Do pictures tell stories?
- Thread starter Carterofmars
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 198
- Views 17K
Lss
Well-known
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Yes.
Good pictures tell us a story about the subject(s). Bad photographs tell us a story about the photographer's lack of skill, vision or both.
jwc57
Well-known
Is this any picture or just photography? Does a painted mural tell a story though it is one picture? I was reading a description recently about a Rembrandt painting and the writer mentioned how the Rembrandt told a story. Does photography not do the same?
airfrogusmc
Veteran
See post # 86 in Winogrands own words.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2107132&postcount=86
gns
Well-known
A mural with many pictures or "Scenes" depicted within a single frame? I guess that pretty much a sequence of images. Again, that's seems like nitpicking and not what people are talking about here.
Peter^
Well-known
I don' think there is a definitive answer to this question. Some great photographs are purely visual, some are narrative. Sometimes you are being told a story by the artist, sometimes you are left to your own imagination. It only takes one scene or frame to tell a story: the events leading up to the moment of the picture and following are often implied.
What story does this picture tell?
What story does this picture tell?
RichL
Well-known
A picture can indeed tell a story. Just look at a picture of Dresden just after the allies dropped thousands of tons of bombs on it. You can see the devastation and no doubt about it... if you already know the context within which to view it. If you don't know the context it could have been destroyed by a massive earthquake (in sections there ain't spitin difference between Dresden bombing destruction and the San Francisco quake of 06 destruction.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:...-041-07,_Dresden,_zerstörtes_Stadtzentrum.jpg
http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/T/V/sf27.gif
Without knowing the context, what are these pictures of? Bombing... earthquake... volcano... natural gas explosion... planned charge to level a plague city... a model of a city that scientist were using to test various disaster scenarios... ? The only story they tell is (as has been said) whatever the viewer makes up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:...-041-07,_Dresden,_zerstörtes_Stadtzentrum.jpg
http://0.tqn.com/d/history1900s/1/0/T/V/sf27.gif
Without knowing the context, what are these pictures of? Bombing... earthquake... volcano... natural gas explosion... planned charge to level a plague city... a model of a city that scientist were using to test various disaster scenarios... ? The only story they tell is (as has been said) whatever the viewer makes up.
jwc57
Well-known
I don't see it as nitpicking at all. I just finished Bates Lowry's "The Visual Experience; An Introduction to Art" and it seems to fit. You have someone describing a piece of sculptor as a moment when the work's subject is heading to a place. How can you come to such a conclusion without there being a story?
All a photo or painting has to do is evoke an emotion...and the story is realized.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
But you just said it Rich its not the photograph telling the story its the viewer.
jwc57
Well-known
My photography teacher was a photographer for the Oakland Tribune. He saw his photography as nothing more than something to support the story a writer was telling. I believed him, but came to realize I felt he was wrong. He was a nuts and bolts kind of person.
Even a novel needs the input from the reader. It requires their imagination for the story to be realized. It is the same with a photograph. A writer can take you down the path, but without imagination, they can not make you think.
Even a novel needs the input from the reader. It requires their imagination for the story to be realized. It is the same with a photograph. A writer can take you down the path, but without imagination, they can not make you think.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I suggest you read back, we are running in circles. These issues have been addressed. A novel is a story period. It has narrative. A photograph, if in a series or accompanied by copy can indeed tell a story (documentary and a series surely can) but a single photograph by its very nature can not tell a story. That doesn't mean that it can't be amazing, complex a great photograph but the viewer is telling the story not the photograph. Its one of many huge photography myths. A photograph is like a sentence in a novel. As Winogrand said and I totally agree it has no narrative. It shows you what something looks like to a camera.
RichL
Well-known
If the viewer has prior written or verbal knowledge of an event such as the earthquake then the picture is telling the story of what the quake did. If the viewer does not have prior knowledge then she can make up her own story or, as is my case simply say to myself "Huh, wonder what happened?" if it is a truly dramatic picture or totally disregard it if it seems to me to be just another snapshot of something or other. The picture that started this thread got the (approximate) response of 'Two people somewhere... so what. And that, my friend, is not a story it is simply a cerebral response to bland visual intrusion.
jwc57
Well-known
I feel you are ignoring a very important point You feel like it is going in circles and I feel that you are missing an important element. Different people view a photograph, or what they get from a narrative, from what the photographer or writer includes or excludes. A good photographer and a good writer take this into account.
A narrative that is abstract, engages the reader to share the experience based on the reader's imagination, yet it is still a narrative. A story that takes a reader from beginning to end, and is nothing more than a narrative, without engaging the reader, is nothing more than a snapshot. In other words, such a narrative does nothing more than a photo. It says, "this guy did this at this time", just like a snapshot.
(I don't know why I felt compelled to engage in this. Some people will see a painting or a photograph as nothing more than its physical existence.
"That's pretty". While others will see it as "That's pretty" and a story from the artist. My wife sees books as nothing but stories----nothing more. An escape with no other meaning. I see them as more than that. For her. any other meaning has to be explained.)
airfrogusmc
Veteran
But again a single photograph has no narrative. A story tells you who, what, where, when, how, now show a photograph that does that, I want to see it.
I have insisted that great photographs do engage, they inspire thought and the best single photographs can even cause change but a single photograph doesn't tell a story.
Again I'm not saying that there aren't great single photograph in fact just the opposite. If you stop looking for single photographs to tell you a story now suddenly there is an entire world of images and photographers that you are now viewing in a different light. So you have now stepped out of the cave into a brave new world. A world of Siskind, Uelsmann, DeCarava, Gibson and many more.
Mary Ellen Mark said "I try to make images that stand on their own, not to tell a story, I think film tells a story"
Garry Winogrand "“The fact that photographs — they’re mute, they don’t have any narrative ability at all. You know what something looks like, but you don’t know what’s happening, you don’t know whether the hat’s being held or is it being put on her head or taken off her head. From the photograph, you don’t know that. A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening.”
“I think that there isn’t a photograph in the world that has any narrative ability. Any of ‘em. They do not tell stories – they show you what something looks like. To a camera. The minute you relate this thing to what was photographed — it’s a lie. It’s two-dimensional. It’s the illusion of literal description. The thing has to be complete in the frame, whether you have the narrative information or not. It has to be complete in the frame. It’s a picture problem. It’s part of what makes things interesting.”
I agree with both.
And nothing I've read here or in the other thread has caused me to change my opinion.
I have insisted that great photographs do engage, they inspire thought and the best single photographs can even cause change but a single photograph doesn't tell a story.
Again I'm not saying that there aren't great single photograph in fact just the opposite. If you stop looking for single photographs to tell you a story now suddenly there is an entire world of images and photographers that you are now viewing in a different light. So you have now stepped out of the cave into a brave new world. A world of Siskind, Uelsmann, DeCarava, Gibson and many more.
Mary Ellen Mark said "I try to make images that stand on their own, not to tell a story, I think film tells a story"
Garry Winogrand "“The fact that photographs — they’re mute, they don’t have any narrative ability at all. You know what something looks like, but you don’t know what’s happening, you don’t know whether the hat’s being held or is it being put on her head or taken off her head. From the photograph, you don’t know that. A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening.”
“I think that there isn’t a photograph in the world that has any narrative ability. Any of ‘em. They do not tell stories – they show you what something looks like. To a camera. The minute you relate this thing to what was photographed — it’s a lie. It’s two-dimensional. It’s the illusion of literal description. The thing has to be complete in the frame, whether you have the narrative information or not. It has to be complete in the frame. It’s a picture problem. It’s part of what makes things interesting.”
I agree with both.
And nothing I've read here or in the other thread has caused me to change my opinion.
Souljer
Established
Hi,
I do not think it's necessarily important for a picture to tell an obvious story. Things only implied or left mysterious may make a stronger composition emotionally.
Not sure where it's insinuated that Winogrand is insane. I don't remember anyone saying that, but it's a long thread, I might have missed it.
I agree with all that.
I do not think it's necessarily important for a picture to tell an obvious story. Things only implied or left mysterious may make a stronger composition emotionally.
That's fine. Just because a photographer is more interested in composition or some other aspects does not mean that there are no clues as to what's happening in a photo that in fact could lead to a story. Just because you do not see it does not mean it's not there or never happened or never could happen.
Souljer
Established
Hi,
Below are great examples of why "A picture can not tell a story" is false.
Now someone who "knows" is going to judge our work as to when the pictures become a story? And these people are qualified because they are so open to seeing connections and reading symbols and signs that lead to some kind of story?
I like the time-lapse idea mentioned earlier. How about a picture taken from a roof-top patio over the course of a month. By the end you have the phases of the moon all on one frame.
Another fine example of the preposterous nature of one picture cannot tell a story. The whole concept is so limiting and silly. Not to mention arrogant in assuming that this rule could apply to all photographs ever made both in the past and into the future. Not one story there? How do you know a photograph will not be created sometime next year or next decade that does have a story clear enough for you to read? The position is a huge assumption that no one will ever do it. To me that just sounds impossible.
Good luck.
Below are great examples of why "A picture can not tell a story" is false.
So one picture; No way. Impossible!, but two pictures... Maybe?
Now someone who "knows" is going to judge our work as to when the pictures become a story? And these people are qualified because they are so open to seeing connections and reading symbols and signs that lead to some kind of story?
I like the time-lapse idea mentioned earlier. How about a picture taken from a roof-top patio over the course of a month. By the end you have the phases of the moon all on one frame.
Great question!
Another fine example of the preposterous nature of one picture cannot tell a story. The whole concept is so limiting and silly. Not to mention arrogant in assuming that this rule could apply to all photographs ever made both in the past and into the future. Not one story there? How do you know a photograph will not be created sometime next year or next decade that does have a story clear enough for you to read? The position is a huge assumption that no one will ever do it. To me that just sounds impossible.
Good luck.
Souljer
Established
Hi,
I feel that photos may sometimes be more suited to be read as poems or haiku rather than requiring a checklist of qualifiers to have valid narratives or stories.
Just for fun though, I'll take a shot at the "official" story.
Who: Two children.
What: Talking between themselves after a wedding or official ceremony.
Where : Outside of the church or where the ceremony was held. Maybe somewhere in Europe but not in the USA at any rate.
When: Just after the ceremony.
How: The ceremony over, they have time to talk.
I like how the adults are dressed up, followed by their miniatures.
Something like that is what I get from a quick look.
I agree that the story or narrative does not need to be obvious or even that important to the strength of the photo.I don' think there is a definitive answer to this question. Some great photographs are purely visual, some are narrative. Sometimes you are being told a story by the artist, sometimes you are left to your own imagination. It only takes one scene or frame to tell a story: the events leading up to the moment of the picture and following are often implied.
What story does this picture tell?
I feel that photos may sometimes be more suited to be read as poems or haiku rather than requiring a checklist of qualifiers to have valid narratives or stories.
Just for fun though, I'll take a shot at the "official" story.
Who: Two children.
What: Talking between themselves after a wedding or official ceremony.
Where : Outside of the church or where the ceremony was held. Maybe somewhere in Europe but not in the USA at any rate.
When: Just after the ceremony.
How: The ceremony over, they have time to talk.
I like how the adults are dressed up, followed by their miniatures.
Something like that is what I get from a quick look.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I agree. Yet, there are many people who think of this precise question in absolute/superlative terms: "all photographs must tell a story" or "any photograph that tells a story is mental laziness".
When people have a loose (if any) grasp of a concept, they associate another in order to make sense of it.
Do B&W photos tell stories differently than color photos? Do stories need color? Do photographs need stories? Do stories need photographs? Do the stories told by the photograph require good grammar? Are these stories in English, Simplified English, or a more universal Esperanto?
Like an inkblot, most photos tell a story the viewer likes to "hear", and some are more evident than others.
When "telling a story" becomes a requirement, you take something away either from photography or the story-telling, and both will need each other to make the case for the other. This is not necessarily either a good or a bad thing, but it is a bad thing when you don't know why you're doing either.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
All great photographs lead the viewer to create the story but its those clues and that use of visual language that will create an image engaging enough to inspire the viewer to create the story but again its not the photograph doing that. The photograph is showing you what something looked like.