SO why don't many photographer tell their "story" or the "why" behind their images

Dave, there's nothing wrong with enjoying talking to people about the things you love. Some people like doing that, and some don't. But not talking about it doesn't detract from the artisitic merit of your creation.

Kevin,

Never meant to imply that it did, I just want to have an edge, my pictures are good and have sold well for many years now, but the story really helps out alot and makes people more comfotable owning my artwork.

Dave

Dave, I agree with you. I am sure that the story helps make sense of things.

I think that everyone enjoys a story, but I do enjoy short ancedote's that relate to capturing the image or how it came about. I'd would also enjoy hearing the sounds that the photographer heard, but maybe that's a result of my video background.

One of my instructors is fond of saying, "if you have to explain your images with words, perhaps you should be a writer..."

avandesande said:

Of course his works stand alone. I am just suggesting that the daybooks have boosted the monetary value of his work.

Suppose Weston lived in a cave somewhere and printed his work and talked to nobody. You think his work would of had the same impact that it did?
As I mentioned before, art does not live in a vacum. Photographers that want to promote their work benefit from having people skills.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to say ( maybe I should have taken a picture ) that NOBODY knows about the Daybooks ( Geek Test ) and that Weston's value comes from another place.

.

I was watching the Brett Weston dvd just last night. I have had it for a while and have watched it several times. Brett said he was not great at marketing and was not a verbal person, even though he liked people. Is it really necessary for a person to write a long winded essay on each photograph? I think some background information, and not F.. @ ..Sec. using xxx film with a ...camera, like the place and maybe what the photographer liked about the subject or motivated him or her to "capture" the image might be nice.

AA on Moonrise; I forgot my meter and was in a hurry and well in my computer head I realized the position of the moon in the universe was at the exact distance and angle from the sun that the physics...

I love Ansel Adams and as a photographer find it interesting information but for the public at large I don't know. I think they would might be satisfied by a simple description like I saw an incredible scene, jumped out the the truck, assembled my camera equipment, made one exposure and got one of the best photographs of my life.

If a critic or buyer wants a more in depth and detailed description then I think the photographer would be flattered to have continued interest.

Ever go to a gallery and stand next to people looking at one of your photographs?

I am going to step away from the masses who think that a photograph has to tell a story or transmit information to the viewer.

I think that when one removes themselves from all of the lemmings going over the cliff of documentary or "pretty photography" that you are approaching what may be possible insofar as artistic expression through photography.

I think that a lot more viewers will engage an image that poses a question, reminds the viewer of a quandry, or something unresolved.

Since Brett Weston has been mentioned by others, what story is he telling with his abstract images? None. What was he doing through his photography? The first thing he did was pose a question about what it was that we were viewing. That engaged many of us to the point of resolving what it was that we were looking at. In that interval we involved ourselves with the image a lot longer then a dozen Monolith the Face of Halfdome or Moonrise Over Hernandez.

Now I am not knocking all of the those who want to make pretty images. I think that there is a place for more of the same. Although I am not sure how soon the saturation point on that type of work is approaching. It may be tomorrow or in the next milenium.

I happen to think the story IS Westons abstact and was telling the story when he took the image, the abstact nature of the image is the story.

Maybe I am out there..

Dave

FirePhoto said:

One of my instructors is fond of saying, "if you have to explain your images with words, perhaps you should be a writer..."

Click to expand...

In the best case, if you can explain your images with words, perhaps you should be a poet....

For me, this is heading right to where I want to go. It's about the process of creating the image, the story that can be told with the image, using your images to connect with other people. It's not about film, paper, developer or technique. It's about the imagery and the story it tells. In my portfolios I always include some introductory text along with the images. It is very difficult writing about the images, what they mean as opposed to the easy way out of writing about making the photographs. You should lead your viewers to the edge of the photograph so they know what to look for when they see your images. Sometimes I do it, sometimes I don't. But the lessons are learned along the way so the next group of photos is better.

The challenge for me is to think about what I want the photographs to portray before I go out to photograph and then "deliver the goods" with my camera.

Elliot Erwitt "explained" his photography this way:

"Good photography is not about Zone printing or any other Ansel Adams nonsense. It's just about seeing. You either see or you don't see. Photography is simply a function of noticing things. Nothing more."

If I could get to that point, it would be great!

I really think it is tough to capture then explain "A MOMENT" Every image starts with an idea or a plan but within the process takes on its own life. I can't tell you how many times I've missed a great shot because I wanted to tell a different story than what the opportunity in front of me was leading towards. Sometimes it is a new opportunity and sometimes a distraction. I really decided to stick with broad categories for storytelling, choose which image format I want to explore within, create a plan for it (as a direction) then let it happen. Be in the moment, solve, evaluate shoot film go back to the original idea then start again.
As to the original question? "NO" I can't tell you a story. There is only the idea. I can tell stories about: the people involved, the time of year, the weather, the light, the set, even dinner after but what the image says who Knows. I think that is up to the viewer. My opinion, we are way to close for the objectivity needed to tell people what to think. I've seen several shows where the shooter has written long dissertations about there work Both on top the images around the borders and along with. Personally I want to make up my own story. Really don't care about their message. Rarely read them till after I've spent time with their work. If my interest lasts that long. Being sucked into an image (paintings included) is the fun of it! creating your own understanding may or may not be important. If it becomes important to me then let me do the research looking for answers from the originator. Not neccesarilly from that individual but from objective viewpoints surrounding that person also.
I spent a week with Albert Watson some years ago. Loved his work before but what shocked me most when I returned home and had a chance to soak it all in was how much the work was him. had very little do do with what he talked about but everything to do with his autopilot while he was in the moment of creating.

Back to the original statement, I'm not sure you can compare painters with photographers. Painters recreate images in there mind, were as photographers capture what they see. A photographer can recreate what they see in there minds (setting up a shot) but it is still an element of what we see.

Maybe I'm just tired of impressionist paintings ? ? ?

Ziggy said:

Back to the original statement, I'm not sure you can compare painters with photographers. Painters recreate images in there mind, were as photographers capture what they see. A photographer can recreate what they see in there minds (setting up a shot) but it is still an element of what we see.

Maybe I'm just tired of impressionist paintings ? ? ?

Click to expand...

I think we interpret and translate through experiance. We are not copy machines.

Donald Miller said:

I am going to step away from the masses who think that a photograph has to tell a story or transmit information to the viewer.

...I think that a lot more viewers will engage an image that poses a question, reminds the viewer of a quandry, or something unresolved...

....

Click to expand...

Actually, I think you're confirming the notion that SOMEHOW the artist has to CONNECT with the viewer. The words we choose are relevant to the artist. The thread starter used "STORY", so .... ENGAGEMENT works well too.

df cardwell said:

Actually, I think you're confirming the notion that SOMEHOW the artist has to CONNECT with the viewer. The words we choose are relevant to the artist. The thread starter used "STORY", so .... ENGAGEMENT works well too.

Click to expand...

I tend to make images that are meaningful to me as the primary consideration. I do not need to connect with a viewer. Albeit at some point in the process that does occur occasionally.

I think, for myself, that if I feel the need to communicate to someone else then I will begin making images with that in mind...that is the short track to making personally unfulfilling images.

I have a paragraph written for each photo that I offer for sale. This is included in a letter to the buyer. Just a short piece about the scene including its location, its historical context if it has one, a little of what it means to me.

Donald Miller said:

I tend to make images that are meaningful to me as the primary consideration. I do not need to connect with a viewer. Albeit at some point in the process that does occur occasionally.

I think, for myself, that if I feel the need to communicate to someone else then I will begin making images with that in mind...that is the short track to making personally unfulfilling images.

Click to expand...

So, if you show the pictures you are content with, do you write about them, or just hang 'em on the wall and let the chips fall where they may ?

.

Curt said:

I was watching the Brett Weston dvd just last night. I have had it for a while and have watched it several times. Brett said he was not great at marketing and was not a verbal person, even though he liked people.

Click to expand...

BW said that but he displayed a wonderful elegance in his interviews as well as that DVD. He demonstrated how to talk about photographs and photography even as he denied the ability to do so.

Cheers, James

df cardwell said:

So, if you show the pictures you are content with, do you write about them, or just hang 'em on the wall and let the chips fall where they may ?

.

Click to expand...

I let the chips fall where they may. The matter of viewing a photograph is a uniquely personal experience. It should remain as such.

A photograph is a convention serving at best to "aim at or to approximate" recording one individual's view of subjective reality. For any subsequent viewers of the photograph it will remain nothing more then an approximation. The photograph will never succeed at transmitting the photographer's subjective reality any more the the written word will succeed in directly transmitting personal experience.

To interject a verbal accounting and to impose upon the viewer's experience amounts to about the same thing as putting legs on a snake from where I sit.

Donald Miller said:

I let the chips fall where they may. The matter of viewing a photograph is a uniquely personal experience. It should remain as such.

A photograph is a convention serving at best to "aim at or to approximate" transmitting one individual's view of subjective reality. It will never succeed at transmitting that view any more the the written word will succeed in directly transmitting personal experience.

To interject a verbal accounting and to impose upon the viewer's experience amounts to about the same thing as putting legs on a snake from where I sit.

Click to expand...

Good stuff. Well put.

Donald Miller said:

I let the chips fall where they may. The matter of viewing a photograph is a uniquely personal experience. It should remain as such.

To interject a verbal accounting and to impose upon the viewer's experience amounts to about the same thing as putting legs on a snake from where I sit.

Click to expand...

Donald,

I do have to say that is an interesting perspective....

Glad I went a bit different direction with my photography over the last 30 years.

I have never felt my verbals in conjunction with my images has been an imposition to any of my clients, and apparently they have not either.

That, I do have to say is one of the things I love about photography, is the different perceptions and methods involved.

Dave

Alex Hawley said:

I have a paragraph written for each photo that I offer for sale. This is included in a letter to the buyer. Just a short piece about the scene including its location, its historical context if it has one, a little of what it means to me.

Click to expand...

This is the approach I've started using. I find that people (and I've noticed this about myself as well when I get an image from someone else) often want to know more about the image and, in the electronic age, I'm not always around to offer more information. Including a letter allows the purchaser to learn more about an image if they prefer or easily shun the description if they wish.

One caveat: the description needs to be well considered and written. I was about to buy a nude off the web a few years ago until I came across a journal the photographer had written on his website. The journal talked about how his van overheated in the desert and he had to drive with the heater on. His model was non-plussed. He chastised her on his website and wondered why she couldn't be more stoic like him. His journal didn't offer a positive presentation of him and I'm glad I read that before buying his work because I would have felt like a dope coming across the journal later.

Cheers, James

James M. Bleifus said:

His model was non-plussed. He chastised her on his website and wondered why she couldn't be more stoic like him. His journal didn't offer a positive presentation of him and I'm glad I read that before buying his work because I would have felt like a dope coming across the journal later.

Click to expand...

WOW, what a jerk.

Here's an example from one of mine. I usually don't say too much more than something like this:

“Yates Center Co-Op” is located in Yates Center, Kansas. Grain elevators are always unique structures. Even though they may have been built to the same basic design, each one is always different from the rest in some regard. This image was made in February 2004.