Does it have to say anything?

[koh303]

I am in school and there is a very heavy influence of conceptualism and post modern ideals I find myself constantly fighting. Because I tend to lean toward not thinking or planning about what I am trying to "say" with my pictures. I feel they say enough on their own.

That is what MFA or art education in general is for. If you were thinking about getting an education, you are wasting your time (and money).
If you thought you would learn something - you have it all right there - learn to talk about your work outside of what you planned/thought/did not think it might or would or could be. Thats all art education is.

If you are only starting out (i would guess this is the end of your first year of and MFA, though who knows), then you still have time to stop, take the money and invest it (real estate might be a good thing if you live in SF or Boston...), and if you are a senior in a BFA program, than you are late to the party.

[dsphotog]

Who coined the term "Post-rationalization"?

[Peter De Smidt]

Just because someone doesn't consciously consider reasons for taking a photograph, whether before or after taking it, it doesn't mean that they haven't thought about it. Not all thought is conscious.

[LabRat]

I believe creating any visual work is a statement (of sorts)...

We probably create as an extension of our survival mechanism... Way, way back when, we had to create our way out of troubles to survive , such as eating, staying warm, staying alive, reproducing, etc... Later we started to sense our lives had meaning, so the hunts were drawn on the cave walls, to mark that in our evolving sense of limited time here... And that we were developing a sense of order... We followed our instincts, and we developed a more and more complicated order along the way... We formed communities that were a mutual benefit for all there... As people became more numerous, individuals had to "invent" new perspectives/ideas/processes to get ahead of the "crowd" to have more to survive with, then to find something as one's own... (And we even went as far as to question the very things we had developed...)

So we have a long tradition as humans to create, and make order of things... (and sometimes destroy order!!! Things got REALLY complicated!!!!!!)

But back to pix, we are usually trying to make something say (at least) something, (pretty/ugly/big/tiny/unexpected/likable/empty/crowded etc, on and on and on...) We pick up on that stuff...

Or reverse that and let the subject reveal and speak... (Pretty flower/creepy slum, on and on and on) Or letting the camera pick up on the unseen...

So we are always thinking through this "filter"... And this will be reflected in the final result...

As photogs, we have a complicated balancing act going on where we have a process that we're trying to keep within it's scales, and keep outside problems from wrecking that balance, learn to work with hardware that might be more or less responsive to what we are trying to do, keep things within budget limits, put ourselves out there to lift and think about how to apply the hardware, to make the right technical calls so as to fit into those scales, (and not screw-up!!!) deal with the environment we will be in, AND still have the instincts to create order within the frame!!!! (Often of what's there or NOT there!!!) Then bring it all home for the next steps of the process...

So we better make our visual statement count!!!! Try to make/let a miracle happen!!!! It's in your genes!!!!!

Life's too short for empty art!!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve K

[John Kasaian]

An interesting post.
I'm working on two series right now which definitely say something--- but I'm not the one saying it---the subject says it all in ways far more eloquent than I am even remotely capable of---I'm merely recording it on film.
Landscapes for me are different. I figure if I like being there, it's likely someone else would like being there but since they aren't, I want to share the exprience with them

[Leszek Vogt]

Unless one takes aimless snaps, most of us leave a soul residue of ourselves in the images we take. Some people will see it...while others don't. That old adage about G. Canyon keeps returning....where one person sees the beauty (and the details of the landscape) + unusual light, etc. and is excited about it....and the next person....lets just say Homer-like character, who sees is as a massive "hole".

Les

[tgtaylor]

“From the counter[in a roadside diner] where we sat, he had turned and taken a picture of a big car trailer with piled cars, two tiers, pulling in the gravel driveyard, but through the window and right over a scene of leftovers and dishes where a family had just vacated a booth and got in their car and driven off, and the waitress had not had time yet to clear the dishes. The combination of that, plus the movement outside, and the further parked cars, and reflections everywhere in chrome, glass and steel of cars, cars, road, road. I suddenly realized I was taking a trip with a genuine artist and that he was expressing himself in an artform that was not unlike my own and yet fraught with a thousand difficulties quite unlike those of my own.” Jack Kerouac on Robert Frank in On the Road to Florida published Evergreen Review, No. 74.

Thomas

[Greg Miller]

Well, I've done it a lot, and don't think it's such an odd practice. You do what feels right and hope for the best. Your feelings and intuitions are probably informed by a lot of experience (and thinking about that experience) so it's not like this is actually a naive process. You didn't pop out of the womb and pick up the camera.

I think it's later on, when you have enough pictures to start crafting a body of work, when the kind of clarity and articulation you're talking about becomes important. It's a rare genius who can shape a coherent body of work without thinking clearly about it.

I'm usually working on something that's new to me, and I'm trying to stretch myself. So it's not so surprising that it might take a while to figure out just what's attracting me, and what's going on on all those different layers.

I'm not suggesting you can't it. But it seems logical that the more in tune you are with why a scene moves you, the better the odds are for success, or at least making the photograph better. I think you congorm that in your last paragraph.

[jp]

I was on a road call for work today and I got to listen to a couple CDs getting there and back. I had brought along some classics. First was No Doubt's Rock Steady album. I'm 40, male, and married and Gwen's lyrics don't resonate with me, but the music is so very good and inspired and the album is made to play continously where the lead in track 1 picks up from the last track. I then listened to a Bjork remix, then a little bit of Cranberries and a little bit of Natalie Merchant. Cranberries and Merchant, the mood communicated is more powerful than the lyrics. Sometimes I listen to Phish; "A picture of nectar" album ;it shows plainly that the music is more important than the message since half the lyrics are nonsense made to sound good with the music. Last election cycle, Rage against the machine was PO'd that one of the right wing candidates appreciated their music; clearly the mood/emotion makes the lyrics/message secondary.

I think photos are often the same way to various extents.

Some photographers really want to communicate a message with the medium. Others just want to make cool/beautiful/moody music. I think some photographers pair up with a message to get some extra exposure and mileage and it works well for them (Such as various famous photographers associated with the Sierra club).

[RodinalDuchamp]

I am a former graduate student with a PhD in history, and I think Mark Sawyer's comments about playing by the school's rules are good advice. If the goal is to learn and obtain a diploma, then fighting the system is not very helpful. There were times I just said to myself, "Okay, I'll play their silly game, but will go my own way once I have that diploma."

Even so, it might be helpful to go see faculty members and talk about the issue. They may agree with you--and they recognize which students use art-speak as a smokescreen to hide a lack of genuine creativity and vision.

But deep inside me is the sense that successful photographers and other artists are able to talk honestly and openly about their own work and motivations in a way that makes sense to whatever kind of audience they are addressing. School is a good time to develop that ability, and it is a worthwhile goal.

Keith

Duly noted.

I am not fighting the school or professors at all. If I don't play by their rules I don't finish.

But I always consider myself in school even if I'm not in a college. I've learned tremendously from this forum not only technically but about the art world, galleries, dealings and such. And generally I trust the advice and viewpoints here because they are so diverse and for the most part sincere.