Photo Narration

If a narration of a photograph is bigger than the photo itself then it's not a good photograph. What do you think?

If you have a great photo and add a large narration, does it then become a bad photo? I think your statement is flawed.

I have always thought of photography as a visual medium. If you have to explain a photograph it probably is not working.

So if someone writes a story about something and illustrates it with photos, the writing isn't working?

Photo narration in an exhibition, I ment. Not the narration for a story in a magazine or blog. Just to be clear.

People incessantly talking about their photos, "Photo Narration", is what drove me away from the photo club. A picture of a stack of old tires doesn't suddenly become a better photo because its now relevant.

This has been discussed at great length in the past - basically comes down to two points of view, pro & con, with no right or wrong, just endless bickering.

If a narration of a photograph is bigger than the photo itself then it's not a good photograph. What do you think?

What's the old joke about Internet Forums.?........... A guy on a forum, posts a picture of a cup of coffee, and a 275 page argument erupts.;)

I get your meaning.

Yes, it is EASY for the narration to be over-done.

Unless the photo is "Iconic".....a "little" bit of narration can be very helpful to increase the general interest of the picture.

I think it is more a case of too much explaining. The photo is no better or worse because of the narration. It is not the fault of the photo, if the people charged with displaying it "do wrong".

Good Luck wit the ensuing melodrama. :)

Nothing like the pretentious conversations that surround “art”.

Facts of method, time, and place for the sake of context are a different matter.

If a narration of a photograph is bigger than the photo itself then it's not a good photograph. What do you think?

Does this mean newspapers should consist of a photos with a credit?

 

I'm inclined to agree that telling a story to explain a photograph is excessive, perhaps narcissistic. Adding photos to illustrate a story is perfectly acceptable, commonplace, and offers endless opportunities. I would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with a geologist, for example, writing a text book with something besides drab B&W photos of rocks accompanied with a ruler or pickaxe. Nature is beautiful! I'm too close to chemistry to illustrate the Clausius-Clapyron equation ;)

meh

Didn’t read it at all, after all.

J u s t t o o l o n g . . .If you could offer a one paragraph summary I would read that.

Aesthetic Formalism, Moderate Formalism, Anti-Formalism...

 

Who cares. Deep down I know my photography transcends it all...There's no competition.

 

I made it through the first two paragraphs... baloney.

 

Hmm... No, baloney squared...

square slices fit better on

bread...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

Balogna Squared is Liverwurst.....

Rashed, the term "narration" has at least two (2) contexts which are relevant to this thread. First, there's the context that seems to be the most prevalent here - verbal or written explanations of a photograph, primarily at an exhibition. Secondly, there's the narration, or story, an image itself contains. The first is something that some people find necessary to attach to an image, perhaps for fear that a viewer may not like or understand it. In my opinion, the second is more worthy of discussion (and probably has been discussed quite often in the Philosophy forum); it is part of the image itself.

So if someone writes a story about something and illustrates it with photos, the writing isn't working?

 

To answer your question, not necessarily. Some readers may not view the pertinent photo(s) as helping them get a better appreciation or understanding of whatever they're reading.

Extreme formalism - you see it, you like it. Lines, curves, shades, color combinations, sequence of notes and beats, anything thats perceivable through senses. Thats all there is to appreciate art.

 

Anti-formalism - The lines, curves shades etc cannot determine the merit of an artwork. The history, context, one's experience, knowledge of the artist/school of art determine one's appreciation of the artwork.

 

Moderate formalism - Some aspects of art are formal, i.e. visually or sonically pleasing without any context, others depend on knowledge, taste, history etc.

 

It doesn't take much to realize that most of us are in the moderate formalism camp.

 

If a narration of a photograph is bigger than the photo itself then it's not a good photograph. What do you think?

 

The question shouldn't be whether the narration is big or small. The question really is, whether you need to read it in full before you say, 'OK, now I get what's going on'.

 

I think, some people can appreciate certain artworks without any narrative, or the narrative is already in their heads. Others need to read about it to better appreciate it. There's nothing wrong about either approach, and doesn't always determine the quality of art.

 

Imagine an urinal being displayed in an art museum without any narration. Would you even consider it a piece of art? Now, what if the narration is already in your head, where you are familiar with dadaism and thoughts related to it.

To answer your question, not necessarily. Some readers may not view the pertinent photo(s) as helping them get a better appreciation or understanding of whatever they're reading.

 

Then that works both ways, for photos and for writing.

I think it depends on what audience you're writing for. A photo on photonet might be appreciated with a more detailed description of technique than a photo in a museum.

Why would anyone think there's an answer to the OP's question other then "it depends"?

did you ever see a picture with legs

All the time.

In a gallery yesterday I saw a portrait photo by Martha Casanave. I remarked on a particular aspect I found interesting. The gallery owner told me my remarks were understandable considering the subject and story behind the photo. It occurs to me that when some buys a fine art photo and hangs it on their wall, they WANT the story behind it, if just to pass on to the next admirer.

To my mind an engaging photo can stand all alone without words or narrative.

 

To my mind an engaging photo can stand alone regardless of 10,000 words of narrative.

IMO - No quantity of verbal / textual obfuscation can redeem a bad photo.