"Telling" a story

[jtk]

<p>Fred, thanks for recognizing my point.</p>

<p>National Review has never been as important as better journalism, especially Time and Life, during the Vietnam War.</p>

<p>Adams' repor of the impact of his photo on General Loan is touching, but is irrelevant, since General Loan was himself a nobody ... just a puppet government's soldier.</p>

<p>Adams' and Ut made memorable photos, among thousands of equally important photos.</p>

<p>None of those photos, not even the accumulated thousands, were nearly as significant as the stories told by returning troops, the history taught at teach-ins (not today's revisionist history), or the television news, each night, glowing in homes of every American family.</p>

<p>Ut's and Adams' photos, just like the photos of myriad fine photojournalists, illustrates a story but does not tell it. I suspect Ut and Adams would agree, since both have invested so much energy in explaining the images.</p>

<p>Robert Capa's " Falling Soldier"....perhaps still more famous than Adam's or Ut's shots...what story does that one tell? None. Just like the napalmed girl and the executed Vietcong. Those images excite the imagination, provoke emotions, but their stories exist elsewhere, in words. <br>

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/robert-capa/in-love-and-war/47/">http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/robert-capa/in-love-and-war/47/</a></p>

 

[john_elder1]

<p>You can't simply say the the 2 photos discussed here by Adams and Ute are simply like a myriad of other photographs. They both won the Pulititzer Prize a clear indication that they were probably the best photojournalistic shot of thier respective years, 1968, and 1972. John Kelly, your opinion just doesn't come close to carrying that kind of weight.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>I would have thought that by now someone would have made the observation that ascribing an action like "telling a story" to an inanimate object is an example of ideomatic English. You can't be too literal about it because people tell stories to each other and objects do not. But sometimes objects can be made to trigger memories and experiences people have had in their lives so that the feeling one gets when they are present is loosely similar to that of hearing a story.</p>

<p>I liked Starvey's comments on how the photographer can bring an awareness that this kind of thing can happen into his work. The result should be recognizable in familiar ways such as clear, crisp subjects and easy to understand action. He will have to tell us for himself what he does to make sure his work passes the 'story-worthy' test. I, for one, would be very interested in reading his thoughts on this.</p>

<p>I remember seeing the Viet-Nam war photo before. So much time has gone by now I can't tell you the precise circumstances it shows. Was it Mei-Lei? Tet? Just another village being blown up? The point isn't that I should remember, or even that after so long it matters much. The circumstances that make the photo possible, its context if you will, survives only so long as someone remembers it. The Viet-Nam war was real enough; the suffering and loss of life were real enough; but the passage of time turns a photo like this from making a specific observation into one expressing a general sentiment. I've heard that the children shown fleeing the attack are still alive and living in the U.S. So where in this change of time is its story? Who can say that they understand it the best?</p>

<p>As for storytelling: is it posible to get beyond an understanding that some photos are a kind of setup designed for the effect they might have on the viewer? I want to include the possibility that one can find and capture images in the world around her/him that do the same thing. If I had the answer to this question I would drive it home now, but the best I can do is suggest that some photos do a much better job than others of acting like virtual shutter release cables tripping off cascades of ideas and impresions in my mind as I see them.</p>

[aral]

<p>Ugh,<br>

quite a mess. My intention was more semantic or perhaps didactic than purely photographic. But I am glad I have posted the question. With reading replies I gained a bit of insight and came to better understanding of even some other concepts as well.<br>

You see, in my area of expertise (physics), using imprecise and therefore misleading, even wrong terms, is - or should be- avoided at all costs. I am sort of used to that approach. The command goes "Use simple language, don't complicate if not necessary. Especially avoid the use of analogies- or properly warn audience, because analogies are useless in real world." So if I hear or read <em>telling</em>, I think <em>wording</em>. Text may do it, photo (or painting or sculpture) can't. I think that term <em>Telling a story with a photo</em> is such an analogy.<br>

However what was confusing me, but perhaps was not properly expressed (and therefore I did not properly understood it), was pointed out by Fred: "... the story told by a photo often can't be replicated with words and specific details." I only wish that Fred omitted the term "told" from the explanation. It seems much more reasonable to me: "... the story by a photo often can't be replicated with words and specific details." I could agree that photo is a story, not a story <em>told</em> by photographer, but story <em>evoked </em>by photographer.<br>

This brings me to Fred's questions:"When you say it presents a situation in an extremely powerful way, what do you mean?" I mean that a powerful photo enforces all viewers to tell themself the same story. It may be difficult or even impossibe (at least for me) to decompose the photo to single elements and point out what exactly do they mean for the whole. But somehow they combine in a single idea.<br>

And finally, if you ask me to be precise "What part of story is NOT in the photo Ton referenced?" I will give you an imprecise answer, sorry, this is the best <em>I</em> can do: "None of it explicitely, but all of it if you look at a photo as a whole. And this is what makes it a really great work."</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"Does that mean there is no story except our own story, whether we are the artist or the observer? Are we all missing a "whole lot of truth"?"</p>

<p><strong>Larry--</strong></p>

<p>No. I was disagreeing with Ales's statement that only the viewer supplies the story. I think the photographer tells (I'm not hesitant to use that word, Ales) a story and the viewer may add his own plot lines to it. I'm suggesting we recognize all contributions to the story, both by the photographer and the viewer. If, like Ales, we assume that only the viewer can tell the story, we risk, as in the case of the Adams photo, really distorting the truth of what the photo is telling us.</p>

<p><strong>Ales--</strong></p>

<p>Thanks for your reasonable responses. We disagree but it's a pleasure and stimulating to discuss these things with you. I want to suggest that just as imprecise language can hamper the study of physics, adherence to absolutely strict and literal meaning (such as the assertion that an inanimate object cannot tell) can hamper an understanding of photography.</p>

<p>By the way, here are some definitions of "tell" from the 2009 Random House Unabridged Dictionary:</p>

<p>to give an account or narrative of</p>

<p>to reveal or divulge</p>

<p>to discern or recognize so as to be able to identify or describe: <em>Can you tell who that is over there?</em></p>

<p>While many of the definitions of "tell" include words, many do not.</p>

<p>Ales, I'm disappointed in your non-answer to the question "What part of story is NOT in the photo Ton referenced?"</p>

<p>It should be a fairly straight-forward exercise if the photo is not telling a story.</p>

<p>Let's take Aristotle's six elements of drama: plot, theme, character, language, rhythm, spectacle. It seems to me the photo in question has all these elements. Probably the one you would most argue with is language. I consider language to be, at least in part, a meaningful series of symbols. Good photos will often include meaningful symbols or representations. As for the rest, the photo surely has a plot, theme, characters, rhythm, and spectacle.</p>

<table border="0">

<tbody>

</tbody>

</table>

[john_elder1]

<p>To Albert Richardson: " ascribing an action like "telling a story" to an inanimate object is an example of idiomatic (sp correct) English" According to this faulty logic, a book, an inanimate object, with language typed on white pages coherently written, or for example the screen you are currently reading, is incapable of telling a story or communicating. Both photographs and books and computer screens can tell stories. Get off your high horse and get real.</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>John, so what does it mean when, for an illiterate person, a book is just a door stop or a source of toilet paper? For an inanimate object to tell a story is an idiomatic expression. </p>

<p>A book doesn't tell a story, the reader reads it into the symbols on the page. The same is true of Aristotle's six elements. They need to be read by a literate observer. Not just high horses .... oops, there's another symbol. How did I know what it meant? How much does that process of learning to read the symbols play in understanding any stories told by word, or image, or maybe dance? Maybe that's why I don't like dance all that much. I'm dance illiterate.</p>

<p>I think literacy is vital. Artists may think they are telling stories as Fred suggests, but D. H. Lawrence admitted we could never trust the artist. This forum is a playground for created stories from art, history, and philosophy sources whose "artists" had intentions, but whose works are being re-invented as we add our plot lines (for Fred) and, at least sometimes, make up whole new stories.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ales, one further thought about your statement:</p>

<p>"I could agree that photo is a story, not a story <em >told </em>by photographer, but story <em >evoked </em>by photographer."</p>

<p>The problem with this is that, for example in the case of the Adams photo, the story <i>evoked</i> by the photograph, for the most part, was false and misleading. The story <i>told</i> by the photographer was quite different. That is particularly significant in Admas's case because his story was missed, or twisted for political reasons, by many people. Photographers are not limited to simply submitting images for a viewer's consideration. Photographers are often active and intentional. Mimes can tell stories with their body movements . . . no text, no words. Sing language interpreters can tell stories with gestures . . . no text, no words. People can tell stories by the way they dress and the expressions on their faces. Children can tell stories with their eyes. Sculptors can tell stories with marble. Photographers can tell stories with pictures. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Larry--</p>

<p>Are we taling about whether a photographer tells a story or a photograph does? If that's the question at hand, I'm happy to concede that photographs don't tell stories and photographers do, using the photograph as their medium for storytelling. Just as I would be happy to concede that books don't tell stories, authors do, using books as their medium. </p>

<p>But I don't think that's what we're discussing. And we're not discussing whether a tree falling in a forest, with no one there to hear it, makes a noise. Which is what your take on Aristotle's six elements boils down to. You say, "they need to be read by a literate observer." The story is not told or written unless it is subsequently read? Really! Can't you imagine someone writing a story and then tearing it up, before anyone has had a chance to read it? Because no one reads it, it's not a story?</p>

<p>On the other hand, if this discussion boils down to the usage of the word "tell," then it's not a very deep discussion and has little to do with photographs. John Kelly prefers the word "illustrate." Fine.</p>

<p>The point is there are stories in photographs. The stories are understood and interpreted by viewers. The stories are communicated, illustrated, conveyed, created, instigated, suggested, put there, TOLD, by photographers.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>I would also disagree that the story meant to be told by the photographer or writer is always the story received by the viewer or reader. The object, either book or photo, tells different stories to different people.</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>I believe that the use of the term idiomatic expression or "ideomatic english" is improperly used in this discussion. Perhaps, one of the 2 posters using this term would bless us with a quoted definition of the term from an appropriate dictionary, preferably Oxford. I don't believe the definiton of that term in any way defeats the argument that photographs tell stories or that a photograph is worth a 1000 words.</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>Well, an idiom is an expression peculiar to a language that cannot be understood by merely adding up the ordinary meanings of the words individually. No photograph or book "tells a story" unless you use the expression idiomatically. I'm not worried about it; I just think no one needs to "get real" because he pointed it out.</p>

<p>If a book or photo tells different stories to different people (and I agree that it does) then from where does that story originate? Is there a "real" story being told, and who gets to decide what it is?</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"If a book or photo tells different stories to different people (and I agree that it does) then from where does that story originate?"</p>

<p>It originates with the writer of the book or the maker of the photo. It expands or changes from there.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>The brain likes to make a story from all the partial information it derives from the senses. So for example when astronomers first looked at the planet Mars with inadequate telescopes they saw 'canals' whiich soon were mapped in extraodinary detail and a whole story about Martian civilisation built up from the fuzzy imperfect images seen by these pioneers.</p>

<p>Similarly when people see a photo they tend to create a story to surround it. The photo does not supply the narrative - the viewer does that. However some photos are more susceprtible to being interpreted than others so you get photos which give rise to more open or closed narratives.</p>

<p>Whether this story telling is a good thing or not really depends on the purpose of the shot. For photo-journailsm it may be essential while for illustrative works such as archtectural or nature shots you often do not want to create any ambiguity.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Colin--</p>

<p>I agree with you that the story-telling component will depend on the purpose of the shot. Thanks for making that point.</p>

<p>But:</p>

<p>"The photo does not supply the narrative - the viewer does that."</p>

<p>Why aren't more photographers in this forum talking about the role, potential, and power of the photographer? Why are so many taking and empathizing with the role of viewer in their responses more than with the role of photograph maker? Colin, what are we all doing, just mindlessly snapping off shots in the hopes that a viewer will do all the creative work? Do we all just concentrate on bokeh, focus, exposure, what lens we use so that we can perfect our shooting technique with nothing more behind what we're doing?</p>

<p>Many photographers spend time thinking about what they want to say with a photograph and what visual tools or language, both while shooting and when post processing, they will use to say it. I doubt many viewers will get all the specifics about what the photographer may be thinking and the photographer is often less than specific in what he wants to say. A story may be told even if there is not <i>verbatim</i> communication between photographer and viewer. One can tell a story in the hopes of moving a viewer without needing the story to be understood precisely.</p>

<p>The fact that stories will be interpreted differently by viewers does not mean a story has not been told. No one would deny that Shakespeare was a story teller, yet high school classes all over the world learn about the different interpretations of his works. As a matter of fact, because his works are plays, in order to be performed as plays, they MUST be interpreted by actors, a director, and viewers. I hope that doesn't mean Shakespeare didn't tell stories.</p>

[jtk]

<p>John Eder, personal attack (re the weight of my "opinion") isn't helpful. </p>

<p>The "America's Most Popular" credo is beloved by millions, but it doesn't ring true...we can salute the work of Ut and Adams without worshiping them.</p>

<p>Ut and Adams deserved and won Pulitzer prizes, and that is irrelevant to the question of their impact on the outcome of the war. </p>

<p>... if you've seen Pulitzer exhibitions you know they the images are selected for immediate emotional impact, as felt by a bunch of hardened newspaper editors: shock value. </p>

<p>We remember those two today for their publicity. Woody Allen has recycled one of them for decades in "Manhattan" (the most effective use of that image IMO)... the grown-up napalmed girl tours the US today, which revives her naked image in every city's newspaper with every visit. The "power" of that burnt child's image has of course prevented white phosphorus damage (vs napalm) to children in Iraq.. right...?</p>

<p>IMO the most effective images of the era were not the "iconic images" we remember today...they were film images, televised...so we've been politically sheltered from such images in places like Iraq. </p>

<p>We cling to photo icons because we're ignorant of history...we want a bit of the past but we are rarely willing to dig into it...</p>

<p> </p>

[saskphotog]

<p>"The fact that stories will be interpreted differently by viewers does not mean a story has not been told". </p>

<p>The fact that a story has been told does not mean the same story will be heard. Artists have always been offended by how their "stories" get interpreted. They have an idea about what they were doing, but what actually happens turns out to be something else for others. That ticks them off, because they believed they were doing something important and making themselves very clear about it, but the feedback suggests it didn't work that well, at least in terms of what they thought they were trying to do. </p>

<p>I read some of that into Fred's frustration as an artist, "Why aren't more photographers in this forum talking about the role, potential, and power of the photographer?" Maybe the "story" Fred is telling in this thread is not about what he thinks it is. Suggesting that the photographer's role and power is far less within his control than he wants to believe, can be quite frustrating to an artist, and that frustration is surfacing.</p>

<p>I would ask why that is an issue? Why would an artist be upset by the idea that his stories are not within his control? Why is the only alternative, "just mindlessly snapping off shots in the hopes that a viewer will do all the creative work"? Is that polarization of the issue the only choice? Why can't it be that artists create "stories" that inspire observers to "add their own plot lines"? Maybe that is the quality that makes something art. </p>

<p>Perhaps art is just that - "stories" that were created by someone that have the power to invoke creativity in others. There is nothing horrifying to me about the fact that what I think I may be saying is not that clearly understood by others, and that what I have said simply inspires the creativity in others. It can still be art. It can still be "important".</p>

<p>I'm not so important that my story needs to be understood by everyone. It is more important that everyone understand their own.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Larry--</p>

<p>"The fact that a story has been told does not mean the same story will be heard."</p>

<p>I agree with this and have agreed with it throughout the thread. I am not offended by how my stories get interpreted. I love reading the various interpretations. If you look through the pages of my portfolio, you'll see that my photos get interpreted a lot and sometimes with great imagination by various viewers and we often engage in long dialogues about it. I love that aspect of my photographs and making them public. I am not married to my stories. But I do tell them. I tell stories to be expressive, not to make specific points. I want people to interpret them how they will and I want them to be moved. My recognizing and being thrilled by their personal interpretations doesn't make me deny that I, as photographer, told A story. I never said I told THE ONLY story and I never said I told the story the way I expected or insisted it be interpreted.</p>

<p>Where did you get the idea that artists are frustrated by the recognition that their work is open to all kinds of interpretations? That's a claim I'd want to be shown some evidence of.</p>

<p>I often try NOT to be clear. You've projected a lot about artists and you've projected it onto me.</p>

<p>I'm not at all upset by the fact that my stories are not under my control. I'm upset by the fact that we're not communicating well in this particular forum, which is about discussion and making points. I'm not frustrated as an artist, as you claim. I'm frustrated as a philosopher . . . with you . . . because you are making things up as you go along rather than listening to what I say.</p>

<p>What I said is that the photographer has power and a role. I didn't say his finished work will be totally or even greatly under his CONTROL. Because a photographer has the power to tell a story does not mean he has control over how that story will be interpreted. Never said that, never would.</p>

<p>"Why can't it be that artists create "stories" that inspire observers to "add their own plot lines"?"</p>

<p>That's exactly what I have been saying. Go back and read my words objectively and carefully and I hope you will see that.</p>

<p>The main point I've been advocating throughout the thread is to refute the original claim by Ales that photographs/photographers don't tell stories. You and I seem to agree that artists tell (or at least "create" if the word "tell" is problematic) stories. That's a significant area of agreement.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Larry--</p>

<p>To make it as clear as possible. Here's what I said just above: "I think the photographer tells (I'm not hesitant to use that word, Ales) a story and the viewer may add his own plot lines to it."</p>

<p>And then you say to me: "Why can't it be that artists create 'stories' that inspire observers to 'add their own plot lines'?"</p>

<p>We have both said exactly the same thing yet you pose it as if we have a disagreement. That's frustrating indeed.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p><em>Suggesting that the photographer's role and power is far less within his control than he wants to believe, can be quite frustrating to an artist...</em><br>

<br />Which is why communicating something (narrative, information, rhetoric) in an image is a goal, though one that is - by most people, most of the time, certainly including me - only clumsily touched, and rarely achieved. To observe, critically, that an image doesn't seem to be communicating (what the artist intends, or <em>anything</em> for that matter) might be valid, or it might be that the artist and the critic don't share the same visual language, culture, or experience.<br>

<br />Symbols and visual cues can be drenched in meaning for some and are utterly empty to others as they view a photograph (or see a dance, or read Shakespeare). Just look at the visual language of gang clothing - where the tilt of a hat brim or placement of a bandana speaks contentious volumes about heritage, loyalty, threat, comfort, and the prospects of or safety from violence. A photograph of two different LA gang members might tell the wrong story (or none at all) to some viewers while being worth ten thousand words to either of their own groups. The <em>viewer's</em> ignorance of the nuances seen and caught by the photographer doesn't make the <em>photographer</em> less visually articulate.<br>

<em><br />Why would an artist be upset by the idea that his stories are not within his control?</em><br>

<br />Because it may be that photographer's purpose - or even his job - to unambiguosly communicate something fairly specific to the viewer, or to as many viewers as possible. "This kitchen remodeling job was beautifully done." "This groom is happy, but a bit pensive as he watches his bride come down the aisle." "These terrified children are fleeing a scene of destruction, while weary soldiers walk on, as they do every day." "The guy in this photograph looks fabulous in that tie, and the people around him think so, including that woman on the left, who clearly is re-assessing him as a potential mate - and so you should also buy that tie."<br /><br />How and when the viewer encounters such images - the context in which they're seen - will have much to do with when and whether they communicate anything close to what was intended. Just as someone screaming some badly muddled Shakespeare on a street corner may not be achieving the bard's intent, even if "slings and arrows" get in there, somewhere.<br /><br />Speaking of clumsy, I'll indulge myself (nobody else needs to play along!) by inserting a photograph-ish addition to this conversation. I happened to have been called upon by my favorite jewelry artist to whip up some imagery to accompany a Mother's Day promo piece she needed. Below is a two-panel <em>piece</em> of the layout, with overlayed text and some other elements removed for the purposes of this thread (though you can tell where they'd go, obviously - that was part of the composition). So it was a quick job, with little opportunity to really prepare - and all it's supposed to do is <em>tell a little story</em>. Specifcally, it's supposed to remind the viewer that it would be nice to present Mom with breakfast in bed, and gee, wouldn't some handmade jewelry go nice with that.<br /><br />The notion is that by allowing the viewer to see a bit of the <em>story</em> of that same thing unfolding for someone else, they might be inspired to take a similar action. We don't need to get into Advertising 101, here, and please let's not give me a hard time about the lighting (man, simulating a sunny morning on a rainy day is <em>hard!</em>).<br /><br />But perhaps this sort of narrative moment - however roughly sketched by yours truly - can provide for some more specific discussion about how an <em>incomplete</em> story doesn't make narrative any less important, even when the photographer can't worry about controlling everything else that will pop into the viewer's head.</p><div></div>

[saskphotog]

<p>It's obvious my stories aren't working well. </p>

<p>"Why aren't more photographers in this forum talking about the role, potential, and power of the photographer? Why are so many taking and empathizing with the role of viewer in their responses more than with the role of photograph maker? Colin, what are we all doing, just mindlessly snapping off shots in the hopes that a viewer will do all the creative work? Do we all just concentrate on bokeh, focus, exposure, what lens we use so that we can perfect our shooting technique with nothing more behind what we're doing?"</p>

<p>Then what, exactly, is the concern in that paragraph. I see it as suggesting that either the important person is the artist, or one "empathizes with the role of the viewer" and we all become just robots randomly snapping pictures. At least that is this viewer's response.</p>

<p>That dicotomy does not exist. I believe the artist and the audience are, in fact, equal partners in all forms of art. Paragraphs like that make me think you do not.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p><em>I believe the artist and the audience are, in fact, equal partners in all forms of art.<br /></em><br />Except that without the artist, there's be nothing for the audience to digest. Without the artist creating something a wee bit different than the last guy, that audience might as well spend all of its time reacting to just one official piece of art. The artist creates, and the audience either does or doesn't react to it. But their reaction or lack of one doesn't change the fact of the artist act of creation. The artist might work with an audience in mind, but that relationship doesn't exist without the artist's initiative efforts. Ask Van Gogh about it - he sure didn't need an audience to create brilliant, evocative work. Though... a rewarding audience might have bought him a longer, happier life. You never know.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"Then what, exactly, is the concern in that paragraph."</p>

<p>Larry, the concern is that many people in this thread have been saying that ONLY the viewer participates in the story and that the photographer doesn't tell one. I am suggesting that they are missing a significant part of the equation. The part where the photographer tells a story. Matt is saying that as well. </p>

<p>I agree with Matt's assessment about the significance of the artist. Which doesn't mean I don't recognize the significance of the viewer. </p>

<p>You assume that when someone asserts Point A they are automatically denying Points B through Z. Asserting that a photographer tells a story does not translate to denying that a viewer interprets one. Asserting that a photographer has the power to communicate does not deny that the audience will have a significant role to play. </p>

<p>Colin said: "The photo does not supply the narrative - the viewer does that. "</p>

<p>It's not unreasonable to ask Colin what the photographer's role is, since he and others don't even mention a role for the photographer or photograph.</p>

[jtk]

<p>I just re-read Ales' original question...</p>

<p>Interestingly, "art" didn't appear in it. </p>

<p>Since it's a routinely carelessly-applied word, maybe it would have prevented the clarity Ales seeks....</p>

<p><strong>Just guessing, but maybe Ales really did ask exactly what he meant to ask:</strong> about photography as it relates to language and stories, with no mention of "art" (or fairies or magic). </p>

<p><strong>Ales, what's your thinking on this?</strong></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John--</p>

<p>If you read the thread as carefully as you re-read Ales's original question, you'll see that the question of photography as it relates to language and stories has been dealt with in some depth. What do you have to add to what's been said about that?</p>

<p>(Yes, art has been brought into it. As you've recognized yourself in other threads, sometimes discussions include other things beside the original main point. We can all choose to address those tangents or not. They are sometimes fruitful. The fact that art has been subsequently mentioned here doesn't negate the many things that have been said about photographs and stories.)</p>