Are discussions about a picture more interesting than the picture?

[daveleo]

I think "yes".
In many cases, what people have to say about a picture is more interesting. This also goes for what they say about other comments of the same picture, that is, the follow-up battering of each others' opinons. Very often, the discussion ends up focused on what someone else said about the picture (not on the picture).
Especially entertaining are the questions and insinuations about motives . . . . "Who would anyone make such a picture?" . . . "Why would anyone show us this picture?" . . . "What kind of pathetic viewer likes this kind of pathetic picture?"
The picture itself can be ever so boring, but the chatter that it excites can be ever so (pissy-pissy but) amusing.

I am imagining a cartoon. Art gallery scene. Nice pictures on the walls. A tumbling mass of people slugging it out on the floor. A great scene for the New Yorker magazine weekly "caption contest".

That's what I think.

 

[Sparrow]

... it seems so :hangs-head-shakes-it-a-little/smiley:

 

[lynnb]

Rhein II is such a picture, in my opinion.

I like your cartoon idea 🙂

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Unless it's a particularly controversial or thought-provoking subject, I'm usually happy to keep my own counsel on what I think about any form of art. Even when art provokes stronger emothions in me, it's fair to say that I'm still reluctant to engage in debate as trying to persuade someone to my interpretation / way of thinking is usually a lot of wasted air.

This is probably why I couldn't give a (insert expletive here) about the opinions of art / film / book critics unless they actually clarify what the art is about in terms to which I can relate. For me, if the picture doesn't tell me a story that makes me take notice, I probably won't give it a second look or thought. If it does, then I'm usually happy with my own take on it - unless I want to do more research.

 

[Calzone]

At a discussion I once asked Bruce Davidson, "What was the little girl in your Welsh Miners series doing when you shot her in that cemitary?"

"Singing," Bruce Davidson said.

In art good photgraphs promote discussion, and viewers who are engaged with a shot seem to get either curious or provoked. In art there is always a backstory and a "context." Even in a museum or gallery viewers look for more information in catalogs or even the placards next to the photo.

If a photograph is interesting, I say it promotes discussions, and it is natural for a viewer to look for more information and background to give the shot a context or sense of time or history. I think these details matter. I think these details strenthen meaning. I don't believe in "Art for art's sake."

Cal

 

[Pherdinand]

Sometime sit cracks me up to read all the wise interpretations what people force into a picture they didn't take.

 

[jsrockit]

I think it depends on the photo and who's in the conversation.

 

[FrankS]

Agree with rocket man above, and also, interesting in different ways.

 

[John E Earley]

Talk, talk, talk. Always the talk, talk, talk.



😉

 

[FrankS]

Verbal communication: a blessing and a curse. 😉

 

[nikon_sam]

I sometimes think I should be taking a class to understand some of the pictures that people think are sooooo great...
Many photographs can be described with one word...."Crap"...

 

[Bill Clark]

Agree with jsrocket.

 

[Ranchu]

Pictures are interesting, discussions of them are really not.