A good image should grab you.

[bigeye]

The important statement in Peter's commentary is the second sentence,

"If you have to read a book, or attend a class, or visit an art gallery in order to appreciate the image before you, then it has failed."

Sasse's Einstein's Tongue is "grabbing", but requires you to know who Einstein was.

The goal is a complete picture-story, but you might not achieve it (and still have a significant picture). I would separate intent and mindset as you go about taking pictures from the approach to display and presentation.

-Charlie

 

[John E Earley]

For me, and I can only speak for myself, the intent of my pictures is to ilicit an emotion. The photo may be technically good or it may not. It may be "pretty" or not. It may be easily understandable or not. It may be memorable or easily forgotten. Someone may comeback to it repeatedly or never see it again. It matters not except that they have at least some small emotional connection even if for just a brief moment.

 

[cz23]

I prefer "engage" to "grab." It leaves more room for subtlety in art. Art that "grabs" often does not have staying power, while richly layered work that requires exploration tends to be more rewarding.

Chinese poetry is a good example. I feel the same way about many of Saul Leiter's photographs.

John

 

[snausages]

Your theory does not grab me, nor, unlike the wide swath of important, groundbreaking art that it arrogantly disregards, inspire a second look.

 

[prosophos]

For me, and I can only speak for myself, the intent of my pictures is to ilicit an emotion. The photo may be technically good or it may not. It may be "pretty" or not. It may be easily understandable or not. It may be memorable or easily forgotten. Someone may comeback to it repeatedly or never see it again. It matters not except that they have at least some small emotional connection even if for just a brief moment.

John,

I agree with you.

Peter.

 

[prosophos]

I prefer "engage" to "grab." It leaves more room for subtlety in art. Art that "grabs" often does not have staying power, while richly layered work that requires exploration tends to be more rewarding.

Chinese poetry is a good example. I feel the same way about many of Saul Leiter's photographs.

John

John,

I accept your distinction. I used the term "grab" to keep all similar interpretations open, but "engage" is perhaps a less flashy and more precise term.

Thank you,

Peter.

 

[prosophos]

I think a lot of the focus of this discussion is on the word "grab," which implies having an immediate and, maybe, strong effect on the viewer, which many (myself included) would disagree with (especially the immediate part). I am not sure if that was intended or not. That said, I do think that, to a certain extent, a good photograph should have an impact on you (immediate or not) regardless of whether or not you are familiar with the background story even in the case of reportage photos. I feel that people often impart their own feelings and memories of what they saw when they took a picture and believe that it is more emotionally charged/meaningful/etc than it really is forgetting that the viewer was not there and does not have that emotional baggage.

V_roma, my intent was as you elaborate in the second half of your comment, that a good photo (by definition) should have an impact on you, regardless of whether you understand or are aware of the context in which it was taken. Of course not every image will appeal to every person, but a good image will appeal to a good many people.

Peter.