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

[bjorke]

...the same thing as putting legs on a snake from where I sit.

That would be cool.

(Off to the garage to get a screwdriver)

 

[MenacingTourist]

This has been an interesting thread.
Art is a funny thing to nail down. It's like talking about love or what salt tastes like. Photography is sometimes art and sometimes not. Sometimes it's not meant to be and sometimes it just can't help it.

I think painting is easier to talk about than photography as far as this thread is concerned. I've been painting for years and just lately feel like I'm starting to figure out what's really going on. I don't necessarily feel like my "story" needs to be told to the public but the fact that I am starting to understand IT is what is really important. With photography I'm only at the stage of exploring a medium and becoming familiar with the tools and how they relate to my voice.

I think when Robert Teague says he's only documenting God's creations he has come to the place where he understands the why of what he's doing and giving substance to his voice. It's a simple statement that may not make him a public icon but at least he has one. His story is enough for him.

Then there are some photographers who's only motivation is to document. I look at 5 generations of my family history in photographs and I'm very thankful for this type of photographer. They don't really need a story but thier work may have great value at some point.

I guess my take on this is since there are so many different kinds of photography and photographers, a story may have relevance or it may not even be necessary. Take a look inside yourselves and find out why you do what you do. Then ask yourself what you want to do and where you want to go. Granted there are exceptions at every turn

Who knows, maybe I'll end up in a couple of years with the knowledge that painting is where I should stay and my photography has gone absolutely no where and really has no value. I'll probably not hear that assesment from any of you (you're all too nice) so I'll try to be honest with myself. I make part of my living as an artist so my photography has to pay off or be abandoned. Until I figure that out, I'll enjoy myself.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think it very much depends on what you are trying to say with your images. For the work I do that is literal, that is landscapes, architecture, etc, the only writing I do for those images is in the title of the piece so that the viewer knows the phyiscal context of the image - ie Livery Stable, Bodie, California, 2005. When I am doing more figurative work, especially when the work is referencing other work that may or may not be easily recognizable, I write more extensively, and prepare a statement about the body of work. I do a lot of work with the human figure, and much of it is in series - a group of images that together illustrate a story. I read extensively about the classics and the Renaissance when I was in school, and classical/Renaissance themes are a strong influence for me. One body of work I shot is "episodes from the life of Hercules". One could certainly look at those images and tell the basic story being shown by the image titles, but MY how and why would be missing. In my Hercules series, I shot the entire series with Asian-American models, to make statements about the perception of Asian-Americans, the perception of race, and the universality of mythology. Without an explanation of that, most people would be left looking at the photos saying, "gorgeous images, but why is Hercules a Vietnamese man?".

As to why do lots of photographers NOT tell their stories behind their images? I think some of it has to do with the fact that they have chosen a visual medium to communicate with in the first place, and while photography is not inherently or exclusively literal, it is percieved as the most literal of arts, therefore words are not needed. Just as church artwork five hundred years ago was intended to tell a specific story in a universally interpretable way, to make that story accessible to those who could not read, so photography is today. We expect it to tell a literal, universally interpretable truth, without words. We expect it to lack abstraction, to be credible, to be a replacement for language. To borrow a concept from the post-structuralists, we expect it to be both signifier and signified, therefore replacing the need for language. This is of course not true, but it does not stop us from believing it at least subconsciously.

The cultural myth exists that tells us we can hand a photograph of New York City to a tribesman from Upper Volta who has never seen a city before, and he will be able to properly interpret the photograph as a depiction of reality. If we accept this myth as valid, then why do we need to talk about our work? It is what it is, and should be available and interpretable to anyone with sufficient common frame of reference. The breakdown in this is of coruse the common frame of reference - the tribesman from upper volta may not be able to interpret a picture of a skyscraper at all, or he may have a distorted notion of what one is if all he has to go by is the photograph. If people are unfamiliar with the story of Hercules and Hylas, they will not get the context of the photographs and therefore miss the message.

 

[Nacio Jan Brown]

I am reminded of a shorter version of Paul Strand's sentiment quoted early on here. "Everyone has a book in them--and they should keep it there." Pretty cynical but still...

 

[mark]

This has been interesting but I think a lot of people misunderstood what I meant by story. No matter people's responses were interesting.

I don't know much about strand as a person but he sure sounds like a real a**ho*e

 

[Daniel Lawton]

Well for me, I take a photo because what I see in front of me looks neat and interesting. If the viewer of my photo also thinks that it is neat and interesting, then I have connected with him/her. If not, I don't think I will be able to change this through words. Personally I have never see a photo I disliked, read the background info or description, and then changed my mind. Admittedly, I find some of these written additions to a photo interesting, but in no way does it effect the raw success or failure of an image in my eyes

 

[Saganich]

"For the thousandth time, it must be said that pictures speak for themselves, wordlessly, visually, --- or they fail. Walker Evans, 1957

Like it or not he was probably correct, but, would James Agee agree? Probably. My opinion is simple, I don't wish to have my thoughts infected by pablum; especially from the artist. I don't expect my experience making a photograph bears any relation to the experience viewing one. One would have to be delusional, egomaniacal, and contemptuous to make such a connection. Delusional, egomaniacal, and contemptuous? Sounds like alot of artists I know. :>)

 

[tim atherton]

You could also end up like Burtynsky - he's far more interesting to listen to talk about his photographs than are the photographs themselves

 

[Sinarfar]

The story behind most images is only interesting to photographers, not the other 99.9% of the viewers.

 

[Shan]

I am a painter and a photographer and I do not like to "explain" or tell the story of my work. Usually there is not grand hidden deep meaning to them at all. I like people to decide on their own what the story is, or what they feel when they look at it. Many times I will look at a work and then read the blurp next to it on the wall and find myself somewhat let down at the artist "story".

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do it, and some do help explain things but for me I prefer not to, and I usually don't read beyond the title of the work.

 

[Claire Senft]

The Fifth Admendment of the Constitution of the United States of America allows me not having to incriminate myself. Why should I tell anyone how I came to make such a dreadful print?

I am with David Vestal..and if I read correctly Donald Miller...on this matter. Photographs do not mean anything, they show something.

Donald If I misunderstood you I apologise.

 

[David]

The whole question of combining text and photographs has had a long historical debate. I presume that each person will come to their own understanding of a photograph based on their experiences, state of mind, ability, etc. Invariably that impression will be different than the photographer envisioned and rightfully so. I don't want a someone who view my photography to see what I saw. I want them to experience it in their own way. The photograph in that way is merely a 'gift' to provide opportunity to sensate.

Someone asked the poet Robert Frost to explain one of his poems and he replied, "What, you want me to say it worse?" Maybe this begs the question because photos by definition are non-verbal but I find that text stands in the way, or at least redirects my own thinking about a photograph. I'd rather read about it after I've had a chance to experience it without the props of the photographers blurb. Maybe this would be different for historical or documentary stuff rather than the ill-defined fine art genre.

 

[Ed Sukach]

... I don't want a someone who view my photography to see what I saw. I want them to experience it in their own way. The photograph in that way is merely a 'gift' to provide opportunity to sensate...

well said. *VERY* well said... and I agree, all the way!

It bugs me when I realize how much more skillful at writing some are than I am ... "David" here as a shining example.

I hope my photography is better than my writing.

 

[tendim]

I have seen painters talk for a long time about their paintings and why did what they did. I have never seen or heard of a photographer do this. I am sure they are out there.

I've found a few reasons why photographers do not try to explain their work. These reasons are based on personal experiences with my own work, and observing reactions between teachers and students when I was in portfolio critiques.

For one, I personally find that one of the beautiful things of photography, and image making in general, is that the lack of words allows a viewer to appropriate the image into their own life story. They are free to put their own meaning into the work. Many photos that I find beautiful, are not considered beautiful by other people for the same reasons. Likewise, some images that I find insignificant personally illicit profound emotional response from other viewers. The lack of words also allows an image to transcend the barriers of time: photographs viewed in different temporal frames of reference allow the viewer(s) to attach meaning specific to their generation.

Secondly, while watching critiques I learned of the value of words when explaning your photographs. Many times myself and other students in my classes would stand up to explain an image that we had created (either a standalone, or as part of a larger series), only to be knocked down based on what we had said. If you say that an image is supposed to convey a specific idea or emotion, and it clearly does not, then you have failed to do what you initially intended to do. This reaction often instilled fear in myself and other students: we were afraid to explain our work because we were afraid that others would not agree with us. This goes to support the points I made in my previous paragraph: the image portrays an emotion or idea specific to my own interpretation. There is no right or wrong in an interpretation, as it is based solely on your personal history and life events. However, when push comes to shove, especially when you are being critiqued on your final mark, I (and others!) have often tried to adapt the meaning of the photograph to one that the observing parties would agree with. But this action diminishes the original intent of the photograph!

When people see my work and tell me what they think of it, I don't always agree. One project I worked on was to create a book of images based on a common theme. I had spent months photographing naked trees on winter nights, placing emphasis on the inherent beauty that the trees have in the absense of their leaves ("clothing"). My instructor thought that my book was great, but for the wrong reasons. Instead of seeing the naked trees as I had photographed them, he saw an analog of veins and arteries of the human body! He interpreted the images as he saw fit, and agreed that the images were great -- but not for the same reasons I did!

Personally, I'm happy to explain my work to people. True, once I explain it they can usually see what I was trying to convey. Prior to my explanation however, they may like (or dislike) the work for their own reasons.

Just my two cents.

-Patrick

 

[Ed Sukach]

Hmmm ... revisiting what appeared to be a "dormant" thread...

After giving this some thought, I'm wondering about the implied questions that are being answered:

First, rephrasing, "In general, painters CAN explain their work and photographers cannot. Why?"
I disagree with the initial premise ... I've found that painters, and a wide variety of other artists have the ability to explain the reasons behind their work with the same frequency as photographers... and in all honesty, the reasons seem to be the same - most often: "I saw this, and I wanted to..."

Second, again rephrasing, "Why don't photographers discuss their work as often as painters?
I think they do. Both seem to be as reluctant, initially to "rant on", but if a certain level of inquiry takes pace, there could well be a flood of history behind the work.

Third, "Why don't photographers SAY what a photograph "means"?
... And why do they have to? In doing so, aren't they immediately accepting a failure to communicate - defeat? Wouldn't that be a "proof" that their work has not "communicated" ... that more is necessary to complete the work?
Or even, that we have to cheat by using another media to "make better" what we have done?
I remember reading that someone once asked Robert Frost to explain one of his poems. His answer, "What? Do you want me to say it WORSE?"

Now, all that said... There is a matter of "pre-conditioning" - Something that seems to be a major activity in Art Schools. The instructors says, "Look! There is the image of a bee flying around a pomegranate! That is a statement of deep sexual repression in our society. When we see this, we immediately experience the emotion of being repressed..."
We are "supposed to "see" and "experience" repression. Whether or not that is a natural reaction is not important: what matters is learning a language known only to insiders .. and by using that language we can become part of the "elite group". There is the key to a great deal of Art Criticism: How well the interpreter of the criticism is pre-conditioned... and the test of that pre-conditioning is "classroom critique and the student- critics defense of their critique.

To some, attaining membership in the "Elite Clique" is all-important. It was for me, once, many moons ago. It is NOT, now. Now I only want to SHARE what my work invokes in me.

I wonder ... what would be Monets' answer to "Why did you paint these water lilies" - and what does this mean?... or Rodins' to "Why did you sculpt "The Thinker" - and what does it mean?

A lot has been written about Ansel Adams' "Moonrise Over Hernandez" ... how he braked the car to an emergency stop, how he hurriedly set up his camera, how he had so little time to make the exposure, how the light was going away and his mental process of determining exposure.
With all that, I can't ever remember seeing an explanation of the questions here: "WHY did you make this photograph?", and "What does it mean"?

To hell with "bees and pomegranates".

 

[Skip]

There is both a danger, and an enlightenment, to providing a commentary on a picture, and different viewers will have a different take. For some, the commentary allows them to emotionally participate more deeply in the environment of the image: "I know that area. I can imagine myself standing where you were standing. I can hear and smell and feel what you felt when you made that image".
Some will not be enriched by the commentary, as has been illustrated by previous respondents; the experience may in fact be diminished by the information. The artist has no control over any of this, its just a fact relevent only to the viewer.
We are, however, sentient on more than one plane and with more than one sense. I personally vote for commentary that provides some context (if the image is about anything but colour or shapes). Even "Pepper #30" adds context to Weston's work. He could have just called it "Vegetable".
Most of us process pretty, graphical, colourful, emotional imagery as a matter of ordinary life. Many otherwise decent photos need a little more to get past the "Yeah, so?" point. That's what contextual commentary provides.
I'm probably the only one on the planet who thinks AA's Moonrise exists as an icon only because of the story. Yes, yes, I see the highlights etc, but without the lore, I wouldn't have ordinarily given that particular picture more than a second glance. But then, I don't "get" Pepper #30 either, but also haven't seen the original print. But I have handled hundreds of peppers in my lifetime...

Regards

Paul Coppin

 

[Ed Sukach]

At times, the title can "set the stage" for any work of art. The perception of any piece MAY be modified through an accompanying story/ description... sometimes that is desirable, sometimes NOT.

In My Humble Opinion, there is NO hard and fast rule that all photographs MUST be "explained" ... most of those that I have seen, many of my own, defy explanation. Does that cheapen or detract from them in some way?
I really take exception to the idea that, "If you cannot describe/ justify/ tell us WHY a photograph was made, you are not SERIOUS about your work."

I would suggest that everyone attend a few Life Classes, for the one and two minute poses. Wonderful exercises in "getting out of one's prison". There is not enough time - literally - to think, or to squeeze oneself into "doing the BEST I can". It is a matter of "getting lines on the paper"... If one tries to think, to analyze, to rationalize, and justify ... the pose changes, and we are left with one or two perfect, but meaningless lines.
What is a revelation is the quality of the work produced in these sessions. Most of the time (I hesitate to say "invariably", but damn close to it) the student is amazed at just how good the work is when the reflexes and pre-conscious overrides the conscious.

I understand the idea behind "deliberateness" - TRYING to make "good ones", but IMHO (again) spontaneity is ALSO a **very** useful tool.

 

[tendim]

Now, all that said... There is a matter of "pre-conditioning" - Something that seems to be a major activity in Art Schools. The instructors says, "Look! There is the image of a bee flying around a pomegranate! That is a statement of deep sexual repression in our society. When we see this, we immediately experience the emotion of being repressed..."
We are "supposed to "see" and "experience" repression.

Here here! This is another angle on what I had said in my previous reply. While one may say that the juxtaposition of a bee and a pomegrantae speaks of sexual repression, that interpretation is dependant on the interpreter and the events shaping that interpreter! If an interpreter is from a different society, say Eastern vs. Western, would the second interpreter see the same repression? Likely not!

 

[gnashings]

Well, I think in addition to all the very good points already made, I think another one comes to mind. I would think that artists choose the medium they feel most comfortable with, or most capable of expressing what they want to convey. Photographers choose photographs... otherwise they would write a novel or a poem and be writers
I also don't think that the lack of stories or descriptions is necessarily a sign of arrogance on behalf of the artist. In a way, I think it could be seen as humility: you try your best to express what you feel through a given work - if people don't get it, perhaps you failed, and instead of attempting damage control, you go back to the drawing board to give the public what you feel they deserved in the first place. Combine that with the desire to let everyone experience a piece of work on their own personal level, and it almost becomes a policy of non-interference with the audience's right to their own perception.
Of course, some people are just arrogant pricks - there is no denying that fact. And some people, like me, have no delusionsof their own skill and are more than happy to explain whatever you want explained

Peter.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Photographers choose photographs... otherwise they would write a novel or a poem and be writers
I also don't think that the lack of stories or descriptions is necessarily a sign of arrogance on behalf of the artist. In a way, I think it could be seen as humility: you try your best to express what you feel through a given work - if people don't get it, perhaps you failed, and instead of attempting damage control, you go back to the drawing board to give the public what you feel they deserved in the first place. Combine that with the desire to let everyone experience a piece of work on their own personal level, and it almost becomes a policy of non-interference with the audience's right to their own perception.

By George... I think he's GOT IT!!

Well ... almost. I don't consider the use of some direction... say a title, or a short description, or even combining a poem with the exhibition - as totally forbidden... in fact I don't look at anything as being totally forbidden.

Frequently - or so - I'll place a title on my work; very rarely will I do more.

 

[gnashings]

...Well ... almost. I don't consider the use of some direction... say a title, or a short description, or even combining a poem with the exhibition - as totally forbidden... in fact I don't look at anything as being totally forbidden.

Frequently - or so - I'll place a title on my work; very rarely will I do more.

Absolutely - nothing is forbidden in my opinion either - I could not agreemore! While I prefer Ed's approach to not just my own "work", but when experiencing that of others, I can certainly see much room for flexibility. Take for example and image as an illustration, or reflection on, or reaction to another piece of work, be it a piece of music, a poem, a quote - I feel that it is not at all out of place or certainly not unheard of, to read or hear or view something which inspires you, and include that piece as part of the presentation. Lets say you read a poem and it conjures an image in your mind, so off you go, camera in hand, looking to materialize the image in your mind. Or the reverse - you look at an image you made and it feels intimately connected to something you have read or heard or seen.
Another thing to take into account is a collage-like approach. I think there is nothing sacreligious about combining several madia to make your statement: a poem and a photo, a photo and some hand drawn images, or photo displayed in such a way that a piece of music is played while it is on display.
But, I also think that what I just described is different than "explaining", but rather a part of a preconcieved plan or presentation.
For example one could take a photo of me in all my "glory", or just play a recording of howling wind, howling on and on and on and on and on.....


Peter.

 

[siorai]

For my own work, I don't see a point in including any kind of story. They would pretty much well all be the same anyways:

"Well, I was walking down this alley and the textures of this wall/collisions of opposing materials/placement of the piece of graffiti grabbed my eye."



I guess it all comes down to the subject matter as to whether or not a story fits. As well, it would be up to the viewer as to whether or not a story is wanted. Personally, I generally don't care what the story is behind the photograph. I want to experience the photograph as it is, unbiased by anything else. If the photo can stand on it's own, without a backstory, that is a quality image. If it needs a story to have a full impact, specifically if the photo is alright, but the story makes it seem great, then I think the photo needs some work.

 

[darinwc]

words/no words = depends on type of photography

I think that whether or not to include a long description or narrative depends on the type of photography used.

Documentary and journalism usually requires a full narrative to give the image context. Without text, an image viewer unfamilliar with the subject has no idea what is going on in the photo. The description must explain why the subject is important. Sometimes this will be a detailed explanation while other images may only need a title or a date and location.

Artistic photography, in my opinion, should not require a description or even a title. It should stand on its own, and should communicate a simple feeling or a more complex idea without need for a description. In fact I think that an image with an interpretive title is more of a gimmik than true art. A title or description may add some context to a peice of art, but it should not be required to make it artistic.

Now, I'm not saying that documentary and journalism cannot be artistic. But I think the distinction must be made between an image that communicates on its own verses an image that has little value without a description or title.

 

[darinwc]

To answer the original question of "why don't many photographer tell their "story" or the "why" behind their images"

i think there are many reasons. Some photographers want the images to communicate on their own. Some may just be lazy. Some may be self-critical of the process what went into taking/making the image. Some may not have an interesting story or 'why'.

I would think the majority falls into the last catagory. A description may look like this:
"I went to take a photo of the golden gate bridge. I planted my tripod at the tourist lookout and set my camera to autoexposure. I framed the bridge and took one image. I knew it was good so I left."
or like this:
"I was on my morning walk and I saw this really cool X, so I took a photo and it turned out great"

I think that most photographers take photos of things they find , rather than pre-planning every detail of the image and artistic intention. And they are just happy to have a nice sharp image (or fuzzy, as the trend seems to be lately) they can show their friends.

 

[bjorke]

To answer the original question of "why don't many photographer tell their "story" or the "why" behind their images"

Because most of them don't know why.