# Does a photograph have to tell a story or convey a feeling?



## batmura (Aug 10, 2013)

Have you ever thought whether it's a photographer's mission to tell a story or convey a certain feeling with their work? Every now and then, I read on different photography forums where people ask for C&C, and someone will invariably ask them what they wanted to express with the photo in question. Is this perhaps an indirect way of saying it's not a good shot? Or do these people honestly believe each photo that is taken has to tell a story? Can't the photographer simply take a picture because they liked seeing the scene and wanted to capture it without actually giving it a deeper thought? Does this kind of thinking necessarily suggest not much thought and effort was put into making the said photograph?

I myself often finf myself giving likes or complimentary comments to phoyos because of the simple fact that I believe they were beautifully captured, exposed, and composed. I don't seek a meaning or "story" behind a photo? In fact, whatever meaning the viewer assigns to the photo is nothing but a reflection of one's self and there is no way we can infer the intended story behind it.

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## SCraig (Aug 10, 2013)

In my personal opinion as a superficial person a photograph should evoke a "Feeling" but not necessarily tell a story.  That "Feeling" can be as simple as an appreciation for the exposure and composition or the emotion of the moment or simply the beauty of the scene.  If I have to stare at a photograph to try and find a hidden meaning or story in it then I'll just move on to the next one.


----------



## KmH (Aug 10, 2013)

batmura said:


> *Does a photograph have to tell a story or convey a feeling?*


No.

If it does tell a story, often the photographer is the only person that knows the story.
However, a story told by some photographs is pretty obvious to most people.

By the same token, any feelings an image invokes in a viewer is usually more about the viewer than the photographer.


----------



## SIDIOUS (Aug 10, 2013)

For me as one who wants to take photos, I want to take photos of my favorite things to look at in high quality!
That's my personal reason for photography, I have little intention of telling stories!

What you want as is photographer, like all forms of art, is *Up To YOU!
*If you are taking pictures for people, especially if you are being paid for it, like any *Business* you should find out what your customer wants, if its a story they want you to tell, then take pics that tell stories, or what ever others may want!


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 10, 2013)

If you want to win a Pullitzer with it, then probably.

If you just want a good image, then not necessarily.

I think what people mean when they say "what were you going for here" is less so about "story" and more so about "What did you find photographically worthy in this scene?  What made you stop and want to take a picture of this" etc. You SHOULD always know why you're taking a picture, or what is cool about the scene that you want to emphasize (because knowing that will allow you to consciously maximize the impact of that feature of the scene), but that could be something as simple as an arrangement of shapes or a specific color, etc.  Not necessarily a story.


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 10, 2013)

batmura said:


> Can't the photographer simply take a picture because they liked seeing the scene and wanted to capture it without actually giving it a deeper thought?



They "liked" the scene they saw that's a feeling. If they were indifferent about the scene then why bother to take the photo. So you see it was a feeling that made them want to take the image to remember the scene, so why should the photo not try and convey that same feeling.

I think what you are trying to say is that you don't think a photo should be over analyzed.


----------



## weepete (Aug 10, 2013)

For me the best photos allways evoke a feeling or tell a bit of a story or ask a question. Quite often when that question is asked the subject of the photo is not obvious and the person asking the question is asking why the photo was taken. So a pretty landscape can evoke the feeling of wanting to be there, the majesty of nature, the ones that you see and it puts you in the picture and makes you go "wow, I can smell the grass". Sometimes what is trying to be achived is a more abstract concept that is not obvious and it could be that either the exicution does not work or the person asking the question doesn't get it or that the photo is a bit confused. Most often its about trying to get the person who took the photo to think about why they took it and why we should view it.


----------



## play18now (Aug 10, 2013)

In general, I find photographs that I really like are also the photographs that convey more than just an image to me.  Maybe it is the cooler and lighter color saturation that conveys the temperature of a cold morning on a mountain or the warmth and deeper saturation of the last good rays of sunset.  I don't find many photographs with a true "story", unless I'm looking at some sort of photo journal or slideshow.  With single photos however, it is more of a feeling that I get as opposed to a true story.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 10, 2013)

There's lots of things a picture can do, and there's no requirement that it do any of them.

The very best pictures tend to show you some things, and leave other things open the imagination. Sometimes the picture will tell part of a story, and leave some things unclear, unstated. Sometimes a picture might invoke a feeling, but leave some aspects of that feeling open to interpretation. Sometimes it simply shows you a thing or a person, revealing some things but leaving you with questions and curiosity.

"Mona Lisa" shows us a woman, and gives us lots of information about her. Her dress and manner show us a lot of position and social class. Her expression leaves us wondering what she is thinking.

"The Steerage" shows us a lot of stuff about a ship, and about groups of people in social classes, but leaves us perhaps wondering what the man in the white hat sees, or is thinking.

"Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon" packs a LOT of very specific story into a single frame, but leaves us with a ton of questions.

The key with a really great picture is to balance what is shown, what is clear and obvious in the picture, with what is left unstated and ambiguous. If the picture simply tells us the whole story, it's informative but not very interesting. We won't come back to it. If the picture opens a can of questions, but tells us very little, it's frustrating and equally dull. The right balance of things which are shown, told, made clear, and things which are unknown, questions raised, ambiguities, that makes a nice meaty picture we'll come back to over and over.

Lots of pictures, though, are simply pretty. Or informative. Or mysterious. Some of them are even pretty good.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 10, 2013)

I once heard of a photograph that got kicked out of an art gallery for telling dirty jokes.


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 10, 2013)

For me, photojournalism should tell a story while everything else should evoke a feeling.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 10, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I once heard of a photograph that got kicked out of an art gallery for telling dirty jokes.



Two Photos walked into a bar......................:mrgreen:


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 10, 2013)

The short answer is "no".

People who think a photo needs to "say" something irritate me. Most often, being a good image is enough.

Besides, if I want a photo to "say" something, and another person thinks it says something else, who's right?


----------



## Dao (Aug 10, 2013)

I think sometimes it is hard to tell a story from a macro shot of an insect.  Well except  .... a smashed spider.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 11, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Most often, being a good image is enough.



Please define "good image"


----------



## JacaRanda (Aug 11, 2013)

Ball of confusion!


----------



## batmura (Aug 11, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> batmura said:
> 
> 
> > Can't the photographer simply take a picture because they liked seeing the scene and wanted to capture it without actually giving it a deeper thought?
> ...


Actually, what I am trying to say is that it is impossible to evoke the same feelings in the viewer the photographer had while making a photograph. Viewers may like the photo for entirely different feelings. Often times, when I show my friends photos I like they are affected by completely different things, hence my belief that the photographer's feelings are irrelevant as viewers are likely to assign their own meaning to it. Telling the viewer what they are supposed to feel in a photograph or what kind of story it tells defeats the purpose of making that very photograph, in my opinion.


----------



## batmura (Aug 11, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Most often, being a good image is enough.
> ...


We all know it's subjective, hence why the photographer decided to make the photo. There is no way the viewer is supposed to know what the potographer had in mind or wanted to express while taking it. I don't think I *ever* wondered what the photographer wanted to say when I looked and appreciated his work. They more than likely made the photo thinking it would look beautiful for a different reason than my reason for enjoying it.


----------



## SCraig (Aug 11, 2013)

batmura said:


> Actually, what I am trying to say is that it is impossible to evoke the same feelings in the viewer the photographer had while making a photograph. Viewers may like the photo for entirely different feelings. Often times, when I show my friends photos I like they are affected by completely different things, hence my belief that the photographer's feelings are irrelevant as viewers are likely to assign their own meaning to it. Telling the viewer what they are supposed to feel in a photograph or what kind of story it tells defeats the purpose of making that very photograph, in my opinion.



In my opinion there is nothing wrong with that.

People are different.  They have differing views on subjects and they frequently view things in a different light.  My opinion on a subject may be radically different from your view on a subject, but that doesn't make either wrong, only different.

Photographs can certainly be the same way.  While I look at a photograph and appreciate the tack-sharp focus in the detail you may look at it and appreciate the overall composition while someone else may see the even tonal variations.  The photograph contains all three, but different people may only see one.  There's nothing wrong with that.

Additionally, it is possible for one to see something different when they look at a photograph at different times.  Last winter I shot a photograph of some Gulls in flight over a lake.  It wasn't until I got home that I noticed a Great Blue Heron sitting in a tree in the background "Supervising" the Gulls.  What I originally saw, the reason that I took the photograph, completely changed once I saw that Heron in the background.  Again, nothing wrong with that.

Take what you like from a photograph and let others do the same.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Aug 11, 2013)

I think there may be some confusion between "telling a story" and having a central point of interest or "subject". Too many times the viewer is confused and doesn't know what the subject is. Even a landscape needs a central point of focus.


----------



## Dinardy (Aug 11, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Most often, being a good image is enough.
> ...


----------



## table1349 (Aug 11, 2013)

[h=2]Does a photograph have to tell a story or convey a feeling?[/h]Does it have to???..........................*NO!*

Do they tell a story???....................*YES!*

Everyone and everything has a story.  It may not be interesting, it may not be obvious and as humans we many not understand what that story is or even care.  BUT there is a story there.  

As to conveying a feeling, that is up to the viewer as to whether they have a feeling about a particular photo or not.


----------



## weepete (Aug 11, 2013)

I don't by that its impossible to comunicate an idea or emotion through a picture, often that is exactly what art does. Whither and how well a piece communicates this Is more to do with how sucessful it is at getting the message across and how the artist uses the different elements within a work to do that. 

I also don't buy into the no right or wrong opinion camp either. Sure just because you might have a different opinion than me doesn't make your opinion invalid and there are masses of shades of grey in between as well and the best art creates a little debate but thereis standard ways of presenting things to get the artists message across. As humans there are all things we recognise on an instinctive level and some on a cultural level that we use to do this all the time. Facial expressions are a good example of this as we all use similar things to express how we feel and almost all of us recognise certain things, happyness, sadness, suprise, fear etc. Same with other things too, like moody skies or why high key images with brides are popular.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 11, 2013)

batmura said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



The point is that when you start digging around for what "good" means, it's pretty hard to escape arriving eventually at "it evokes a response, a feeling, an emotion, a sense of narrative, or similar, in the viewer" as part of your definition.

You and anyone else is welcome to disagree, but in that case the gauntlet is thrown down: define "good"


----------



## HughGuessWho (Aug 11, 2013)

amolitor said:


> batmura said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...


----------



## table1349 (Aug 11, 2013)

HughGuessWho said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > batmura said:
> ...


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 11, 2013)

batmura said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > batmura said:
> ...



Yes others may be effected my different things but those other people are NOT the ones taking the photo are they. 

Your belief that "the photographer's feelings are irrelevant" is in my opinion crap. 

If the image does not sleek to me as the artist and give me feelings then I will not work on that image. When I show an image to others I don't tell them they have to feel a certain way about it but I find that if I have done a good job with an image that 9 out of 10 people will have a similar feeling.

If you want to call the images YOU make art, YOUR emotions and YOUR feeling absolutely matter.


----------



## batmura (Aug 11, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Your belief that "the photographer's feelings are irrelevant" is in my opinion crap.


Wow, great way of discussing your point. Feel free to ignore my posts from now on as I am not here to hear my views are "crap."


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 11, 2013)

batmura said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > Your belief that "the photographer's feelings are irrelevant" is in my opinion crap.
> ...



Now take that emotion you feel from reading my opinion and put it in a photo.


----------



## batmura (Aug 11, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> batmura said:
> 
> 
> > Light Guru said:
> ...


And you go back to primary school and learn the difference between "effect" and "affect" lol.


----------



## Designer (Aug 11, 2013)

batmura said:


> [h=2]Does a photograph have to tell a story or convey a feeling?[/h]



Have to? No, but I think the more successful photographs usually do.  

Defining "successful" as one that either tells a story or conveys a feeling.


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 11, 2013)

batmura said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > batmura said:
> ...



I'm a visual artist not an writer. 

You started this thread to hear others opinions. I gave you my honest opinion. I did not say that you cannot have your opinion I just said I do not agree with it.


----------



## batmura (Aug 11, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> batmura said:
> 
> 
> > Light Guru said:
> ...


It's others' opinion, not others. They teach that first year in school, you know the function of the apostrophe, lol.

OK, I'll play along and speak your language: your opinion is "crap." Thanks for your valuable contribution to this thread.


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 11, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Most often, being a good image is enough.
> ...



I can't define it, but I know one when I see one...


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 11, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The point is that when you start digging around for what "good" means, it's pretty hard to escape arriving eventually at "it evokes a response, a feeling, an emotion, a sense of narrative, or similar, in the viewer" as part of your definition.



I've been a photographer for over 35 years. In all those years, I've never said that about a photograph...



> You and anyone else is welcome to disagree, but in that case the gauntlet is thrown down: define "good"



That which is not bad.

If you need to "throw down the gauntlet", have at it. It's silly, but enjoy...


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 11, 2013)

Designer said:


> batmura said:
> 
> 
> > *Does a photograph have to tell a story or convey a feeling?*
> ...



Define "feeling"...


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 11, 2013)

If you want to call your photograph art then yes there need to be feeling. 

Art without feeling is like food without taste.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 11, 2013)

Not everyone wants to dig in to "ok, what does 'good' mean, anyways." I get that, I don't really have a problem with that.

It does put you in a rather awkward position when someone says "good _*means*_ that it makes some kind of an intellectual and emotional connection with the viewer" and you'd like to dismiss that idea, though.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 11, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> If you want to call your photograph art then yes there need to be feeling.
> 
> Art without feeling is like food without taste.



Not necessarily. Fine art is defined as art that is created for the sake of beauty. 

Hence all the rather emotional sterile wall art hanging everywhere. Lol


----------



## amolitor (Aug 11, 2013)

How do you know that you have created something beautiful? You know it, because it takes people's breath away. Even the 19th century ideals of simply making pretty pictures were about emotional connection, albeit in a somewhat narrow way.

What do you mean by "emotionally sterile wall art" hanging everywhere, rexbobcat? Do you mean like hotel room art, office art, that kind of thing?


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 11, 2013)

batmura said:


> Have you ever thought whether it's a photographer's mission to tell a story or convey a certain feeling with their work? Every now and then, I read on different photography forums where people ask for C&C, and someone will invariably ask them what they wanted to express with the photo in question. Is this perhaps an indirect way of saying it's not a good shot? Or do these people honestly believe each photo that is taken has to tell a story? Can't the photographer simply take a picture because they liked seeing the scene and wanted to capture it without actually giving it a deeper thought? Does this kind of thinking necessarily suggest not much thought and effort was put into making the said photograph?
> 
> I myself often finf myself giving likes or complimentary comments to phoyos because of the simple fact that I believe they were beautifully captured, exposed, and composed. I don't seek a meaning or "story" behind a photo? In fact, whatever meaning the viewer assigns to the photo is nothing but a reflection of one's self and there is no way we can infer the intended story behind it.
> 
> Any thoughts on this?



Op, me too. I give likes if they just did a OK job. Too much crap on the forums, so an OK shot gets a like from me.

Great photos should be iconic, strong with plenty of mood. You dodn't have to like em, but you will always remember them.


----------



## shaylou (Aug 11, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> If you want to win a Pullitzer with it, then probably.
> 
> If you just want a good image, then not necessarily.
> 
> I think what people mean when they say "what were you going for here" is less so about "story" and more so about "What did you find photographically worthy in this scene?  What made you stop and want to take a picture of this" etc. You SHOULD always know why you're taking a picture, or what is cool about the scene that you want to emphasize (because knowing that will allow you to consciously maximize the impact of that feature of the scene), but that could be something as simple as an arrangement of shapes or a specific color, etc.  Not necessarily a story.




I very much agree with this. I recently visited an art exhibition. It was right then I decided I wanted to take my photography to another level. I was looking at a simple but amazing shot and as I studied it to figure out why I was so drawn to it I realized this. Everything was correct in the shot, composition, exposure etc. But the longer I looked at it the more I liked it. What was so great was the fact that the shot not only pulled me in but it pulled me into the mood of the subject. (painter having coffee after painting a picture). As I studied it, the shot went from good to brilliant because of the story telling and the mood setting it portrayed. So adding to what you have already pointed out, if you are looking to create the a brilliant photographic work of art, yes this is what needs to be done. But I have tons of shots that are nothing more than capturing a pretty scene. So they are both correct imo.


----------



## table1349 (Aug 11, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



I can......

*it* [ it ]   


indicating specific situation: used to refer to a situation just described, or to an unspecified or implied situation
indicating point of view: used to indicate feelings or a viewpoint on a particular situation
indicating something reported: used in the formation of passive sentences reporting a situation


:mrgreen:


----------



## table1349 (Aug 11, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > batmura said:
> ...




Feelings, nothing more than feelings, 
Trying to forget my feelings of love. 
Teardrops rolling down on my face, 
Trying to forget my feelings of love. 

Feelings, for all my life I'll feel it. 
I wish I've never met you, girl; 
You'll Never Come Again.

Feelings, wo-o-o feelings, 
Wo-o-o, feel you again in my arms. 

Feelings, feelings like I've never lost you 
And feelings like i've never have you 
Again in my heart. 

Feelings, for all my life I'll feel it. 
I wish I've never met you, girl;
You'll never come again. 

Feelings, feelings like I've never lost you 
And feelings like i've never have you 
Again in my life. 

Feelings, wo-o-o feelings, 
Wo-o-o, feelings again in my arms. 

Feelings... 

(repeat & fade)


----------



## gloriamint (Aug 12, 2013)

Photography may convey some sorts of feelings. The feelings may be different for different viewer. It is upon the thoughts and views of the viewer only.


----------



## gloriamint (Aug 12, 2013)

Photographs may deliver some sorts of feelings. It is in the viewers view that what they want to see from that photography.


----------



## peter27 (Aug 12, 2013)

Does a photograph have to tell a story or convey a feeling? 

No.

Some do, some don't.

Reasons for this vary.

Most do.

Creating something devoid of meaning is very difficult.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 12, 2013)

peter27 said:


> Does a photograph have to tell a story or convey a feeling?
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



Well, we should be proud because there are many photographers here who do just that, picture after picture.


----------



## peter27 (Aug 12, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> peter27 said:
> 
> 
> > Does a photograph have to tell a story or convey a feeling?
> ...



Oh come on now Lew, are you trying to tell me that you didn't know this place is positively crawling with clever dicks?


----------



## gsgary (Aug 12, 2013)

peter27 said:


> Oh come on now Lew, are you trying to tell me that you didn't know this place is positively crawling with clever dicks?



Im not saying anything


----------



## PixelRabbit (Aug 12, 2013)

Every time a thread like this one comes up I have a short glimmer of hope that it won't degrade into generalities and arguments over semantics but it never fails to disappoint me.

Here is a question, EXACTLY how specific and pointed does a question have to be for some of you to leave the box you have built of your personal truths around photography  and look at different views and areas with an open mind instead of trying to close every door with a definite yes or no answer that catches all or even better scoff at the question?   

Nobody seems to be able to discuss abstract concepts and questions like "should a photograph have meaning?" without trying to make these threads into something bad, how dare we think beyond the mechanics and generalities and want to discuss concepts, ideas and thoughts that are more intangible, undefinable, open to interpretation and opinion.

For ONCE I would love to wake up, grab my coffee, open TPF and find that one of these threads actually generated a respectful, open discussion about the idea or concept presented by the OP instead of degenerated into exactly what we see here for the bazillionth time.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 12, 2013)

amolitor said:


> How do you know that you have created something beautiful? You know it, because it takes people's breath away. Even the 19th century ideals of simply making pretty pictures were about emotional connection, albeit in a somewhat narrow way.
> 
> What do you mean by "emotionally sterile wall art" hanging everywhere, rexbobcat? Do you mean like hotel room art, office art, that kind of thing?



Yes, the kind of art that is nice to look at, but isn't necessarily evocative that hangs in hospital waiting rooms.

And technically something doesn't have to be beautiful to be fine art. It just has to be created with the sole intent of beauty.

That's why I don't consider most postmodernism to be true fine art - not because it's not beautiful to look at, but because most of it seems to have some sort of "message" instead of just being made for aesthetic purposes.

That being said though, it's a very vague line since everyone has a different interpretation, and sometimes people will project their own meaning into a piece of art, even if the artist did not intend for there to be any.


----------



## peter27 (Aug 12, 2013)

PixelRabbit said:


> Every time a thread like this one comes up I have a short glimmer of hope that it won't degrade into generalities and arguments over semantics but it never fails to disappoint me.
> 
> Here is a question, EXACTLY how specific and pointed does a question have to be for some of you to leave the box you have built of your personal truths around photography and look at different views and areas with an open mind instead of trying to close every door with a definite yes or no answer that catches all or even better scoff at the question?
> 
> ...



As I say, creating something with no meaning is practically impossible. Photos do tell stories and do contain a message; whether or not they convey to others what the photographer intended is difficult to know. When a photograph is taken the photographer includes ideas, concepts and notions that they are aware of, but they also include things that they are not conscious of. From a careful analysis of work presented it is possible anyway to learn something of the photographer - if not the photograph. 

Often the problem is we take things too much at face value, without considering for a moment what could be under the surface. How often do you see the word snapshot used as a dismissal? How easy it is to take a photo apart on technical issues - seeing beyond these is more demanding but also very rewarding.

My Position remains the same: No, a photo doesn't have to tell a story or convey a feeling, but you're more likely to find rocking horse poo than one that doesn't.


----------



## SCraig (Aug 12, 2013)

peter27 said:


> ... Often the problem is we take things too much at face value, without considering for a moment what could be under the surface. How often do you see the word snapshot used as a dismissal? How easy it is to take a photo apart on technical issues - seeing beyond these is more demanding but also very rewarding.


That's all I ask: Take my photographs at face value.  Period.  End of story.  There is no hidden meaning, there is no story behind them, there is nothing under the surface.  I don't pretend they are "Art", and to be quite honest based on what I've seen that is considered to be artistic I don't really want them confused with it.  I don't shoot abstracts or anything difficult to understand.  They are primarily bird and wildlife portraits and what you see on the surface is what I intended.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 12, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> Yes, the kind of art that is nice to look at, but isn't necessarily evocative that hangs in hospital waiting rooms.
> 
> And technically something doesn't have to be beautiful to be fine art. It just has to be created with the sole intent of beauty.
> 
> ...



That's where we differ.
My argument with post-modernism is not that there is an idea but that the importance, the value of the image seems to be almost minimal. Everything that is the basis of photography as an art seems to have little or no value in the exhibitions I've seen lately.
The reviews are all about the clarity of the idea and not at all about the execution of the photograph as an expression of the idea.

From my POV an image doesn't have much worth as the product of an individual if it doesn't reach out and grab some part of my consciousness. 
If its just pretty capture, it might as well have a calendar underneath it.
I want to see the mind and eye of the photographer who sees something and captures that to show me.

All that being said, I just came across the site of a street photographer named* Peter Turnley*. 
His work is wonderful and certainly as good as I've seen and perhaps the best.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Aug 12, 2013)

peter27 said:


> PixelRabbit said:
> 
> 
> > Every time a thread like this one comes up I have a short glimmer of hope that it won't degrade into generalities and arguments over semantics but it never fails to disappoint me.
> ...



Now that I have a full coffee into me and I've ranted I'll take some time and respond with my own thoughts 

I agree with you on the bolded part but a little different, I think it is impossible to create a photograph that doesn't elicit a response from us.  That response can be anything from dismissal for a myriad of reasons to touching us profoundly and a million points in between.  

The photos we find effective today in the digital world where we are visually inundated tend to be photos that provide us with something we didn't have or haven't seen prior to viewing the shot, we have a personal connection to, or fall into a genre that we personally enjoy but each and every effective photograph catches our attention and makes us stop and look for more than a cursory glance. 

The photographs we look at, and I mean REALLY look at, not the ones we  skim over as our brain quickly relays that it is shot of a rose, puppy,  kitten, Grand Canyon, Eiffel Tower, waterfall etc... catch our eye for a  reason, they hit a personal trigger for us that makes us stop and THAT  is what I think we should all be striving for, it's not necessarily a  "feeling" but it certainly can be, but we have to hit that trigger in  each shot we take to make it effective within our intention while taking  the shot.

 Whether that trigger is teaching us what engine part A and part B look like and how they fit together, a beautiful bird, or a piece of art that expresses our own emotions you have to hit it and make people *stop* first and look at YOUR shot of the engine parts, bird, waterfall, event etc to infinity.

In the case that you have no interest in "competing" with the other stuff that is out there and you enjoy this hobby on a personal level I would venture to say that the same applies, you have to hit your own trigger, you just have a much smaller audience to cater to


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> If you want to call your photograph art then yes there need to be feeling.



And I acknowledge that you have that opinion.

But that's all it is...



> Art without feeling is like food without taste.



But it's still food...


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...



If ever there was a reason to permanently ban someone...

:mrgreen:


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

amolitor said:


> It does put you in a rather awkward position when someone says "good _*means*_ that it makes some kind of an intellectual and emotional connection with the viewer" and you'd like to dismiss that idea, though.



It's not an awkward position at all.

And where was that idea dismissed? It's fine if that occurs. My point is that it doesn't necessarily have to...


----------



## amolitor (Aug 12, 2013)

The word "snapshot" is used dismissively, but should not be. All a "snapshot" is, is a picture that has meaning and connection for a smaller audience. It may well make up for that limited audience by the intensity of the connection. The blurry polaroid of grandma at her 97th, and last, birthday, is just a snapshot. It means nothing to you, or to me, but it means a very great deal to her children and their children.

Allied to "snapshot" is "vernacular photography" where meaning is built up from a collection of "snapshots" taken together as a record, as a narrative perhaps, but at any rate as a larger document of something like humanity or society or life. It's snapshots re-thought, and understood in the context of those fragments of intense personal meaning that a snapshot has. While the snapshot of grandma means nothing to me, 10 snapshots of 10 grandmas begins to mean something to me, as I begin to understand that each of these has an intense personal connection for some people I do not know. I begin, perhaps, to get a little sense of what grandmas mean to people in such and such a society.

Something as apparently bland and uninteresting as a product photograph, if done well, is all about creating an emotional connection with a potential buyer. The banal but technically perfect picture of the Stratocaster -- if it's working as intended -- makes me want to rock out. It makes me want to possess that object.

Professional portraits, wedding photos, etc, are from this perspective really much the same as snapshots. They're technically good ones, but they connect with a very small audience, they have emotional weight for the bride, groom, and family and (as a general rule) for nobody else. They're not even as interesting as vernacular photography, being polished and artificial, they tend to give any personal interest. They're beautifully crafted memory cues, and not much more.

And so it goes. Art is something else entirely.

rexbobcats' hotel/hospital/office pictures mostly exist to match color schemes and create mood. But, together with the bedspread, the wallpaper, and the fabrics used in the chairs, they contribute, in however small a way, to whatever overall feeling the room creates. Well done, the room is restful, or excited, or efficient. Admittedly these are probably the weakest of any category *I* can think of, but still, there's a little something there.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 12, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > It does put you in a rather awkward position when someone says "good _*means*_ that it makes some kind of an intellectual and emotional connection with the viewer" and you'd like to dismiss that idea, though.
> ...



You want to separate "good" from "says something" without defining what else "good" might mean.


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The word "snapshot" is used dismissively, but should not be. All a "snapshot" is, is a picture that has meaning and connection for a smaller audience. It may well make up for that limited audience by the intensity of the connection. The blurry polaroid of grandma at her 97th, and last, birthday, is just a snapshot. It means nothing to you, or to me, but it means a very great deal to her children and their children.



So, if I take a photo of something that I find meaningful, but never share it, it's just a "snapshot" because it will never mean anything to anyone else?

What utter nonsense...


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



You seem to have this need for definitions. I'd refer you to your nearest dictionary for those.

To say that a photo has to "say something" to be considered art is simply ridiculous.

I took a photo of the Three Sisters (mountains) west of Canmore, Alberta a few years ago. It's a nice photo. It's a nice photo of some really, really big rocks. It's never "said" anything to me, though. The person who paid me for the print also likes it simply because it's a nice photo of some really big rocks. The photo hangs in his den.

It doesn't "say" anything...


----------



## amolitor (Aug 12, 2013)

You have your dismissive  hat on again, Steve. You're assuming that I am using "snapshot" as a perjorative in a paragraph where I actually begin by saying that "snapshot" should not be considered perjorative. Presumably because you want to pick a fight?

Not playin'


----------



## tirediron (Aug 12, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> ...I took a photo of the Three Sisters (mountains) west of Canmore, Alberta a few years ago. It's a nice photo. It's a nice photo of some really, really big rocks. It's never "said" anything to me, though. The person who paid me for the print also likes it simply because it's a nice photo of some really big rocks. The photo hangs in his den.
> 
> It doesn't "say" anything...


Without meaning to derail things too badly, would it be possible to see that image Steve? I lived in the shadow of the three sisters (Fernie) growing up, and I miss the scenery there!

To re-rail the thread, I would say that if you like the image, and somene  liked it well enough to pay for, then it does say something.  It may not have the huge emotional impact of F.O. Thompson's "Migrant Mother", but it still has to speak to you on some level to appeal...


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

amolitor said:


> You have your dismissive jerk hat on again, Steve. You're assuming that I am using "snapshot" as a perjorative in a paragraph where I actually begin by saying that "snapshot" should not be considered perjorative. Presumably because you want to pick a fight?
> 
> Not playin'



If I use the word "kike" when talking about a Jew, but preface it by saying that I'm not using "kike" in a negative context, is it then okay to use it? Does it make it better? 

"Snapshot" is universally used as a negative. Read any critique on this forum and find one where "snapshot" is used in a positive light.

It is what it is. The fact that you want it to be something else matters not...

_(and, for the record, I detest the word in quotations in my first sentence. I only use it to make a point which, in all probability, will sail right over your head)_


----------



## amolitor (Aug 12, 2013)

You are a subtle man, John.


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Without meaning to derail things too badly, would it be possible to see that image Steve? I lived in the shadow of the three sisters (Fernie) growing up, and I miss the scenery there!



Sure thing. My photo of three really big rocks, taken with a Canon G10:


----------



## tirediron (Aug 12, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> ...Read any critique on this forum and find one where "snapshot" is used in a positive light.


I've used in a positive way in numerous critiques...  to me a snap-shot is simply an image which has been captured on the spur of the moment, that is, one which is unplanned.  Granted, it is used frequently in a negative/dismissive way, but it shouldn't be.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 12, 2013)

amolitor said:


> You are a subtle man, John.


:mrgreen:


----------



## tirediron (Aug 12, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Without meaning to derail things too badly, would it be possible to see that image Steve? I lived in the shadow of the three sisters (Fernie) growing up, and I miss the scenery there!
> ...



Where where you when you took that?


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Pretty sure I was pulled over onto the shoulder of the TCH...


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > ...Read any critique on this forum and find one where "snapshot" is used in a positive light.
> ...



"Frequently"?

That's like saying "I _frequently _get wet when I walk in the rain".

If I use the "N" word, but don't intend it to be negative or offensive, is it okay?


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

tirediron said:


> I would say that if you like the image, and somene liked it well enough to pay for, then it does say something.



The guy likes the Canadian Rockies, and he liked my photo of part of them. 

But, even if it did say something to him, that doesn't negate my position. "Art" doesn't _have _to "say something". It's nice if it does, I guess, but it doesn't _have _to. Others here, though, seem to all but demand that a photo call to them before they'll consider it to be "art". That's fine for them, but insisting that such a position be universal, as Amolitor seems to be doing, is...


----------



## amolitor (Aug 12, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> peter27 said:
> 
> 
> > Does a photograph have to tell a story or convey a feeling?
> ...



I realize that this is just a witty remark, but it suggests an interesting thought experiment. How would you make a picture that is devoid of meaning? It evokes no particular emotions or memories in anyone, not the photographer, not the viewer. It's just a dull blank slate to everyone.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 12, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...




I submit that, in the reference of this movie "the last dragon" (great movie BTW, I miss the 80's) that the use of the "N" word was in fact, OK. 
I was not offended at all by this. I don't think anyone was. and yet, there the "N" word is, for all to hear. and it was fine. 
so yes. you can use the "N" word in a manner that is not intended to be negative or offensive, and actually HAVE it not be negative or offensive. It is possible.


----------



## Overread (Aug 12, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > peter27 said:
> ...



Leave the lens cap on
Take photos of lens test charts
Take a photo of a brick wall 
Use the camera to photocopy text documents 

Eh most of the lens testing photos are (outside of testing and presenting technical capabilities) very dull photos and don't hold any emotional connection. It's a utilitarian use of photography which can have a technical merit but which has no artistic or emotional context. Heck go look at CCTV pictures and you've a wealth of dullness.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 12, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...


Apples and parsnips!  The "N" word (By which I assume you mean the derogatory variation of "negro") is a slang term, _*meant*_ to be offensive and belittling.  "Snapshot" on the other hand is a descriptive term meant to indicate an image which was taken quickly, but has assumed the meaning of "poor quality image" through common mis-use.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 12, 2013)

> _some stuff Overread said which I forgot to quote, oops_



Even there, there's a potential for difficulty. A picture of a test chart might well evoke a feeling of nostalgia. "Ah yes, I remember that, my old Mamiya 7 with the bent lens mount!" or whatever. You wind up with an audience of one, but most photographs really just have an audience of one anyways.

The lens cap, sure. Photographs that are indistinguishable from one another, and of which you have many, is a good start. It's a brick wall -- but which one? Any reaction or memory tha photographer has is diluted to almost nothingness.

Don't be dismissive, don't just think up a quick example and decide it's a dumb experiment. Think it through for a minute or two, it's just 120 seconds of your life and there might be something rewarding in it.


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I realize that this is just a witty remark, but it suggests an interesting thought experiment. How would you make a picture that is devoid of meaning? It evokes no particular emotions or memories in anyone, not the photographer, not the viewer. It's just a dull blank slate to everyone.



And this is really he crux of the issue, and the disintegration of your argument.

"Art" is subjective. As such, you're not qualified to discern what is and what isn't art, despite your belief that you are. If I see a photo of a baby seal, I see a photo of a baby seal. Period. It means nothing to me other than it's a picture of a baby seal. To someone _else_, though, it's a picture representing what they see as the senseless slaughter of these innocent animals. Does that make it "art"? I don't know; don't really care. The point is that something which means absolutely nothing for one person may mean the world to another.

And that's okay.

Where your argument fails is in your apparent belief that one cannot create an image which doesn't evoke emotion in some way. Given that, every photograph ever taken is art...


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 12, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > peter27 said:
> ...



If I make a photograph and post it for c/c, (assume that I am not making pictures for specific consumption like most baby shots or portraits), viewers can critique/comment for technical approach and execution without being involved in any connection with the photograph.

But, just because I have a history here of trying for pictures that are 'meaningful' in some undefined way,  others can infer that I believe it has some meaning to the greater audience and judge the image on whether it resounds with them or not.

I see lots of pictures here that are totally meaningless to me, either because the picture has no connection to my psyche or that the connection is there but the cliche has been over-used and thus lost its impact (babies in slings) or just because the attempt is badly done and thus breaks my willingness to give in to emotional connections.

I still can critique them on a technical basis but the emotional impact that the photographer believes is there (generally because of a personal connection to the photo) isn't there for me.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Aug 12, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



Ok, so you made the effort to stop your vehicle, grab your gear, set up the shot, process the shot, and the result was something that you were satisfied? happy? thrilled? with (ut oh, an emotion, the picture is saying something to you), enough so that you showed it to at least one person prior to now who also felt some level of appreciation? enjoyment? satisfaction? (ut oh another emotion, it said something to them to!), enough so that he purchased it and hung it in the den.

Then along comes dear John who has an emotional connection to these particular rocks, they say something to him about a time in his life.  

Whether you want to admit it or not your rocks are talking.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 12, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > I would say that if you like the image, and somene liked it well enough to pay for, then it does say something.
> ...


Could it be that "saying something" means something different to different people?  In my mind, if you like an image, it must say something to you, however subtely, for you to like it.  It doesn't need to scream and hit you over the head, but...


----------



## amolitor (Aug 12, 2013)

You should just stop pretending that you understand what I said. You've now collected together some things I did say, with some stuff I didn't say, and arrived at a conclusion which is obviously wrong. Well done.

Either go read what I wrote and make an honest attempt to understand what I am driving at, or drop it. Or not, whatever. Sticking words in my mouth and drawing idiotic conclusions isn't fair, though.


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



I just spent the last seven weeks working with a 22 year old black kid from Los Angeles who, every time he saw a friend, black or white, greeted them with "Whassup, *****'?"


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 12, 2013)

I thought this definition and quotation might be of interest.



> Being *counterdependent is to take a position in relationships to ensure one is not dependent on others foremotional security status etc.**To some degree it is healthy to seek to be emotionally independent of others but this needs to be balanced with the ability to be appropriately engaged with others.*
> *Where the habit of maintaining emotional distance too predominates this can be associated with and cause mental health and behavioral difficulties. Where counterdependency is the state of refusal of attachment, the denial of personal need and dependency, and may extend to the omnipotence and refusal of dialogue found in destructivenarcissism, for example.[SUP][1][/SUP]*
> *This can be managed through passivity or passive aggressive behavior or through more active rejection of authority figures or social mores that support interpersonal relationships.*
> *Counterdependent people can reach the point where their self-identity arise from their acts of opposition and defiance and their behavior can be very disruptive, making it difficult for them to hold down jobs or maintain relationships of any kind.*
> *From a psychodynamic viewpoint such behavior patterns are thought to result from a deep-seated fear of intimacy, which, having lead to emotional isolation, is paired with an increased neediness for the feared state. This explains why counterdependents are sometimes locked into approach-avoidance conflicts in intimate relationships.*



from Counterdependent - Psychology Wiki


----------



## amolitor (Aug 12, 2013)

NO! IT'S NOT TRUE!

I _DO_ LOVE YOU, LEW! I DO!


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Could it be that "saying something" means something different to different people?



AND WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

It's subjective. I took a picture of some rocks. I guess if pulling over on the highway and sticking a camera out an open window qualifies as "setting up" the shot, then I'm guilty. But, to me, it's just a snapshot. I resized it for the web, but did no real processing to it. There was no intent, whatsoever, for it ever to be considered "art".

If someone views it and sees it as art, though, that's fine. If someone looks at it and says "Hey look: rocks", that's fine, too.

But does one take precedence over the other? I look at some of Picasso's work and I see some stuff I wouldn't line a bird cage with. Others see the same thing and proclaim it to be art. Which is the correct view, and why would one negate the other?


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

amolitor said:


> You should just stop pretending that you understand what I said. You've now collected together some things I did say, with some stuff I didn't say, and arrived at a conclusion which is obviously wrong. Well done.
> 
> Either go read what I wrote and make an honest attempt to understand what I am driving at, or drop it. Or not, whatever. Sticking words in my mouth and drawing idiotic conclusions isn't fair, though.



You need to stop whining.

You've taken the position that "art" must evoke some emotion. Thus far, you've been a remarkable failure at backing up that position...


----------



## amolitor (Aug 12, 2013)

Wait wait, is it "art" that I say must evoke some emotion? Or is it that every picture evokes emotion, and is therefore art? I can't keep track of what you imagine I have said any more, sorry.

Protip: I haven't talked about "art" much at all in this thread.


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 12, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Wait wait, is it "art" that I say must evoke some emotion? Or is it that every picture evokes emotion, and is therefore art? I can't keep track of what you imagine I have said any more, sorry.



You took the position that, to be "art", something must evoke emotion. Then you essentially took a position which says that creating a photo that did not evoke emotion was probably not possible. So, perhaps _you _should be the one who explains your position because, right now, you're not making a great deal of sense...


----------



## amolitor (Aug 12, 2013)

Steve5D: Provide quotes that back up your absurd remarks about what positions I have taken, or shut the **** up about what you think I have said, in future.

All: I request that you ignore any paraphrase Steve makes of what I have said, and instead read what I have actually said, if you care. He appears to be willfully misrepresenting my positions and statements, in order to make himself "correct" and me "wrong".


----------



## tirediron (Aug 12, 2013)

I think we can safely call this one done.  It's pretty much devolved into a circular loop now.


----------

