Does it have to say anything?

[RodinalDuchamp]

Yeah, but to say sometimes photos are just good photos doesn't say much to speak about. There must be more underlying.

Yes but this is radically different from photographing with intent in mind.

Whatever is communicated is inherently in the picture itself. Of course the viewers own perspective and experiences will come into play at some point. I'm OK with this.

[RodinalDuchamp]

That's the dominant state of Fine Art academia today, especially in photography. You chose to play in their house by their rules, so there you are. Good luck with the uphill battle; you'll be somewhat analogous to a musician trying to play classical etudes for a crowd that came to hear Pussy Riot.

lol yes it does feel that way - sometimes. Fortunately the photo professors are very understanding of this dilemma since they too have lived it already.

It's good to hear what you guys have to say.

[Peter Lewin]

My vote goes with the comments that suggest that the photo itself may not "say anything," but that a good photograph engages the viewer, so in that sense the viewer says something.

But we are also sailing very close to the idea that the viewer should be able to intuit the photographer's intention. While this might be true in some cases, I'm tempted to paraphrase from memory an anecdote on this subject from Sally Mann's "Hold Still" (which I just finished, so it hasn't yet deserted my short-term memory ):

Eudora Welty (the author) was giving a talk about her writing, including a short story which involved a piece of pound cake. As Sally tells it, a couple of PhD candidates in the back were excited during the question and answer session, and asked Ms. Welty what made her think of the pound cake as a symbol for yin and yang, or black and white (Welty is a "Southern" writer!). Ms. Welty considered the question, and replied, "Well, the recipe has been in my family for many years..." (i.e. for her, the cake wasn't symbolic, it was just part of her everyday life). So to state the obvious, the viewer's or listener's ability to intuit the creator's intent is marginal at best.

[jp]

What I am fighting are post modern principles forcefully applied to a modern art (photography).

I'm sorta weaving back and forth over the line between photography as a modern art and photography as a pictorialism/arts&crafts thing. It's my choice. No police are going to come along and tell me to stay in a certain lane. Rhetorically, if you're fighting post modern photography, that means you're either fighting by your self or with someone on the side of post modern photography. I do enjoy surrealist photography but I think conceptualization is a very small part of that genre and don't consider it post modern. Sorry for not much of an answer, but do what works for you rather than fight.

[Greg Miller]

Moderators please move of this isn't the right forum.


I've been photographing everything I find interesting. I think anytime 2 or more images are shown together a third dialog begins to develop.

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.

Now this isn't about writing or even speaking about the pictures. It's a question of at what point is the message coming through on its own, why force the work to be something other than what it is.

I'd like to hear some of your opinions on this as I know many of you have had quite successful careers as artists.

Putting aside documentary photography (maybe), photography is an expressive art. Just like dance, sculpture, painting, music,... Expressive arts just move the viewer in some way. If it doesn't what is the point? Why ask the viewer to invest time seeing a photo if it does not move them in some way? Player pianos are technically perfect, but express nothing. They are boring as hell after the third time you hear it - its purely a technical exercise. When you hear a really good musician, you feel moved by their music.

[mdarnton]

I don't think the question is so much HOW you say it but IF you say it. For that we need to see some photos. You got photos? Otherwise it's all just talk, and talk is definitely not photography at all. :-)

[Bruce Watson]

Does it have to say anything?

Yes it does. But it only has to say something to you. That doesn't preclude it saying something to lots of people. But it has to say something to you, directly; otherwise you won't make the photograph.

Plenty of photographers have that (those) special photograph(s) that means something to them that no one else understands. As it should be. I actually didn't feel like I knew what I was trying to do until I produced a few of those.

I've got one of those up on my dining room wall. My wife gets it. No one else seems to. The usual comment is "what a pretty picture of a tree". Often my wife and I will exchange looks then, and a sly smile will cross her face. Just sayin'.

[mdm]

Photographs do communicate something, but it's not always evident to the photographer what is being communicated. Atget just made photographs without pretension, but they communicated something extremely important and are still relevant today. Personally, I like Jonathan's approach because if we just get out of the way and respond to what we see intuitively including the backstory, this was my granny's vase, flower for my lover, ancient trade route, the quality of light, the state of your mind, those things are there in the photograph. But if you use your mind alone the result will be mechanical, or theatrical, and that is often the case when you start lf photography and you are too busy whith the mechanics of the process and is often the case with modern photography. What is a selfie if not theatre? Perhaps all art is political but not all photography is art, and the greatest art transcends politics and the mind and pierces the heart.

[Joe O'Hara]

Many interesting perspectives here.

Personally I agree with what Beethoven said (@16).

[Greg Miller]

Personally, I like Jonathan's approach because if we just get out of the way and respond to what we see intuitively including the backstory, this was my granny's vase, flower for my lover, ancient trade route, the quality of light, the state of your mind, those things are there in the photograph.

The problem I have with this approach is understanding why a scene moves you helps select the optimal camera position, lens, aperture, shutter speed, ... If you are not connected with your own feelings enough to know why a scene moves you, then your chances of success are pretty low. And if you are skilled and practiced enough with your equipment and process (what some people refer to as craft), then there is no fear of becoming mechanical. You can assemble your camera and choose a lens without requiring enough thought to shift the brain from the right hemisphere. Being mechanical, or very left brain occupied, occurs when the mechanics require enough attention to cause one to shift from right brain to left brain. Musicians become musical when that have mastered the technical aspects of their instrument enough that the brain can stay right hemisphere dominated. But ask a master guitar player to play a tough piece musically after not touching his.her instrument for a year, and they will struggle. Master ballet dancers are not thinking mechanics when they dance, they are thinking expression. They know what they are trying to express and the mechanics are not a dominant thought.