The story behind the image - helpful or not?

<p>Fred, bottom line...can it stand alone...the rest,well, just the rest. Talk, talk and just talk.</p>

<p>Lots of air blowing around...look, and communicate with the real deal....</p>

<p>The Photograph.</p>

<p>"I keep an open mind. And I like to play with photographs in many different ways."</p>

<p>Okay, lets go real simple.</p>

<p>It works just on its own or it does not.</p>

<p>A thousand words are very nice ...but show me the photo...let it speak the thousand words.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lots of air blowing around</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For sure.</p>

<p>A good solution for too much talk is simply keeping quiet.</p>

<p>Fred, i'm talking because I enjoy a chat with you.Why so upset?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Your asking everyone who disagrees with you why they're upset is a transparent and poor rhetorical device.</p>

<p>Your repeating the same thing in simpler and simpler terms reminds me of kindergarten conversations.</p>

<p>Bye now.</p>

<p>Jonathan, one idea I do like is that a good title or bit of text can effectively act as a frame for a photograph.</p>

<p>Fred, i'm asking you..nobody else. To disagree, challenge, are the first fragile steps of wisdom. I have not sat on the font of all knowlede neither have you.</p>

<p>" reminds me of kindergarten conversations."</p>

<p>Fred, you are above that.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>_Jonathan, one idea I do like is that a good title or bit of text can effectively act as a frame for a photograph."</p>

<p>But why does a photo need a frame? Does it really need anything? If so, why/</p>

<p>Cannot it speak for itself...</p>

<p>The actual reality among serious photographs on P/N is that they rarely add words to their photos, unless on the photo crit forum. ...some add words because it demands</p>

<p>Perhaps thet are all just kindergarden kids.</p>

<p>Jonathan, returning to your OP, I think maybe this sentence, "Even if the picture <em>could</em> "stand on its own" it may take too long for the viewer to fully tune into it so some background info could make it much more accessable," may be the core dilemma. Letting "too long" go (for now ...), here's what I am thinking at the moment:</p>

<p>You assume that a picture is or should be purposive, intentional of or about what is shown. This means that you are taking the picture to be a map, not a territory -- it's a reduction for informative purposes (I'm putting words on your mouth; I expect you'll complain [LOL]). For me, a good art photograph is not a map, it's a territory. [Non-art photographs, obviously, are a different matter.]</p>

<p>I would suggest that to look is to map. To talk about is to map. To provide titles, information, etc. is to map. They are all purposeful, intentional acts -- reduction to increase informative value. When I arrive to look at a photograph I have not seen before -- to look, to make *my* map of it -- I prefer to map the territory myself, directly, without mediation or help. I don't want to be making a second-level map of somebody else's map.</p>

<p>After I've made my own map, then I am happy, delighted, eager to compare, append, and otherwise doodle with my own map of the territory, but, for me, I want that first encounter to be a first-level mapping, not a map of a map of a map. If information is provided, I want to be able to *not* read/see/hear it until and unless I want to read/see/hear it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You assume that a picture is or should be purposive, intentional of or about what is shown.</p>

<p>I would suggest that to look is to map. To talk about is to map. To provide titles, information, etc. is to map. They are all purposeful, intentional acts -- reduction to increase informative value.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing Jonathan has said gives me the idea he thinks photos should be purposive or about what is shown. Does anyone think the text Jonathan is talking about is limited to describing what the photo is about or seeing photos as being about their subjects? That would be an incredibly narrow understanding of photos, text, writing, speaking, and prose.</p>

<p>Titles and text can be as "territorial" as poetry in their suggestiveness. They can mirror rather than define a photo. They can accompany with a sort of rhythm and meter rather than only a strictly informative view.</p>

<p>And, besides, photos can be purposive while also being "territorial." They can be informative to those who are willing and open to be informed without destroying their "Aha"-ness, without destroying their "being-there"ness.</p>

<p>As a great dichotomophobe once said, it doesn't have to be only one or the other. Photos are full of all kinds of stuff, to those willing to look and actually admit what's happening, to those who aren't stuck in some sort of fake and pretend fairyland of thoughtless, mindless, and speechless wonder.</p>

<p>It's impossible to meditate and talk at the same time. It can be, in fact, much easier to hide mindlessness behind a blizzard of rhetoric.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You assume that a picture is or should be purposive, intentional of or about what is shown. This means that you are taking the picture to be a map, not a territory...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well unless it's taken by a random process there must have been a purpose in taking it. You could say that the scene photographed was the territory and the image is the map, which then becomes a new (modified) territory for the viewer of the photograph to re-map. But I agree that the viewer's interpretation of it doesn't have to be aligned to the original purpose - and I started this thread to explore this issue.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> -- it's a reduction for informative purposes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it's only a reduction if the viewer feels constrained by it. The words are actually additional information, giving some insight to photographer's original mapping process - this may potentially be "reverse engineered" by the viewer: eg:</p>

<p>Photo of a pretty girl. Title "love of my life, 1980". Interpretation of the title: the photographer was probably not being objective in choosing the moment/angle/lighting etc. but showing us her best aspect. But not just that: the image now shows us the photographer's view of what makes her lovely. And from that: what was the prevailing style of loveliness at the time it was taken and in the culture that the photographer lived. And from that we can imagine what it was like living in those circumstances ourselves and how it compares with our present situation. And ... and... And back to the image (if the viewer is also a photographer), how did the photographer use available techniques to get the wanted effect ... can I adapt these when I want to photograph the love of <em>my</em> life?...</p>

<p>So even the bare bones of the title can add a lot of interpretable data to the image - allowing an extra dimension to the map made by the viewer - like adding roads to the satellite view on Google maps. </p>

<p><strong>@Allen</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>It works just on its own or it does not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, that may be your experience and it's interesting to me if people can entirely isolate the image from its context ... but (and I may be unfair to suggest this) it sounds more like a theoretical ideal or argued position than a real human response. </p>

<p>What's especially interesting is that you imply would prefer <strong>not</strong> to see the photo encumbered by the additional (you might say superfluous) information. But can you "take it or leave it" or does the presence of a title or background info immediately spoil the experience of the image?</p>

<p>"people can entirely isolate the image from its context ... but (and I may be unfair to suggest this) it sounds more like a theoretical ideal or argued position than a real human response"</p>

<p>　<br /> An image is a frozen moment in time, no before ,no after..just that moment.So, shall we fill it with words to explain ,or, just dwell on that moment and just enjoy the mystery/emotion/imagination of it? Theoretical ideal or a real human response to the photograph? Does not the photograph suffice,cannot it tell its own story, does it really need the helping hands of words to guide us?</p>

<p>　<br /> "you imply would prefer <strong>not</strong> to see the photo encumbered by the additional (you might say superfluous) information"</p>

<p>　<br /> Depends on the photograph and the story to be told. Sometimes a photographer likes to guide the viewer into a certain direction an understanding of why they took this individual image.....what they were seeing. However, a image can take on a life of its own which has little to do with what the photographer thought they were seeing. It tells its own story.</p>

<p>　<br /> "But can you "take it or leave it" or does the presence of a title or background info immediately spoil the experience of the image?"</p>

<p>I look at the photograph because that is what it is all about...photography. The presence of a title I can take or leave it depends on our artful a wordsmith the photographer maybe.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I didn't read the other responses. Well, maybe a couple. But I don't know the direction the conversation was going as of the this time. </p>

<p>Speaking only for myself, I prefer a photograph that needs no context. Sometimes it's interesting to know the context or the story behind the photo but that's just anecdotal information to me. A bit of mystery or an unresolved story is more interesting to me than a literal description. </p>

<p>Yes Lee, there is a rather wonderful mystery to a photo found in an abandoned building or blowing down the street with no known history.</p>

<p>I think, from the range of opinions, the not-very-surprising conclusion can be that we all look at photos in our own particular way, some value contextual information in making the image part of a story, others either don't want a story at all (just an isolated moment in time) or prefer to be free to make up their own. For me a photo is a window into the life and person of the photographer so any information that enhances that insight is a bonus.</p>

<p>My website homepage thumbnail gallery of scenic landscapes links to sub pages with 900 pixel wide larger images with technical information and several paragraphs of story and information below. <br>

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com">http://www.davidsenesac.com</a></p>

<p>I also readily embed images within html text on feature stories like these two I created this year: <br>

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/Redwoods_2012/redwoods_2012.html">http://www.davidsenesac.com/Redwoods_2012/redwoods_2012.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/MinnowCr/minnowcr_0.html">http://www.davidsenesac.com/MinnowCr/minnowcr_0.html</a></p>

<p>When I see others landscape image work on the web or prints in galleries and there is little or no information provided, it makes their images less interesting. When Galen Rowell came out with Mountain Light, which was a book format very much against the status quo of photography picture books of that day, it proved in some types of work the value of making images more interesting by including modest amounts of complementary information. That does not mean such is always a plus but that if crafted well can. I also think there is place for the same kind of complementing information for nature and scenics in museum type exhibitions.</p>

<p>I would agree w/ the op here. Knowing more about the photographer/subject/technique makes a photograph infinitely more interesting. That's why I never look at any of it if it can be avoided. Photographer or artist's bio? I actually do enjoy reading fiction, but not that kind. The photo should succeed or fail on it's own merit to my way of thinking. Gathering all that extraneous info is wonderful after the fact though.</p>

<p>It seems quite clear that enjoying a photograph outwith context is one thing and with informed context quite another. It really isn't possible to definitively rate many photographs without context and of course in a very real sense. it is simply not possible to view a photograph without at least the context of oneself as a culturally and experientially pre-formed being.<br>

"Dad" is a poignant image. But what if it had been titled "Auschwitz guard, 2003"<br>

Likewise the photo of the girl amidst urban decay. How would "Full Scholarship" affect the appreciation of the image vs "My favourite Prostitute"<br>

My point is that photography is a tripartide process and without the third arc, the process is almost always incomplete.</p>