"meaning" in a photograph ?

[jtk]

Photographs never have "meaning."

Meaning is the notion of a viewer.

Photographers cannot put "meaning" into photographs, but they sometimes imagine that's what they're doing, especially when their photos involve words, flags, crosses etc..

Looking for "meaning" in photographs is a technique some folks use to avoid viewing it with silent mind.

Concur? Disagree? Your thoughts?

 

[Vaughn]

Photographs as works of art can be full of meaning.

Every viewer derives their own meaning from a work of art.

One way to measure the success of a work of art is how well the artist transmits his/her meaning to the viewer.

Becoming aware of a piece of art's meaning is a valid approach to a piece of art. A silent mind will require a few decades of zen meditation for me to achieve.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

A good photographer can (and will) lead your thoughts with an image.

 

[Arklatexian]

Photographs never have "meaning."

Meaning is the notion of a viewer.

Photographers cannot put "meaning" into photographs, but they sometimes imagine that's what they're doing, especially when their photos involve words, flags, crosses etc..

Looking for "meaning" in photographs is a technique some folks use to avoid viewing it with silent mind.

Concur? Disagree? Your thoughts?

Concur! "Meaning" in a photograph or any other kind of picture, is what the viewer thinks it means, no matter what the maker intended or did not intend.. Any consciously putting "meaning" in a picture can and usually does kill the picture. Many people, including myself, despise being preached to by a picture!........Regards!

 

[Vaughn]

Don't bother looking at my work then! I'm preaching the Full Gosple of Light and hold that wonder and beauty have meaning.

 

[btaylor]

I don’t know about you all, but I consider the Art of photography to be as valid a visual art as painting or sculpture. So for me, the concept that photographs can never have “meaning” doesn’t make sense. If that were true photography would only be a mechanical method of recording the reflection of light. It’s a great deal more than that.

 

[jim10219]

The meaning of anything is dependent on the person thinking about it. It’s not just limited to pictures. A poem, news story, article of clothing, smell, sound, or math equation can all have different meanings to different people. You can also give meaning to something you create if you want to. That doesn’t mean that everyone else will derive the same meaning. Some might, however. So saying a photograph can’t have meaning is... well, meaningless.

 

[jtk]

If the "meaning" in your photographs can be verbalized, does that reduce your photographs to mere visual aids?

If you can verbalize a photograph's meaning (with an essay, poem, turn-of-phrase, single word), does that reduce the value of the photograph?

If you are assigned to write the meaning of a work of art, a poem, a passage of music, have you been assigned to go away from that work?

If "meaning" of anything can be verbalized, what was the point of that anything-thing in the first place?

 

[cowanw]

I suppose if one has predetermined that a photograph has no meaning, then one has guaranteed that one will come away with the same opinion. One may have a silent mind but I doubt it is very open.

 

[removed account4]

people bring their own life story into everything they see, interact with, create. so it isn't far fetched that
a photographer ( or anybody who makes things ) can have one meaning and someone else might have
a completely different view. others just see things at face value and have no personal reference, or need
to have any understanding of where someone is coming from.
art historians are famous for reading all sorts of meanings for artists work. some of it may be true,
some of it may be the historian's personal agenda ... and in the end the pipe might not be a pipe.

 

[guangong]

Reminds me of the title of a famous philosophy book:”The Meaning of Meaning”.

 

[faberryman]

If the "meaning" in your photographs can be verbalized, doesn't that reduce your photographs to mere visual aids?
If you can verbalize a photograph's meaning (with an essay, poem, turn-of-phrase, single word), does that reduce the value of the photograph?
If you are assigned to write the meaning of a work of art, a poem, a passage of music, have you been assigned to go away from that work?
If "meaning" of anything can be verbalized, what was the point of that anything-thing in the first place?

No. If the meaning (generally or to you) of a work of art cannot be verbalized, it means you do not have a clear understanding of such meaning either through lack of interest, education, or intellect, or you are inarticulate. This all sounds like some pseudo-Zen nonsense masquerading as cogent thought.

 

[Ivo]

Photography is the artform for the talentless.

If I had the talent to paint, I would throw away my camera.

Photography can by a technique to express and visualization of art. I think David Lachapelle is a good example of an artist using photography to grasp his art. The art is only the fixation of the real art, and that is the scene itself.

Sure, pictures can be meaningful and pictures can be pointless as well. Some pictures are so strict there is no possible interpretation, other leave everything to the viewer.

Searching after the meaning of photography or a photo is pure Monthy Python.

 

[Vaughn]

If ...No

If...No

If...No

If...just different forms of art. Some use the spoken word, some are visual.

 

[jim10219]

If the "meaning" in your photographs can be verbalized, does that reduce your photographs to mere visual aids?

If you can verbalize a photograph's meaning (with an essay, poem, turn-of-phrase, single word), does that reduce the value of the photograph?

If you are assigned to write the meaning of a work of art, a poem, a passage of music, have you been assigned to go away from that work?

If "meaning" of anything can be verbalized, what was the point of that anything-thing in the first place?

Why would understanding lead to devaluation? Throughout history the majority of artwork of any kind was made and understood by its audience to have specific meanings. Without meaning, ancient fertility figures would just be lumps of clay (instead of pleas to the gods), Caravaggio’s “David” would just be a gruesome scene (instead of a plea for forgiveness), J.M.W. Turner’s “The Slave Ship” would just be smeared paint (instead of a call to freedom), and Picasso’s “Guernica” would be a bad cartoon (instead of a light shining on the horrors of fascism). Symbolism has long been an effective tool to communicate meaning in a piece of artwork so that’s its value extends beyond its aesthetics. So have titles. A title of a work can alter or expand its meaning and enhance its power. As can a description.

The idea that a work of art can exist on its own without meaning is a relatively recent idea. If anything, I’d argue that if the meaning of a work of art can’t be verbalized, then what was the point of it? Is it just decoration? Is it an advertisement for one’s technical prowess? If a photograph was created without meaning, and viewed without meaning, then what separates it from the wall it hangs on?

 

[removed account4]

Photography is the artform for the talentless.

i think it really depends on what someone wants to do with a camera
some of the most talentless children have taken photographs that have
become iconic, and others use a camera to have fun and take snapshots
i wouldn't call photography an artform for the talentless, because sooner or later
the person using a camera gets accustomed to its features and used to
composing and good at extracting a scene into a certain aspect ratio ( or crop )
and they are anything but talentless.

 

[jim10219]

Photography is the artform for the talentless.

If I had the talent to paint, I would throw away my camera.

Photography can by a technique to express and visualization of art. I think David Lachapelle is a good example of an artist using photography to grasp his art. The art is only the fixation of the real art, and that is the scene itself.

Sure, pictures can be meaningful and pictures can be pointless as well. Some pictures are so strict there is no possible interpretation, other leave everything to the viewer.

Searching after the meaning of photography or a photo is pure Monthy Python.

Terribly incorrect. I paint and have sold many paintings in various galleries and exhibitions. I’ve only recently come to photography. Photography, for me, is much more difficult than painting. In a painting, you can control everything. In a photograph, most things are beyond your control. This is why you rarely see a photographer who transcends beyond the realm of mediocrity. Photography isn’t generally as highly regarded in art circles as painting not because it’s easier to do, but because it’s harder to do well.

Painting and drawing are skills. Virtually anyone can learn them. But for some reason, there are a ton of people out there who spend an afternoon trying to draw something, give up in frustration, and then proclaim that they don’t possess the natural talent to ever be able to do it. The truth is they can learn just like everyone else who can draw well learned to draw, but they lack the discipline to put forth the effort.

 

[dasBlute]

Photographs never have "meaning."

I don't think one could stop attaching "meaning" to anything if they tried with all their might.

Within a fraction of a second of seeing *anything*, a human -any human- has already made a raft of
assessments on many levels. As a cognizant human, you then get to sift through those first impressions
and see if any hold water - or not, some people like to go with that and avoid the thinking part altogether.

I once heard the phrase, "the only meaning in something is what you put there." It used to bother me.
Now I know that seeing into things is a creative process itself. If you can't look at any photograph in
the standard gallery and think of five ways to interpret it, you're not really trying.

I feel -for any person- the only meaning is what they put there, and good artists give you a broad and
fruitful palette from which to draw your meanings, connections, metaphors, implications, parallels, etc.
I think the best, hint, and provide you room enough to do the rest.

 

[faberryman]

A title of a work can alter or expand its meaning and enhance its power.

Titles can just as easily limit or restrict meanings. I am not a big fan of titles, though I do understand their necessity commercially. I'd rather give information surrounding the images in a brief artist's statement than try to make up titles for 20-30 images in a series. I tend to be descriptive when a title is required.

 

[Vaughn]

Titles can just as easily limit or restrict meanings.

Agree. I consider titles to be an important part of a work of art, with "No Title" being a valid 'title' which still gives information to the viewer to use when looking at the photograph. My titles are usually a simple description, place name, and sometimes date. Something easily ignored if one perfers no titles, and enough for those who like a little information to help them digest an image. On a rare occasion an image might get a more specific title. The image below is about as "out there" as I get with a title...Mistaking the Map for the Territory, Yosemite National Park. (Gowland PocketView 4x5, 150mm/5.6, TMax100, 16x20 silver gelatin print)

 

[guangong]

In his journal which I read many years ago,Delacroix makes the argument that writing is serial by nature whereas a painting (or photograph or sculpture has a lot going on that must be grasped in a totality. In a way, writing can not reproduce the content and expression of a painting or photograph because writing cannot express everything at once. On the other hand, a photograph or painting cannot introduce elements in such a sequential way as a poem or novel (or explanation of a piece of art). A photograph or painting must stand on its own. If it needs an explanation it has failed. In my experience the only really valid and useful writing about art is that written by artists. Isn’t it strang that art critics are generally of the opinion that the artist knows the least about art.
A title is nothing but a name. Arrangement in Grey and Black No. 1 (Whistler’s Mother).

 

[slackercrurster]

Meaning is all subjective OP.

Someone said my photo was of illegal aliens living on the street. Another said it was occupy style protest.

What is 'In the Shadow of City Hall' ?

It is a homeless tent encampment in L.A. I shot through my windshield while driving to the airport.

Then intellectuals have to mentally masturbate the photo many a time. I just freeze time and document my world. The photo should stand on itself.

 

[Vaughn]

...In a way, writing can not reproduce the content and expression of a painting or photograph because writing cannot express everything at once. On the other hand, a photograph or painting cannot introduce elements in such a sequential way as a poem or novel...

I am not disagreeing, but I am seeing other possibilities beyond your statement. The totality expressed in an instant by Haiku can be awesome. Well, almost instant...it takes 17 (or less) on (syllables) to get there...not much longer than it takes to take in a visual piece of art. Then there is the photographic work of Duane Michals, who takes photography into the sequential world of the poem and short story.

The artist is always critcal of the art critic. The non-artist is always critical of the artist. No one is critical of the non-artist but their wives, thus they live in bliss.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Photography is the artform for the talentless.

If I had the talent to paint, I would throw away my camera.

I can sketch, draw, paint and sculpt, but I choose to photograph.

 

[John Koehrer]

Meaning is an interpretation of an image by someone using art critic speak, usually
after they've discovered a "New Artist".