"Telling" a story

jtk · April 30, 2009

Fred, I'm glad you agree that the intrusion of "art" drew the thread away from the OT...away from "clarity"...

You're right, it's often fun to explore ideas that ramify away from the OT.

But it seems remarkably unhelpful to toss "art" into this particular discussion because the OT had SPECIFICALLY to do with clarity of expression... How is clarity possible when a word is used as if it was a lucky charm, without meaning?

Fred, you are one of the relatively few genuine artists on P.N. Unlike you, I find "art" unusual in photography, as in painting or every other medium, for that matter. You, an actual artist, have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of defining the word "art" ...you, like many, use it habitually as a self-defining lucky charm.

As you know, I discipline myself away from careless use of the term because I'm interested in actually discerning what "art" meant to people like your beloved Greeks :-)

Perhaps if someone had stepped up to the plate and explained their personal definition of "art" I would be less inclined to ridicule the use of the word. For the most part it seems to mean pictures of Velvet Elvis, Sistine Ceiling, topless dancing, 4X6 snapshots, and bowling as often as it means anything else.

MY definition of "art" has to do with an impression of magic, something beyond "well executed," beyond "pretty." YMMV.

Norma Desmond · April 30, 2009

"MY definition of 'art' has to do with an impression of magic, something beyond 'well executed,' beyond 'pretty.' "

And mine has to do with significance and transcendence. I'm surprised you forgot that.

The invitation still stands for you to contribute to the discussion about photographs and stories.

fate_faith_change_chains · April 30, 2009

...away from "clarity"...

</blockquote>

I don't think there is any clarity to be obtained. The OP started from an expectation of clarity. But I don't think there is any such thing, neither through the deliberate use of a non-story or through the deliberate use of a story. To what then should we compare this clarity, so that we can assume that it is clear ? To the opposite of clarity ? Who is to judge... I do believe that both storyteller and reciever have a role in how the story will be interpreted, but I believe much less that clarity has anything to do with it.Absolute clarity in expression, or even just ' clarity ', seems a strange concept when one knows that expression is so interconnected with impression. Impressions are more fluid in nature then any concept of ' clarity ', which surely would have to be more static or stationary for it to stay clear, to stay firm in its clarity. But, vaguely paraphrasing a quote here, no emotion, not any other then a wave, can obtain it's position long enough to stay clear in form and intent. Expression, impression, story, no story, science, art,...it's all about a fluid mix of perceptions.

jtk · April 30, 2009

Phylo, I'd like to agree with you...I do agree to a large extent (especially about taking two to tango)...except for "...it's all about..."

I don't know what you mean by the "it" ...that you're summarizing with such authority ("it's all about")...

Please be more "clear." :-)

Clarity of response is less difficult when a question is asked as directly as Ales did...it makes clear responses by Matt Laur and a few others more likely, less reliant on buzz words. When someone like Matt uses the word "art" I tend to believe he has something in mind.

A clue to clarity is brevity (sentence length, paragraph length, grace). Another is the avoidance of sloppy word usage...such as "art" in most conversations.

To my mind, "art" may be there when something beyond the obvious is evoked...something beyond "beauty," beyond "shock," and beyond a "story"...using "art" when something extra is noticed tells me the term is being used with some intention of clarity.

What are your thoughts on this?

Allen Herbert · April 30, 2009

"It may not be the precision of mathemathical teorem, but using tricky language is certainly not helping the clarity."

Why does a story have be in words? Look at the old films before sound, they were telling stories.

A good photograph is a journey of the imagination, truly a story of epic proportions.

Matt Laur · April 30, 2009

When someone like Matt uses the word "art" I tend to believe he has something in mind. You know John, I almost stopped looking at this thread, but I could feel your fish-hook sailing through the air and getting caught in my hair, even with the computer off. So... let's see, here: For me, art is communication performed with a deliberate focus on form. That's why art can include both unsophisticated and sublime works, and can appeal to audiences of every background, interest, and degree of subtlety. I don't find transcendence essential to art, only deliberation. I also dislike or am unmoved by a lot of - even most - art. But that's because the communication embedded in it is uninteresting to me or is made using symbols that I don't understand.

albert_richardson1 · May 1, 2009

The OP began by expressing his frustration with the use of a word in an understandable, but one might say technically incorrect way. (His kids must drive him nuts!) This started a line of inquiry about the meanings put into pictures that communicate something, the story if you will. Does the maker put the story into the picture or does the viewer read a story into the picture he sees? There is a clear line of commentary supporting the notion that photographers can not only put stories in their work, they can control their handling of the stories in ways that one would expect to be unmistakable to the viewer.

I less sure about this. In my experience, inspiration and creativity have no explanation themselves, but the work necessary to make the decisions, correct the mistakes and live with the compromises that always seem present in a finished piece of art is clear enough. Fred's insistance on control through the process of photography is right enough, at least within the limits of one's ability, but he seems less willing to accept the trial-and-error aspect of things that allows one to "see what happens if I do this." This is the element that allows the muse to sneak in and, yes, sometimes it makes things interesting in unpredictable ways.

I have a notion of an hourglass on its side I would like to share. The bulb on one side represents the creative instinct and work the artist puts into making the finished picture. The neck in the middle of the hourglass is the finished work itself. The finished work often hides much of the effort that goes into its making. The bulb on the other side represents the role the viewer plays as he makes something of the image before him. I like the idea of the bulbs because I want to suggest that there is a lot going on on both sides. The artist is behind the image and the viewer is in front of it.

Artist and viewer wind up in a joint venture one hopes will lead to understanding. But this is not always the case. The artist may not himself be familiar with the nuances of his own subject. The case of a photo of a gang member is an example. The photographer may simply appreciate a colorful character without knowing the significance of the details in his subject's attire. This is to say that it is possible for an artist to have elements in a work without knowing what they contribute to its story.

The finished work itself provides a disconnect between the artist and his audience. Artists know this and will often honestly tell you that they have no idea how their work will be received and what will become of it. Artists do get annoyed when they hear commentary about their work and wind up thinking that they have no idea what the commentator's remarks have to do with their own understanding of what they made.

aral · May 1, 2009

My point was technical, as Albert says. But technical issues, I believe, are intimately connected with other views of photography, like aestetic and expession value.

Photos can't tell stories, at least not in a sense novells can. The message of a photo just isn't story, it is a message of a different kind. By no means do I think that photography is of a lesser value. It just doesn't tell stories:

- Why do photos need captions (»no title« included), if not to give guidance and direction to the viewer? If the photo told a story, no further explanations would be necessary.

- Why can a single photo be interpreted in so different, even opposite ways? If photo told the story, no excessive ambiguity would be possible.

- And for the silent movies, why would we need sound movies if there wasn't something to gain in story telling with sound?

However, is there a practical value in all this philosophy? I believe it is. For example, some time ago I was desperately trying to tell stories with photos. By my opinion the results were awful. The photos were pretentious and with no authenticity. Their message, if any, was pathetic. Only when I gave up on telling stories did I manage to make some photos that at least please me to some extent. I even think that I sometimes express the feeling I had when I pressed the shutter. But no stories any more.

Matt Laur · May 1, 2009

Photos can't tell stories, at least not in a sense novells can. I believe you're still hung up on the notion that a narrative must be entirely complete, and provide every detail of backstory, plot, and resolution in order to be considered such. Think of a photograph as more of a poem. A poem can provide narrative, mood, and guidance as to the point the poet is making without needing a truckload of expository prose. Likewise with a photograph (many of which don't need a caption any more than King Lear needs the Cliff Notes - even if some people don't get everything Shakespeare was getting at through his use of clothing-related symbols throughout that work). Why can a single photo be interpreted in so different, even opposite ways? For the same reasons that essays, poems, and even entire novels can be. For example, some time ago I was desperately trying to tell stories with photos. By my opinion the results were awful. But so are almost every poem, novel, and essay ever written! I'm not horrible with the written word, but I know better than to ever try a novel. It would be absolutely dreadful. I also know better than to get all Leibovitzy and try an aggressively out-there photographic poem, since I'm just not that good at it. But my clumsy photography and awful prose don't stop me from recognizing that both media can be used in a narrative way by people who are good at it, and they don't stop me from trying to keep that in mind with my own compositions.

Norma Desmond · May 1, 2009

Matt, we were writing simultaneously so there may be some repetition.

Ales-- "Why do photos need captions . . . ? If the photo told a story, no further explanations would be necessary."

Because a photo's stories are often less precise than words. Poems and some novels sometimes also tell imprecise stories and they, too, can require a caption or a foreward.

Sometimes photographers rely on captions when they shouldn't. Sometimes they could make a better photo by telling the story in the photo instead of resorting to a caption or title.

"Why can a single photo be interpreted in so different, even opposite ways? If photo told the story, no excessive ambiguity would be possible."

Same reason a play by Shakespeare or novel by Nabokov can be.

"And for the silent movies, why would we need sound movies if there wasn't something to gain in story telling with sound?"

Stuff was gained and lost with talkies. Many think silent movies tell much more effective and complete stories than talkies. But both tell stories.

For practical value, look through some titled or captioned photos here. Ask yourself how the photographer could have taken or processed the photo so that it wouldn't need the title or the caption (it will work with some, won't work with others). Or don't.

Albert--

"Fred's insistance on control through the process of photography"

Here's what I said about control above: "[T]he 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 . . ."

I don't understand how you translated that to my insistence on control.

Albert, because I assert Point A, don't assume that means I am rejecting Points B through Z. This applies to:

"but he seems less willing to accept the trial-and-error aspect of things that allows one to 'see what happens if I do this.' "

I have been refuting Ales's proposition that photos can't tell stories. So I talked about specific ways in which photographers can tell stories and mentioned tools a photographer can use to do that. I also said that photographers don't have to tell stories and many choose not to. (From above: "A photographer -- you, for instance -- does not have to tell a story. I enjoy being open to the various ways in which people create and consider photographs.")

Many photographs get created by using experimentation, spontaneity, and serendipity, none of which preculudes telling a story. But because I was talking about story telling and not those other things, you've wrongly come to the conclusion that I am unwilling to accept those things. WOW.

Once this thread is concluded, I'm going to bow out of these Philosophy discussions for a while. I can't seem to make my points well in this type of format.

"A clue to clarity is brevity (sentence length, paragraph length, grace). Another is the avoidance of sloppy word usage...such as 'art' in most conversations."

John Kelly is probably right, at least about internet discussions in Philosophy. The Dick and Jane Come See Spot Run theory of writing works much better. Happy shooting.

Matt Laur · May 1, 2009

Fred, I have this image of us both reaching for the same piece of produce at the grocery store, and bumping heads. Alas, I've mixed up Lear and MacBeth, too. My high school English teacher would be clucking away, right now, I'm sure.

fate_faith_change_chains · May 1, 2009

" I don't know what you mean by the "it" ...that you're summarizing with such authority ("it's all about")..."

</blockquote>

But I think you do know...My use of "it" must refer to everything that precedes it, that precedes the moment, the now. It's memory dependent and it constitutes our perception of reality. For the human mind reality is experienced through and by memory, without it, it loses substantial form. Can the memory contain and hold any clarity ? I doubt it. When considering clarity in this context, clarity would have to be a ' blank canvas ', untouched by the observers observing and devoid of any meaning to consider this supposed clarity against.

" To my mind, "art" may be there when something beyond the obvious is evoked...something beyond "beauty," beyond "shock," and beyond a "story"...using "art" when something extra is noticed tells me the term is being used with some intention of clarity."

</blockquote>

I think art is in essence unmeasurable and to use a measure in approaching it ( beyond this, beyond that ) is seeking for expectations where there are non to be obtained. That's not to say that art doesn't deal with clarity, it deals with it through an impossible quest for clarity. I think it's this quest that constitutes art or any reference to it.

Norma Desmond · May 1, 2009

"Fred, I have this image of us both reaching for the same piece of produce at the grocery store, and bumping heads. "

Careful, Matt, you're opening yourself up to accusations of hating cereal and soup. :-)

jtk · May 1, 2009

"Can the memory contain and hold any clarity ? I doubt it." - Phylo

We agree about the ultimate importance of memory...and it may not "hold" clarity...

.... however clarity seems to spring from memory . For me, clarity often comes the day after a formless-seeming experience. When a decision is important I find that it pays to buy time for a day, thinking minimally about the issue...clarity kicks in.

"I think it's this quest that constitutes art or any reference to it." - Phylo

Artistry (the activity) may be a quest, but I don't think quest "constitutes art." Quests are often clumsy, some are horrors...they often fail and that risk seems to fuel their charm. America's adventure in Iraq seemed an artless quest. Don Quixote was an old soldier, not an artist, but his foolish quest fueled Cervantes' art. Captain Queeg pursued a mad quest, but the art was Melville's, and it was framed as Ishmael's memory.

aral · May 1, 2009

Story tellnig by a photo? No way. By a novel? No doubt. What about poems? Who knows.

Hmm, let's see. Novels dont't have a reputation to be misunderstood. Same goes for essays. You may not agree with the idea but the idea can's be really missed. For the poems: poets do not really want to be undestood, do they? In this sense poem is close, but complementary to a photo: there is a message, maybe even powerful one, but it is not a story one can understand clearly. A poet doesn't really care for clarity (otherwise, she or he would write a novel). A photographer may struggle for clarity that can't be reached.

In my view photography is not a proper tool for telling stories and should not be used for that. Written and spoken word (but not in a verse) are the right tool. (OK, Illyad and Odyssey are great stories in verses. But they are far from clear. I doubt that clarity was the intent.)

Certainly, a photo can have a powerful message. But it doesn't excell at telling stories. It can't. It does something different. For example let's take the famous Karsh portrait of Churchill (<a href="http://karsh.org/#/the_work/portraits/winston_churchill/">http://karsh.org/#/the_work/portraits/winston_churchill/</a>). Is there a story? Yes, but in a caption by the author, not in a photo. Does the photo has a message? Yes, and so powerful message that no text could ever match it. (Background: the photo was taken during Churchil's tour of USA and Canada in 1941 where he was explaining British cause against Hitler and wanted to get support.) No matter what were (probably forgotten) stories in the newspapers, the tremendous power of the portrait made the cause. But it is not story (or else, a written news with no photo could be as effective), nor it is told.

fate_faith_change_chains · May 1, 2009

"Novels dont't have a reputation to be misunderstood."

</blockquote>

<blockquote>"In my view photography is not a proper tool for telling stories and should not be used for that"</blockquote>

Story's in the form of a novel start from imagination. It's not about the book, the language in it, the words themselfes but by what is evoked through the choice of words.The nature of photography suggests that it is, can only be, about the photograph and about that what is photographed. A photograph of a person is about that one particular person, while a story about a person is about how we all can differently imagine that person to be, even if the character is described in detail, no two readers 'see ' the same person.

So how then, would a story provide more clarity ( which I think should not be considered, neither in a photograph or a novel ), or be a better tool for it ? A photograph seems clear, since all viewers will look at the same person, not to say that all viewers will respond the same, but there's a consensus in what is being depicted in the photograph and it can be accurately described. The words in a novel can't be given a description that stands detached from what the words where set out to describe, and this very description by the author starts and ends with the imagination, whereas the camera's description or recording starts with the factual. Imagination strays away from clarity, just like the objective recording of the camera doesn't add up to it.

It's about the interpretation that comes out of both, the authors choice of words are the medium for arriving at an interpretation through description, much like the photographer chooses the camera, what to photograph with it and in what way.

Matt Laur · May 2, 2009

Ales: it's probably not worth carrying on, here, if you're convinced that only a full-length novel can "tell a story." For what it's worth the dictionairy includes, as definitions for the word "story," these: ANECDOTE - especially, an amusing one and a fictional narrative shorter than a novel Regardless of how much luck you or I have had working a satisfying narrative element into a photograph, there's simply no escaping the narrative capacity of photography (even without the captions!). As for clarity... some would say that few are better than (good) poets at clearly distilling a concept or narrative element down to the spare symbols that best represent it.

Allen Herbert · May 2, 2009

"I have always been confused with the concept that I should tell a story with the images"

<a href="http://www.tubevideosonline.com/viewpicture-7866-Charlie-Chaplin---The-New-Janitor--1914-.htm">http://www.tubevideosonline.com/viewpicture-7866-Charlie-Chaplin---The-New-Janitor--1914-.htm</a>

albert_richardson1 · May 2, 2009

Hmm, let's see. Novels dont't have a reputation to be misunderstood. Same goes for essays. You may not agree with the idea but the idea can's be really missed. For the poems: poets do not really want to be undestood, do they?

</blockquote>

I think this might be a good time to suggest letting the matter drop. Literature, especially writing of the calibur studied in Universities, is far richer, more imaginative and complicated than you realize. If you ever have the opportunity you will see for yourself the benefits of exploring the artistic use of language more fully at the hands of the masters. :-)

You have done a wonderful job of kicking off an interesting thread that will be as fresh as it is now when others find it Googleing through PN in the future.

Albert

l_ · May 2, 2009

Ales,

It is the photographer's vision that supplies the story.

Everything else is up to the viewer.

Leanne

Allen Herbert · May 2, 2009

“Literature, especially writing of the calibur studied in Universities, is far richer, more imaginative and complicated than you realize.”

I think most educated people understand the literature you are referring to, and understand it to varying degrees. More of interest, than the eloquent words and subtle meanings of literature, is the endless equation that all purport to; a balance and equalling that looks constantly to lift the veil of humanity, to offer insights, meanings, and understandings.

A Photographer travels the same path, and reads the same story; they just communicate it in a different media.

iliafarniev · May 2, 2009

It seems we need a definition of the word "Story" here.

Literaly speaking if one want to tell story the rapport as a form will be most sutable, a poem or novel may have some narative but they also have other elements. There are novels and poems that has nor narative so much less a story. Take a look at Naked Lunch for example.

On the other hand if you straightly insist that photo tells story then every photo does and everything does and we should talk about how effective this or that one does and to whom.

I think we need to see difference between literal story telling and creative story telling and maybe a product of abstract creative process which inheretantly has no intention in creating a compehensive naration.

Allen Herbert · May 2, 2009

"There are novels and poems that has nor narative so much less a story. Take a look at Naked Lunch for example."

Photography is no different from the written word; it follows the same mores and patterns; why would it be any different because it is visual communication?

As the story unfolds, it could be fact or fiction, or, merely a technical exercise of factual simplicity. Regardless, there is always a telling; call the telling a story, or, something else as the message unfolds.

Allen Herbert · May 2, 2009

<div>

00TElT-130723684.jpg.c1492f27eae38808b29ca195a53cd1e4.jpg

</div>

Allen Herbert · May 2, 2009

<div>

00TEld-130725684.jpg.001518b3ed1d5b644509b3eb5d272db4.jpg

</div>

Sign In

"Telling" a story

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in