"what were you trying to say" with that photograph???

[Doremus Scudder]

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]

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]

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.

[jp]

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]

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.

[Vaughn]

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

[Greg Miller]

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 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]

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]

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]

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

Jonathan