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

[Leigh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.



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.

[stradibarrius]

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]

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

[Leigh]

"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]

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]

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.