kuuan
loves old lenses
oh, there are at least two stories that you are thinking of, this strong image certainly can tell many stories, they are all there in your head
this is true if you accept the 'factual' story only, which in the case of a singular historic event as during the protests at Tiananmen square, certainly needs words to be told.
if the story evoked by the photo is based on commonly shared experience or knowledge chance is that most viewers will agree on one story which is the factual too.
I give it a try:
"anecdote", a word named as synonym for 'story' in the link provided in the original post, for indicating a 'short story', might fit better though
MikeDimit
Established
A story has words - many or not but they are wordS. One sentence is not a story but fact informing. So one picture could not bring a story without knowing the background of the event.
If you do not know where and when this shot was made you fill imagine a wrong story. And that is not the aim of this photography.
If you do not know where and when this shot was made you fill imagine a wrong story. And that is not the aim of this photography.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
I'd suggest it depends upon whether you have a need for the story to be fact or fiction. Fiction simply requires imagination, that unlocks most doors. Fact on the other hand would be harder to accomplish in one image.
alistair.o
Well-known
I believe we are all sentient beings and as such we will have a story to complete each picture.
We go into art galleries and look at old masters and unless we knew a little of the time period and what it is that is within the frame as 'code', we would just observe, like it or not and move on.
The same for modern art. There is always a back-story. A prime example of which would be Duchamps urinal.
We go into art galleries and look at old masters and unless we knew a little of the time period and what it is that is within the frame as 'code', we would just observe, like it or not and move on.
The same for modern art. There is always a back-story. A prime example of which would be Duchamps urinal.
Sparrow
Veteran
... it can tell a short story
The Beach at Acharavi, Kerikira (Corfu) par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity
The Beach at Acharavi, Kerikira (Corfu) par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity
Hsg
who dares wins
Thanks for all the replies and images posted in this thread.
I think the biggest hurdle to discussing this topic is the word 'story'. The word story has too many meanings, some contradictory, plus its other attributes such as a short story or a long story...
My conclusion is that whatever impulse people have as the reason behind their photography, then that impulse is valid. There is no rule that says what you can or cannot expect from photographs.
In my own case, I have been influenced by some other photographers who have said a photo cannot tell a story, but now I see that as a very simplistic approach.
There is no rule to what a photo can or cannot do, and I'm going to start approaching photography from that angle.
I have changed my mind, not by taking one or the other side of this debate but by rejecting both sides and approaching photography without any conclusion as to what it can or cannot do.
I think the biggest hurdle to discussing this topic is the word 'story'. The word story has too many meanings, some contradictory, plus its other attributes such as a short story or a long story...
My conclusion is that whatever impulse people have as the reason behind their photography, then that impulse is valid. There is no rule that says what you can or cannot expect from photographs.
In my own case, I have been influenced by some other photographers who have said a photo cannot tell a story, but now I see that as a very simplistic approach.
There is no rule to what a photo can or cannot do, and I'm going to start approaching photography from that angle.
I have changed my mind, not by taking one or the other side of this debate but by rejecting both sides and approaching photography without any conclusion as to what it can or cannot do.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i still disagree, based on the reasoning i gave in that other thread...
kuuan
loves old lenses
Sparrow
Veteran
"I think the biggest hurdle to discussing this topic is the word 'story'. The word story has too many meanings, some contradictory, plus its other attributes such as a short story or a long story... "
.............. em? no not really ... it is a narrative account over time, doh
... "the word story has too many meanings" em? it really doesn't, how could it? ............... we all know what story means
... this such a strange precept ...... why do you (yes you HGV) think that any one artistic media should need to perform the function of another? why would a graphic medium need to cover the same ground as literature can? it (photography) cannot hold a tune or keep time eh? the sad white guy of the media ... that is how it is, sorry'
... I myself have conveyed my feelings about this to you through the medium of dance on a number of occasions, and I have been sorely disappointed by your response so far sir!
Hsg
who dares wins
right on!
and forever wonder
Very powerful.
rbsinto
Well-known
Telling stories with pictures is all I've ever wanted to do photographically, and in my opinion, one can tell a story with a single image.
Pablito
coco frío
Oh, the humanity!
RichC
Well-known
Sensible decision!
I'm in the camp that believes all photographs tell a story. There are other mediums - literature for one - that narrate more clearly, with less effort and more control than photography. But unsuitability shouldn't put people off using a medium to do something that another might do far better, if that's what they want to do.
Photography is particularly well suited as evidence, as documentary proof that an event happened. Sculpture is very bad at that - what it is good at is three-dimensional subjective interpretation. However, you can use sculpture in the same way as photography to record reality: for example, taking a death mask.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Winogrands words on it and I agree. About 1:27 in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek
DaveTaylor
Established
Surely Nick Ut's 1972 picture of Kim Phuc, the "Napalm Girl" tells a story in one frame.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
There's as much with which to agree as with which to disagree in that clip. But what really strikes me is how patently obvious the differences are in the regime of seeing in that era compared to the current one. Thanks for the link.
Don't know OP.
Some pix do better than others at telling the story. If I have a short story I use a collage on one page of a few pix to get the message across.
Some pix do better than others at telling the story. If I have a short story I use a collage on one page of a few pix to get the message across.
sjones
Established
Yep, no story. As others have noted, a photo can inspire the viewer to formulate a presumptive narrative, short or not, in which case the viewer’s mind, rather than the photo, is effectively telling the story.
By itself, Nick Ut’s photo does not provide the viewer with when, where, who, what, or even a subjective why. This does not mean that it lacks impact, and maybe that’s all that matters in many cases…the emotionally provocative statement, never mind the details.
But without further explanation, the photo by itself requires the viewer to already possess a certain understanding of the event, lest they otherwise be oblivious as to what exactly has just taken place.
I point this out, because I remember as a child seeing Ut’s photo and not understanding the situation. Obviously something horrific, but beyond this, further reading was required to get the story.
If contentions still persist that photographs do in fact tell stories, that’s fine, as we are rolling around in murky semantics a bit.
Whatever position one might take, it’s worthwhile to always consider the highly manipulative potential of photos because, unlike any other medium (aside from film/video), they apparently show “reality,” a visual distraction that can adumbrate the lack of needed context.
See Eddie Adams’ subsequent reaction to his equally famous “General Nguyen Ngoc Loan Executing a Viet Cong Prisoner in Saigon” photo (https://rbp2013.wordpress.com/2013/...tzer-prize-winning-photograph/comment-page-1/).
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Agree sjones and great article that supports the point.
RichC
Well-known
There seems to be a misunderstanding...
No one has suggested that something can only be said to tell a story if it only has one particular narrative (such as "the truth", or that intended by its creator). Where has that idea come from?
In fact, it's impossible for something to have just a single narrative. Every story told by, say, a movie, a book or a newspaper is initiated by the item - but it is completed in the reader's or viewer's mind. So, every person who reads the novel (or watches the movie of) "To Kill a Mockingbird" will take away a different and unique story.
If you and I read "To Kill a Mockingbird" and then retold the story, our retellings would be entirely different because we each interpret the book through our own experience and personality - what is significant to you may be utterly meaningless to me. There will, of course, be certain things that we are both likely to note - but a lot we won't.
In short, it is impossible for anyone or any thing to tell a single, unchanging story because a story requires an audience - and the narrative interacts with and is altered by each person in that audience. A hundred people watching "To Kill a Mockingbird" will come away with 100 different stories.
So, the only difference between mediums such as photography or literature when considering their ability to narrate is how much of the narrative is contributed by the medium and how much effort the viewer/reader has to put into creating the story.
If you still hold that a photo can't tell a story, then logically you must have a cut-off point that decides when something is or isn't telling a story, dependent on how much the object contributes to the narrative and how much you do. This seems very peculiar, arbitrary and wrong-headed to me. Does something stop telling a story when it contributes, say, less than 25%!? Or perhaps 17.314%!?
Surely it is far more reasonable to instead consider that a great many things narrate - in fact every single thing changed by man in some way - but that the qualities of the stories they tell differ. Take the example of a book: the words of course tell us a story, but so does the object itself - the sheets of paper marked with ink - and also the paper and ink considered individually. Even blank paper has a tale to tell us.
Photographs are far more ambiguous story-tellers than books - but that simply means that each medium narrates differently.
No one has suggested that something can only be said to tell a story if it only has one particular narrative (such as "the truth", or that intended by its creator). Where has that idea come from?
In fact, it's impossible for something to have just a single narrative. Every story told by, say, a movie, a book or a newspaper is initiated by the item - but it is completed in the reader's or viewer's mind. So, every person who reads the novel (or watches the movie of) "To Kill a Mockingbird" will take away a different and unique story.
If you and I read "To Kill a Mockingbird" and then retold the story, our retellings would be entirely different because we each interpret the book through our own experience and personality - what is significant to you may be utterly meaningless to me. There will, of course, be certain things that we are both likely to note - but a lot we won't.
In short, it is impossible for anyone or any thing to tell a single, unchanging story because a story requires an audience - and the narrative interacts with and is altered by each person in that audience. A hundred people watching "To Kill a Mockingbird" will come away with 100 different stories.
So, the only difference between mediums such as photography or literature when considering their ability to narrate is how much of the narrative is contributed by the medium and how much effort the viewer/reader has to put into creating the story.
If you still hold that a photo can't tell a story, then logically you must have a cut-off point that decides when something is or isn't telling a story, dependent on how much the object contributes to the narrative and how much you do. This seems very peculiar, arbitrary and wrong-headed to me. Does something stop telling a story when it contributes, say, less than 25%!? Or perhaps 17.314%!?
Surely it is far more reasonable to instead consider that a great many things narrate - in fact every single thing changed by man in some way - but that the qualities of the stories they tell differ. Take the example of a book: the words of course tell us a story, but so does the object itself - the sheets of paper marked with ink - and also the paper and ink considered individually. Even blank paper has a tale to tell us.
Photographs are far more ambiguous story-tellers than books - but that simply means that each medium narrates differently.