen and respond.

99360 99361

stradibarrius

27-Jul-2013, 07:17

Bridging off of Brian's comment, what would you folks say if a photographer says "i was just curious what this would look like in a photo"? Is the curiosity reason enough? I am asking these questions to help me understand my own reasons for enjoying photography. There are many things in life that with some education and understanding become more enjoyable. Wine drinkers often start out like sweet wine and as they taste more types of wine they tend to move away from just sweet and more toward less sweet...
Some time I see a photograph that I really like but I may now know why. Bruce Barnbaum in his book "the art of photography" has a photograph of the interior of a cathedral that I really like. I can't tell you why...I can say maybe it the symmetry or the rich tones but I can't say absolutely it is because of blank.
There are some portraits that really grab my attention while others are just another portrait...I don't know why that is.
We have all seen millions of "park bench" photos. What a boring subject but sometimes I see a photo of a park bench or some other ubiquitous object that grabs me. Often I think I may be trying to take the shot that has that effect.
Does this resonate with anyone?

stradibarrius

27-Jul-2013, 07:20

Ken can you explain a bit more what you mean about asking questions?

Leigh

27-Jul-2013, 07:22

"i was just curious what this would look like in a photo"? Is the curiosity reason enough?
Of course.

Curiosity is a perfectly legitimate motivation for many actions in life.

- Leigh

Ken Lee

27-Jul-2013, 07:34

Ken can you explain a bit more what you mean about asking questions?

Sorry - I deleted my post because it realized it was rude.

This is one of those threads in which I regret having participated. I should have known better :)

Greg Miller

27-Jul-2013, 07:35

Bridging off of Brian's comment, what would you folks say if a photographer says "i was just curious what this would look like in a photo"? Is the curiosity reason enough?

The curiosity is enough to be worthy of a learning experience. "this is what I see, but what will this look like when translated to 3D? B&W?, different contrast of my media?,...

But if you don't know what the the final result will look like when you trip the shutter, then you really have not mastered the craft of photography and you aren't creating images with any meaning. If you don't know what the the final result will look like when you trip the shutter, then how could you have possibly made the optimal choice of framing, exposure, focal length,...???

There are some portraits that really grab my attention while others are just another portrait...I don't know why that is.

Some portraits don't grab your attention because they tell you nothing about the subject or the photographer. They are just a snapshot. I was was here. I had a camera. I aimed the camera at the subject. I tripped the shutter when the subject was still and I was focused properly. It is just a snapshot of skin tissue.

Good portrait photographers are very skilled at communicating with the subject, getting them to reveal something about themselves. And recognizing the right moment to trip the shutter when the subject is telling us something about themselves. We can understand something beyond the surface of the skin - something about their personality or mood.

Greg Miller

27-Jul-2013, 08:46

Bridging off of Brian's comment, what would you folks say if a photographer says "i was just curious what this would look like in a photo"? Is the curiosity reason enough?

I also happen to think that "what would this look like?" is the wrong question. That is a very passive role for the photographer. Skilled photographers are asking what do I want this to look like? It isn't about recording a scene, it is about creating a compelling image.

"What will this look like?" is being passive and accepting what you end up with.

"What do I want this to look like" is taking control, being decisive, and being on control of the process. This is all about having a vision, finding or making scenes that fit that vision, and making an image that communicates that vision.

Leigh

27-Jul-2013, 09:43

I also happen to think that "what would this look like?" is the wrong question.
So you think that experimentation is somehow invalid, or inappropriate?

Amazing how some people think they know everything.

Those of us who acknowledge otherwise like to experiment.

- Leigh

Greg Miller

27-Jul-2013, 09:58

So you think that experimentation is somehow invalid, or inappropriate?

Amazing how some people think they know everything.

Those of us who acknowledge otherwise like to experiment.

- Leigh

If you have been following along you would have read my comment in post 30:

"The curiosity is enough to be worthy of a learning experience. "this is what I see, but what will this look like when translated to 3D? B&W?, different contrast of my media?,..."

It's funny that you are taking my comments negatively. I personally am always experimenting and pushing my boundaries, and I make way more mistakes than successes. I dread the day I think I know everything. But I have learned a lot over the years doing personal and commissioned work, and chose to pass along what I have learned in order to help others. If you want to take it in a negative way that's on you.

Your tag line work for photographs just as much a speech:
“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.” - Plato

Greg Miller

27-Jul-2013, 10:05

So you think that experimentation is somehow invalid, or inappropriate?

Amazing how some people think they know everything.

Those of us who acknowledge otherwise like to experiment.

- Leigh

And I am also quite confused why you would think that the question "what do I want this to look like?" precludes experimentation. We have a vision, we make choices on how to execute the vision. Sometimes we succeed and sometimes we fail.

Jac@stafford.net

27-Jul-2013, 10:20

Greg Miller: ""What will this look like?" is being passive and accepting what you end up with."

I respectfully disagree. Sometimes the wondering is part of lifelong learning of the medium, and one need not accept the outcome. It much the same rationale for making a photo in which we were so certain it would work, but for some reason it does not. Learn, reject, move on.

This is an example of the later (http://www.digoliardi.net/car-shadows-5th-st-1.jpg). :)

Kirk Gittings

27-Jul-2013, 10:48

An artist's statement should be unnecessary in the visual arts--the art itself is the statement.

I suppose that includes the title too? That's a common refrain on this forum but a refrain that has been violated by visual artists for hundreds of years.

Kirk Gittings

27-Jul-2013, 10:52

So you think that experimentation is somehow invalid, or inappropriate?

Amazing how some people think they know everything.

Those of us who acknowledge otherwise like to experiment.

- Leigh

So you think that asking why you shot that or providing an explanation or artist statement is somehow invalid, unnecessary or inappropriate?

Amazing how some people think they know everything.

Kirk Gittings

27-Jul-2013, 11:28

So often I hear photographers asking "what are you trying to say" or "what is your motivation" ??? Hell, I just thought it looked cool and wanted to see what it would look like in a photo.
I am not sure I always comprehend that "what are you trying to say" question.
If someone comes to you and want you to do their portrait, are you trying to say anything other than I can make you look good even if your ugly? What was AA trying to say when he shot so many of his awe inspiring landscapes?

I guess if I were doing some sort of series of the plight of the homeless I would be trying to say something, or if I were a photographer in Afghanistan I would be trying to say something but can't I just take a photograph because I thought the lines, angles, lighting or person looked great and I just wanted t capture that.

Help me out, do you folks always have an inspiration when you hit the shutter? Am I so ignorant or lack the artistic senses to be trying to convey a higher message everytime I take a shot?

There is a hint of defensiveness in you OP and in many of the posts here like someone is trying to put you on the spot. Such is life. If you take the emotional risk to show or exhibit your work in some manner you are going to get these kinds of questions and more. It goes with the territory. There is no right or wrong response. My normal response is to answer it with the same question. What does it say to you? I want to engage viewers in a verbal dialogue because there is much that I learn from such discussions and much that I can teach. I'm genuinely interested in what people see in my work. Not because I make photographs always to convey specific responses but yes I am interested in what my images actually communicate or stimualte. Some of the things I hear is fascinating and largely come from what the viewer brings to the encounter.

A lot of my work does has educational intent. The work is about a sense of place, a place that is fascinating to me because of its history. I try to make an image that fascinates and provokes an interest in the place which if successful opens the viewer to further inquiry and/or respect for the place. My favorite locations show little or no actual evidence of its history. So much of my work is about a kind of historic preservation, but not so much really in a documentary sense as I am really trying to evoke how a place feels to me. I physically feel history as a visceral presence in the landscape even when it cannot be seen.

Recently I have been photographing a 10,000 year old paleoindian Folsom site not far from my home which only professional archeologists know about. There are only minute physical artifacts present like a handful of point making flakes that rains have exposed since the archeologists left-the site was thoroughly excavated by UNM some years ago. There is nothing to see here but a break in the native plants. But the site literally vibrates to me with presence and I try and evoke that with an image and supplement that with an informative title and a statement if I can. The documentation was done by the professional archeologists. I however am an artist trying to create a work of art that enlivens the site visually and stirs questions and appreciation for history.

Therefore, FWIW, I love such questions or any opportunity to expand my interaction with viewers like answering questions, artist statements, slide shows, talks etc. I know from many years experience that people LOVE a backstory to art and I relish any opportunity to share that.

h2oman

27-Jul-2013, 12:34

I don't think any of us have to take any "sides" (in quotes because there are far more stances than two!) in this discussion. By beginning this way

I also happen to think ...

Greg has qualified his comments as being his opinion on the matter, not an absolute.

Thanks to the OP for starting a stimulating discussion!

ridax

27-Jul-2013, 12:36

My normal response is to answer it with the same question. What does it say to you? I want to engage viewers in a verbal dialogue because there is much that I learn from such discussions and much that I can teach. I'm genuinely interested in what people see in my work. Not because I make photographs always to convey specific responses but yes I am interested in what my images actually communicate or stimualte. Some of the things I hear is fascinating and largely come from what the viewer brings to the encounter.

That's another vital point IMO. 'Consuming' fine art is also a great learning practice, perhaps no less then creating fine art is. And I'd add not only other people learn a lot through a real work of art. When a work of art is created, it starts a life of its own; it becomes independent of the artist, and the author him/herself turns into just another viewer that years later can see way more in that work of his/her own art then he/she saw in it and thought of it the day the art was created...

That's why I believe that in fine art, the 'message' comes to the author only after the work is done. And when this does not happen, I would not dare say the work might be called fine art actually. (Am I just repeating the same I've said already? Perhaps I'd not post any more in this thread...)

Heroique

27-Jul-2013, 12:45

When I bump into something that makes me reach for my camera, it’s usually a subject saying: “I am.”

A familiar experience for me too, and others:

For one, it sounds like what Moses heard when he bumped into the burning bush. Too bad he didn’t have his Tachi for this one-of-a-kind landscape opportunity.

It also reminds one of that saying by Archibald MacLeish: “A poem should not mean, but be.” He might have said “LF compositions,” at least a special sort.

Kirk Gittings

27-Jul-2013, 13:26

That's another vital point IMO. 'Consuming' fine art is also a great learning practice, perhaps no less then creating fine art is. And I'd add not only other people learn a lot through a real work of art. When a work of art is created, it starts a life of its own; it becomes independent of the artist, and the author him/herself turns into just another viewer that years later can see way more in that work of his/her own art then he/she saw in it and thought of it the day the art was created...

That's why I believe that in fine art, the 'message' comes to the author only after the work is done. And when this does not happen, I would not dare say the work might be called fine art actually. (Am I just repeating the same I've said already? Perhaps I'd not post any more in this thread...)

Yes indeed once created and sold or published they take on a life of their own which can change the original context that you intended and change their meaning also. they effectively become repurposed.

jcoldslabs

27-Jul-2013, 13:37

I suppose that includes the title too? That's a common refrain on this forum but a refrain that has been violated by visual artists for hundreds of years.

Let me put it another way: when I find myself needing to explain one of my photographs in words I feel the image has failed in some way. (Does Weston's 'Pepper No. 30' need any accompanying text to make it complete? Is anything lost if the title is stripped away?) What I said about the "art being the statement" was meant as a sort of Platonic ideal, one that is difficult to achieve in practical terms, but for me it is something to aspire to.

Andres Serrano's 'Piss Christ ("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ)' is a counter-example. If you take away the description and the title of that work you are left with a much less interesting--and far less controversial--image. Since that photo requires text to make its point, I would argue that makes it a mixed media image rather than a stand-alone photograph. It has always bewildered me that overlaying text across the surface of a photograph makes it "mixed media," but adding a block of explanatory text on the wall next to it does not.

And no, I don't title my photos. :)

Jonathan

Kirk Gittings

27-Jul-2013, 13:49

Guernica is beautiful and powerful without the title but so much more with it as it brings the whole history of the subject and times into play. Is that title a weakness or failure? Hardly. First time I saw a repro of it I said to myself holy cow. Then read the title and looked it up in my encyclopedia. the back story added so much to my appreciation of the painting. Painting-superb. Title-enlightening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNC92dP_RRc

jcoldslabs

27-Jul-2013, 14:24

Is that title a weakness or failure?

Perhaps, in that it is unnecessary. Given that Guernica "was created in response to the bombing of Guernica, a Basque Country village in northern Spain, by German and Italian warplanes,"* the title is, like Weston's, literal, practical and succinct. When you first encountered the painting and had your "holy cow" moment--assuming you were ignorant of the history before you looked it up--the title was effectively meaningless to you. I don't see how this would be any different if the painting was untitled and you looked up info about it afterwards.

Jonathan

EDIT: Kirk, rereading this I'm afraid my tone may sound a bit harsh. That's not my intent. I have pretty strong feelings about this subject, as you can tell, and there is some psychic spillover happening here. :)

*From Wikipedia.

Greg Miller

27-Jul-2013, 14:50

I respectfully disagree. Sometimes the wondering is part of lifelong learning of the medium, and one need not accept the outcome. It much the same rationale for making a photo in which we were so certain it would work, but for some reason it does not. Learn, reject, move on.

This is an example of the later (http://www.digoliardi.net/car-shadows-5th-st-1.jpg). :)

First let me say that I think that we are using the term "accept" in different ways. My use of the word was to say that if you don't have an understanding of the image before you press the shutter, you accept that the outcome will be something unpredictable and beyond your control and influence (I go back to how do your frame the scene, choose a shutter speed, decide when to press the shutter,...). You might get lucky and, by chance, yield a powerful image. Or the image might be a total failure.

That's where we all start, then we learn to see how the camera sees, build technical skills, build our creative vision, and thereby improve our chances of creating a powerful image by knowing in advance much of how the image will look. We have refined our motor skills to operate our cameras efficiently, we understand that a wide angle lens will have a different field of view and relationship of near and far objects than a telephoto lens, we know how the camera sees vs. how our eyes see, we know how the direction, intensity, and color of light will impact the subject, our compositional skills get honed, and we have developed an instinct on when to press the shutter.

And of course curiosity, serendipity, and good (or bad) fortune are big parts of all art. But the foundation is knowing as well as possible how to predict what the final image will look like. We know that the camera will see light and perspective differently than our eye (so we learn to recognize good light even if the light is not good to our eye). We have built a vision. We have a keen sense of composition. That is the foundation. Put curiosity on top of that foundation and wonderful things can happen. Curiosity with no foundation is simply a game of roulette. If one is primarily curious how a scene will look when photographed without that foundation, how does one decide where to stand, what lens to select, when to trip the shutter?

And so I think the first, and most important, question is to ask ourselves is what we want the final image to look like. If we have that goal, we can try to execute it. We make mistakes and learn. But eventually we get better at it, and that's when our curiosity can flourish.

Brian C. Miller

27-Jul-2013, 14:55

Perhaps, in that it is unnecessary. Given that Guernica "was created in response to the bombing of Guernica, a Basque Country village in northern Spain, by German and Italian warplanes,"* the title is, like Weston's, literal, practical and succinct.

Finally, today after reading your post, I decided to look up images about the Guernica bombing. Picasso does not do George Steer's photography justice. The town was firebombed into a ruin. Steer's photography makes Picasso's painting look like a garish hodgepodge in desperate need of 1,000 words.

Kirk Gittings

27-Jul-2013, 15:11

Perhaps, in that it is unnecessary. Given that Guernica "was created in response to the bombing of Guernica, a Basque Country village in northern Spain, by German and Italian warplanes,"* the title is, like Weston's, literal, practical and succinct. When you first encountered the painting and had your "holy cow" moment--assuming you were ignorant of the history before you looked it up--the title was effectively meaningless to you. I don't see how this would be any different if the painting was untitled and you looked up info about it afterwards.

Jonathan

EDIT: Kirk, rereading this I'm afraid my tone may sound a bit harsh. That's not my intent. I have pretty strong feelings about this subject, as you can tell, and there is some psychic spillover happening here. :)

*From Wikipedia.

I don't think you understood my point I saw a repro of the painting when I was a kid and thought it was beautiful and powerful. Then I saw the title and looked it up in the dictionary and learned about the history surronding the painting. Without the title I may not have done that. The title is essential to experienceing the painting.

Kirk Gittings

27-Jul-2013, 15:25

Finally, today after reading your post, I decided to look up images about the Guernica bombing. Picasso does not do George Steer's photography justice. The town was firebombed into a ruin. Steer's photography makes Picasso's painting look like a garish hodgepodge in desperate need of 1,000 words.

That is your opinion, but not mine. Picasso's painting does not have to do justice to George Steer's photos. It is about Guernica. Even if he was moved by Steer's photographs the painting is not about the photographs. And yes the painting is enlivened by the history just as George Steers' photographs are (without some backstory those images could have been from any of dozens of cities in WWII-the "1000" word history makes it personal and makes them much richer documents). Personally as art I find the painting more compelling-perhaps because those image of bombed out cities from WWII are mind numbing at this point.

Leigh

27-Jul-2013, 15:48

You might get lucky and, by chance, yield a powerful image.
Why should an image be "powerful"?

Here we have another example of you spouting opinion in the guise of universal truth.

- Leigh

Kirk Gittings

27-Jul-2013, 16:00

Andres Serrano's 'Piss Christ ("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ)' is a counter-example. If you take away the description and the title of that work you are left with a much less interesting--and far less controversial--image. Since that photo requires text to make its point, I would argue that makes it a mixed media image rather than a stand-alone photograph. It has always bewildered me that overlaying text across the surface of a photograph makes it "mixed media," but adding a block of explanatory text on the wall next to it does not.

Jonathan

I have been thinking about this very point and I completely agree with this. And to those who would say "see its is not pure photography then" I would say who cares?

stradibarrius

27-Jul-2013, 16:24

Often I don't know what I want my shot to look like, I see something that catches my eye but when I see it I know if I succeeded or not by if I like what I see.

Greg Miller

27-Jul-2013, 16:44

Why should an image be "powerful"?

Here we have another example of you spouting opinion in the guise of universal truth.

- Leigh

Should I apologize for having an opinion and expressing it? Feel free to put me on your ignore list. Given that you are among the most negative people on this board (in my opinion) and repeatedly take hostile attitudes towards others, I won't be offended in the least.

sanking

27-Jul-2013, 16:49

And of course curiosity, serendipity, and good (or bad) fortune are big parts of all art. But the foundation is knowing as well as possible how to predict what the final image will look like. We know that the camera will see light and perspective differently than our eye (so we learn to recognize good light even if the light is not good to our eye). We have built a vision. We have a keen sense of composition. That is the foundation. Put curiosity on top of that foundation and wonderful things can happen. Curiosity with no foundation is simply a game of roulette. If one is primarily curious how a scene will look when photographed without that foundation, how does one decide where to stand, what lens to select, when to trip the shutter?

And so I think the first, and most important, question is to ask ourselves is what we want the final image to look like. If we have that goal, we can try to execute it. We make mistakes and learn. But eventually we get better at it, and that's when our curiosity can flourish.

Foundation, curiosity to discover and explore, and execution.

Sounds like a good path to me.

Sandy

Jim Jones

27-Jul-2013, 16:51

Titles serve one practical function: they identify familiar art to us in discussion. Also, to paraphrase a comment about frames: quality art often deserves a title or explanation; poor art needs that.

sanking

27-Jul-2013, 19:36

I have been thinking about this very point and I completely agree with this. And to those who would say "see its is not pure photography then" I would say who cares?

From the perspective of someone who is interested in making photography and not mixed-media art I care.

Why should one not care?

Sandy

Leigh

27-Jul-2013, 20:04

Given that you are among the most negative people on this board (in my opinion)...
Ah. The standard argumentum ad hominem.

I definitely am negative, when such is appropriate. I'm also helpful and complimentary when that's appropriate.

- Leigh

Greg Miller

27-Jul-2013, 21:05

Ah. The standard argumentum ad hominem.

Is an ad hominem responding to an ad hominem still an ad hominem? I'm thinking they just cancel each other out.

But seriously, you didn't answer my question. Should I apologize for having an opinion and expressing it? How is anything I have written here any more spouting opinion in the guise of universal truth than anything anyone else has written here including you?

Kirk Gittings

27-Jul-2013, 21:21

From the perspective of someone who is interested in making photography and not mixed-media art I care.

Why should one not care?

Sandy

You are welcome to care. I don't.

Bill Burk

27-Jul-2013, 22:21

The thought that occurs to me throughout reading this thread is... It can't be that complicated.

I think the photograph should merely be a conversation. If it stands alone, then it should say plainly what I had in mind. If I am there to explain it, I might say something like "It's a shiprock, and I was looking to show what gave it the name and some feeling about the awe it inspires when seen in the moody light of a storm, like a ship lost at sea." "But when I got there it was sunny so I waited until dusk and got what came closest to my idea..."

p.s. Robert Langham took the pictures of Shiprock. I don't know if that's what was going through your mind...

stradibarrius

28-Jul-2013, 06:14

We are all created equal with regards to rights, freedoms etc but we are not all created equal when it come to athletic ability, creativity, intelligence. Sometimes our execution of a photograph may require a title to "complete" the intended effect. Sometimes the image is strong enough on it's own to stand alone. I don't think we can say that if an image is benefitted by a title it is a weaker than an image with does not. I agree with Jim, titles do serve a useful and practical purpose...to identify one photo from another. One thing I have learned from this entire thread is that I am not the only one who does not always have a specific "statement" when I take a photo. It seems that others of you, that post work that I enjoy, sometimes take shots just because.

Brian Ellis

28-Jul-2013, 08:28

. . . It has always bewildered me that overlaying text across the surface of a photograph makes it "mixed media," but adding a block of explanatory text on the wall next to it does not. . . . Jonathan

The difference in my experience is that overlaying text across the surface of a photograph in an "art" context (as opposed, for example, to an ad) is done by the photographer and rarely if ever is done to literally "explain" the photograph (the purpose is often a mystery to me, I saw a lot of that when taking college art/photography courses and it often struck me as just an attempt by a student to be "arty"). Occasionally the photograph is background for the text/message (e.g. much of Barbara Kruger's work). But whatever the reason, that kind of text is put there by the photographer to be read in the context of the photograph and to serve some purpose other than to literally "explain" the photograph.

Putting a block of "explanatory" text on the wall next to the photograph is different. It often isn't even written by the photographer, who had no idea of what the "text" would say or even that there would ever be a "text." It's usually written by a third-party to . . well, to literally "explain" something about the photograph or the photographer. But it's often not part of the photograph and was never intended by the photographer to be a part of it.

As for titles, there's many different kinds of titles used for many different purposes. Some titles just give the location of the photograph, some distinguish one photograph of a subject from other photographs by the same photographer of the same subject (e.g. Pepper #30), some attempt to explain or enhance the photograph. Some are needed to give meaning to the photograph (your example of "Piss Christ" comes to mind). Some call attention to what interested the photographer about the subject. Some "titles" just say "untitled," presumably because the photographer wants the viewer to consider the photograph on its own, without regard to whatever information a title
might provide.

There's probably other kinds and purposes of "titles" too but those come immediately to mind. So I don't know that there's much purpose to discussing "titles" as though there's a such a thing as a generic "title," all of the same kind used for the same reason.

andreios

28-Jul-2013, 10:40

Reading through this thread I remember a sentence from William Clift. Listen here: http://youtu.be/zJHC2n59cf8?t=7m42s

paulr

28-Jul-2013, 10:56

IMO, trying to say something usually results in less interesting art than trying to discover something.

The exceptions are when artists ends up discovering more than they were trying to say.

I don't see evidence that most artists have unusually interesting things to say. But they're often quite sensitive to possibilities and mysteries and relationships and connotations.

People who claim to fully "understand" what they're doing at the point of clicking the shutter are either deluded, or working at making something quite limited and boring.

Bill Burk

28-Jul-2013, 11:53

Sometimes our execution of a photograph may require a title to "complete" the intended effect. Sometimes the image is strong enough on it's own to stand alone. I don't think we can say that if an image is benefitted by a title it is a weaker than an image with does not.

My latest "interesting" print, done on a tiny format (which detracts from its message - it SHOULD have been done LF)... Would be sabotaged by a title.

What appears on the surface to be primitive cave painting of a large fish or whale... is in actuality a bass painted on the street as part of a series of fish that outline the crosswalk in front of Bass Pro.

Brian C. Miller

28-Jul-2013, 12:16

That is your opinion, but not mine. Picasso's painting does not have to do justice to George Steer's photos. It is about Guernica. Even if he was moved by Steer's photographs the painting is not about the photographs. And yes the painting is enlivened by the history just as George Steers' photographs are (without some backstory those images could have been from any of dozens of cities in WWII-the "1000" word history makes it personal and makes them much richer documents). Personally as art I find the painting more compelling-perhaps because those image of bombed out cities from WWII are mind numbing at this point.

I just can't find it within myself to be blasé about things like this:

http://www.theprisma.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/No-mas-horrores-al-estilo-Guernica3.jpg

What does a photograph like that say? Besides, "Guernica Bombing, 1937," what other interpretation is needed? When I first saw Guernica in the World Book Encyclopedia as a child, it was intriguing, but it needs a lot of explanation. You posted a link to a 1-hour presentation. The painting is dramatic, but it is so removed in its symbolism from the actual occurance that it needs a great deal of explanation.

Photographs present. The shutter opens, and a moment of time is recorded. The shutter closes. A vague memory is trapped. The image is presented later. It can be printed as-is, or manipulated. But what manipulation does the above photograph need?

It is what it is.

Darin Boville

28-Jul-2013, 12:36

Just a comment on Piss Christ.

Serrano was making a number of images at the time involving bodily fluids--while the title is certainly informative as to which fluid is in the image any informed viewer of his work might have suspected it was urine.

Following that thought, the title, Piss Christ, does very little if anything to "explain" or "give meaning to" the image as there are only two elements in the image--the plastic Christ figure and the urine.

What no one has mentioned is the strange, beautiful glow of the print--surprising coming from this crowd where a similar sense of beauty is highly valued. Standing in front of the image (doesn't come through in web size images) one is sort of torn between admiring the golden-reddish glow and the knowledge that it is urine. That alone is an interesting experience.

--Darin

Kirk Gittings

28-Jul-2013, 13:04

FWIW Brian I am far from blase about these things. Reading about the Spanish Civil War shaped many of my political ideas that I still hold today and created a reference point that fed my activism to this day.

sanking

28-Jul-2013, 13:59

You are welcome to care. I don't.

Of course I am welcome to care, and I did not need your permission on that.

Your original message seemed to be an assertion that there is no reason to care. If that is your opinion, fine. But your opinion is not a universal fact, and an educated person should know that.

Sandy

Kirk Gittings

28-Jul-2013, 15:15

sanking

28-Jul-2013, 16:48

Sandy you are reading way too much into this. When I said "I would say who cares?" I meant it as a personal statement. Nothing more nothing less. If you do great. I personally don't. The question of what is pure photography doesn't interest me whether it involves I get cranky over these discussions because in my world they frankly seem so irrelevant.

Whether or not something is photography, or pure photography, has absolutely nothing at all in my mind to do with "the question of analogue or digital manipulation, "born wet", digital is not "photography", paring images with text, using informative or suggestive titles, blah." And it has nothing to do with process, either historical or contemporary. An image is a photograph to the extent that it is a depiction of something that was real, and to the extent that the depiction is "reasonably" faithful to what was captured on film or on the digital sensor.

Now, many people use photography to make art by combining different windows of capture, or by combining the real with the imaginary, and/or other means of mixed media. It is not my intention to question the validity of this type of work.

To make this personal, all of your images "seem" to me to be true photographs because they offer a window on something that existed in a given window of time. However, if you stuck an image of a shaman, or of flying pigs or frogs, in the sky over the ruins of Chaco canyon that might be called art based on photography, and whatever other media you used to create the shaman or frogs and pigs. But it would not be photography as I understand it.

Sandy

Kirk Gittings

29-Jul-2013, 11:09

IMO, trying to say something usually results in less interesting art than trying to discover something.

The exceptions are when artists ends up discovering more than they were trying to say.

People who claim to fully "understand" what they're doing at the point of clicking the shutter are either deluded, or working at making something quite limited and boring.

Absolutely. I continually find new meaning (and new relationships between images) in images of mine decades old. Part of it is that I (as both the author and after a time part of the audience) have changed and experience it differently. That has taught me to trust my gut when making images (wow this is intriguing but I don't know why-shoot it).

DrTang

29-Jul-2013, 11:22

either: that looks cool

or

(most) people are gonna hate this

sometimes both at once

John Berry

30-Jul-2013, 01:40

When the shot talked to me, it was in tongues, so your on your own. I was just out scratching an itchy release finger.

Michael Graves

30-Jul-2013, 04:32

I've been following this thread with a mixture of interest and boredom. Some of the posts are outstanding. Still it seems to me that the most common thing that most of us are saying when we shoot is "Get the #%%$ out of my picture!" Or maybe that's just me.

Robert Langham

30-Jul-2013, 08:15

Good time to recommend "Art and Fear" by Ted Orland and David Bayles and their follow-up book: "The View from the Studio Door."

Brian Ellis

30-Jul-2013, 08:26

Absolutely. I continually find new meaning (and new relationships between images) in images of mine decades old. Part of it is that I (as both the author and after a time part of the audience) have changed and experience it differently. That has taught me to trust my gut when making images (wow this is intriguing but I don't know why-shoot it).

I read somewhere that going back to older photographs and liking them for whatever reason when you didn't like them the first time around is at least partly because the first time you remembered what you were trying to accomplish with the photograph. When the photograph didn't accomplish that you passed over it. Then you go back years later and you look at it simply as a photograph, without being colored by your original intent which you likely don't even remember. Made sense to me.

Kirk Gittings

30-Jul-2013, 08:30

I can see that happening but I was not referring to that really. I'm referring to even images of mine that have been widely exhibited and published earlier that I haven't hung on a wall and really looked at in a while acquire new meanings because I have changed, had new experiences etc. that I now bring to the image viewing experience.

Kirk Gittings

30-Jul-2013, 08:31

Good time to recommend "Art and Fear" by Ted Orland and David Bayles and their follow-up book: "The View from the Studio Door."

Hmmmm my good friend Pietrzak just gave me that book last Thursday........

stradibarrius

30-Jul-2013, 12:03

Brian, I think this is a really good point. I have found this to be true for me as well.

I read somewhere that going back to older photographs and liking them for whatever reason when you didn't like them the first time around is at least partly because the first time you remembered what you were trying to accomplish with the photograph. When the photograph didn't accomplish that you passed over it. Then you go back years later and you look at it simply as a photograph, without being colored by your original intent which you likely don't even remember. Made sense to me.

Merg Ross

30-Jul-2013, 12:52

Gene Meatyard used to develop his film once a year --- a procedure that gave him ample time to forget his original intent!

But seriously, have you ever asked an individual who responds favorably to one of your photographs ---why? What does he see, what is the message received? Perhaps both responses are quite different from your intent. Which is precisely why I believe that the message, if there need be one, is dependent upon what the viewer brings to the experience. My obligation to communicate has been fulfilled once the print is offered for viewing. However, I can learn a great deal about my work from the viewer --- if I always knew what I was trying to say, I probably would have given up photography decades ago, about the time I wrote my last artist statement!

paulr

30-Jul-2013, 13:21

if I always knew what I was trying to say, I probably would have given up photography decades ago, about the time I wrote my last artist statement!

Milan Kundera suggested that if the novels you write aren't at least a little smarter than you are, you should consider a different line of work.

I think this could apply to all the arts. Good art is smarter than the limited perspectives and certainties of its creator. It's expansive and layered and open to multiple readings. Like the world!! If it were just a single, closed statement, wouldn't we tire of it quickly?

To play the devil's advocate on artist statements, I'd suggest that there's no imperative declare what you're trying to say. A statement lets you say where you were coming from, what attracted you or horrified you, and possibly some of what you discovered. A good statement will open doors, not close them. Instead of giving viewers less room to move around, it turns up the lights in the catacombs, so they can see more and wander farther. End Devilspeak.

Brian Sims

30-Jul-2013, 14:18

This is a fascinating thread. What if we split the question into two?
1. What are you trying to say with a photograph that is not part of the subjects you usually explore?
2. What are you trying to say with a series of photographs of a subject you keep coming back to?
For me the answer to #1 is often, "I just thought it was interesting and wanted to keep a record of it for myself."
The answer to #2 is more complex. The answer may not be at all clear at the beginning. I spend a lot of time thinking about why this subject interests me. And I begin to clarify what I am trying to say by showing people the images, asking them about their reactions, and going back to the subject again and again.
For example, a few years ago, I began to shoot the bark of Madonna trees. I thought I was just interested in the textures and colors. But that evolved into an effort to reveal how sensuous and skin-like the bark is. My message was getting clearer (until some of my friends started to accuse me of shooting tree porn).
Perhaps the response to the original question depend on whether the photographer tends to have wide ranging interests in subject matter or whether the photographer, like myself, tends to become obsessed with one or two subjects. The question about "what are you trying to say?" may not resonate with the former and may really turn the cranks of the latter.