gns
Well-known
First, I agree with you that one medium may do certain things better than another: it's what the Modernists got hung up on - "medium specificity". That said, just because a medium's not great at something is not a reason to not use it for that purpose...
I think what we need to agree on is the meaning of "narrative".
First, why does a narrative have to imply the passage of time? I know Wikipedia is hardly the fount of all knowledge, but it does accord with the usual definition of a narrative: "A narrative (or story) is any account that presents connected events". Note that Wikipedia goes on to say that the passing of time is not part of the definition, merely an aesthetic convention.
A narrative is thus nothing more than the outcome of the perceived relationships between the components in a made object - such as a photograph - regardless of whether these relationships are intended or accidental.
"Communication" is way too non-specific and broad a concept - meaning simply the conveying of information.
Photographs tell stories - narrate - because we perceive a network of information, of cause and effect. Let's take one of my photos:
There's undeniably a story here - and in contrast to what you say, it involves time, albeit implied. What can we say about this picture? At it's most basic: "A woman crossing a road in a rain shower". We can add elements to the story, reading structure from the picture: "an unexpected shower" (she has no umbrella, and it's not raining in the distance), "in winter" (leafless trees), "in the afternoon" (a low sun), "on a hill in a town" (we're looking down on buildings, and villages don't have tower blocks). She's obviously a young woman, and a dog owner. There's plenty more information - for example, we can see that it's a fairly recent photo, certainly taken post-1960 - but that will suffice.
So, a simple and likely narrative from these interrelated elements is simply: "The girl was walking her two dogs one winter afternoon in town, when the heavens unexpectedly opened; head down, she scurried across the puddled road, and on uphill."
We can of course embellish this story: we suspect she was feeling miserable, and that she changed her sodden clothing in relief once home.
Writing is more suited to narrative, so would tell a similar story more completely that would be interpreted with less (but always with inevitable) variation by readers. But that does not change the fact that this picture tells a story, albeit leaving a lot implied and much to the imagination, so the stories associated with this photograph - as with most pictures - will splinter and multiply readily for different viewers.
Sorry Rich,
I feel like I'm just beating this into the ground. So, either I'm too dense to make my point or I am too dense to see another side to the topic. Or both. I have to say, that it seems pretty self-evident to me that the photograph can't relate a series of connected events. And to me, that is a story.
You can call me a hopeless modernist, but I do think the best photographs play to the medium's strengths and unique attributes.
Gary
airfrogusmc
Veteran
DSB
Member
An artist supplies the creative imagery. The viewer provides the imagination. If you need sequential images or written narration to imagine a story, well, I just can't help you there.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Yes but the supplied photograph isn't telling the story. The imagination of the viewer is. And many greats like Duane Michals, Walker Evans, Robert Frank, Bruce Davidson, Dorothea Lange, Ralph Gibson, Helen Levett, Danny Lyon, Henri Cartier-Bresson, W.Eugene Smith, Minor White, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Roy DeCarava, Harry Callahan, Joel Meyerowitz, Sally Mann, Francesca Woodman all worked beyond the single image.
DSB
Member
How else can you tell a story?
steveniphoto
Well-known
“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.”
- Winogrand.
this is the answer imo. if you dont agree thats fine i guess but i havent read a single reply here that made me think otherwise.
“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.”
- Winogrand.
this is the answer imo. if you dont agree thats fine i guess but i havent read a single reply here that made me think otherwise.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
How does a novel or a movie or a documentary project or news images with captions and articles tell stories. They all tell stores because they are not single photographs. That doesn't mean its an insult to a single photograph. In fact quite the opposite because thats the strength of a single photograph. And the really good ones really invite those with imaginations to participate buy unfolding slowly. The images you usually get immediate gratification from usually don't need any participation and surely don't unfold more to the viewer on repeat viewings. Its a rock, tree, puppy or a what ever. A noun. Nothing more.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I'm in complete agreement.
DSB
Member
I make a very good living making photographic imagery and I am surrounded by proof (to me) that photos can and sometimes do tell stories. My house, the food I eat, the cameras that I own are all paid for by the images that I create. My commercial images have to relate to people and I have to visually communicate an idea. Is that the definition of telling a story? You can all argue about that if you feel it necessary, but the people who purchase the images that I create are all of the proof that I need.
That is my profession. Do my personal photographs tell stories? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe only to me or my wife. Perhaps I shoot to create art as opposed to trying to communicate an idea to strangers. I don't worry if my personal images tell a story, but I do hope that the people who view my photos are engaged for a personal reason.
I agree that other mediums tell more complete stories that often have a beginning, middle, and ending. Sometimes, as in a good book, the viewer will create images in their mind (imagination). Sometimes, as in television, the viewer is spoon fed the visuals and plot.
Can a photograph be funny? If it is, does that mean it's telling a story to the viewer? Quote me, argue my points, agree, disagree, but it's Saturday morning and going out to shoot... With the camera that photographic story telling paid for.
That is my profession. Do my personal photographs tell stories? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe only to me or my wife. Perhaps I shoot to create art as opposed to trying to communicate an idea to strangers. I don't worry if my personal images tell a story, but I do hope that the people who view my photos are engaged for a personal reason.
I agree that other mediums tell more complete stories that often have a beginning, middle, and ending. Sometimes, as in a good book, the viewer will create images in their mind (imagination). Sometimes, as in television, the viewer is spoon fed the visuals and plot.
Can a photograph be funny? If it is, does that mean it's telling a story to the viewer? Quote me, argue my points, agree, disagree, but it's Saturday morning and going out to shoot... With the camera that photographic story telling paid for.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I have a B/A in photography, minored in art and have taught it part time at the college level and have been working full time and fully supporting my family in the field since graduating 1986 (27 years this spring) and shoot commercial/advertising. I have shot billboards, bus ads and I've had ads that I've shot in Newsweek, Ladies Home Journal, the Chicago Tribune, Sun Times, Pioneer Press, Oak Leaves, West Suburban Living and most of the other local newspapers. I've had stuff in Todays Chicago Woman, Michigan Ave, North Shore magazines and had a photograph in Betty Whites book If You Ask Me (And of Course You Won't) pg 185 and several images in Legendary Route 66. I have also had dozen of exhibits over the years and have had some success with that to and I know that single photographs do not tell stories. All that advertising work I've done is always accompanied with copy. Thats what brings the narrative to the work.
In fact with my personal work I have a show opening on April 4th and I posted an invite earlier in this thread.
In fact with my personal work I have a show opening on April 4th and I posted an invite earlier in this thread.
Bill Clark
Veteran
I like this commercial.
It tells stories with photographs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdWwqAI6x9A
It tells stories with photographs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdWwqAI6x9A
M C H
Member
blah blah blah
taskoni
Well-known
Re: Cubrick's photo
I apologize for stating the obvious but isn't that clear she's bringing downstairs books?
To the question where she's going the simple answer is she's going downstairs.
If you of course you ask me what's her name - well, you've got me here, I don't know. But what I know is that those questions are not important at all in a story.
How?
Well, you are taking pictures for a living, I am filmmaker (director) and I do this work for a living too. I am pretty sure I know what the story is (it's my job after all) and there's nothing to do with the questions you have asked.
Please understand, I am not trying to be nasty, just please don't try to push so hard your opinion with comments like this (you are a teacher after all too). You should know that every story (thankfully) has more than one side.
Your thoughts might be right for you, 1 billion people and may be Winogrand is among them too but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't believe in something different.
I am opening exhibit in a few weeks too but since my photography is more about story telling pictures related I don't think you are going to like it.
Good luck with your and have a great evening!
Regards,
Boris
I apologize for stating the obvious but isn't that clear she's bringing downstairs books?
To the question where she's going the simple answer is she's going downstairs.
If you of course you ask me what's her name - well, you've got me here, I don't know. But what I know is that those questions are not important at all in a story.
How?
Well, you are taking pictures for a living, I am filmmaker (director) and I do this work for a living too. I am pretty sure I know what the story is (it's my job after all) and there's nothing to do with the questions you have asked.
Please understand, I am not trying to be nasty, just please don't try to push so hard your opinion with comments like this (you are a teacher after all too). You should know that every story (thankfully) has more than one side.
Your thoughts might be right for you, 1 billion people and may be Winogrand is among them too but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't believe in something different.
I am opening exhibit in a few weeks too but since my photography is more about story telling pictures related I don't think you are going to like it.
Good luck with your and have a great evening!
Regards,
Boris
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Boris I think there might be some note books in there to but that still doesn't mean that single photograph tells a story.
A lot of people believed the world was flat once. And just because I don't think a single photograph tells a story doesn't mean I don't like single photographs or wouldn't like your photographs in fact just the opposite and to have an exhibit you have a body of work that is working together and an artist statement and all of those things that will, when put together, tell stories. If you let go of the myths a round world just might open up to you.
Good luck wuth you exhibit and please send us all an invite.
Kingston
Member
Seems like we have everything here: they never tell stories, they sometimes tell stories or they never tell stories.
I would agree with M C H in #92.
All pictures tell stories, good pictures might just tell better stories or tell them better. But as all pictures are a subjective view of reality, and thus provide information and feelings.
It all comes down to how you define a story. From the Winogrand quote (e.g., "A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening.", or that it's a lie, an illusion...), there is a huge confusion. Since when a story is supposed to be an accurate and objective representation of reality? On this regard, pictures are just like movies, paintings, sculptures, and literature. And yet we have no problem saying movies or books tell stories. Although they are equally subjective, are equally incomplete in time and are often fictional. Yet, it's story telling, and pictures are no exceptions. There is nothing in Winogrand quote which is the basis for distinguishing pictures from other forms of artistic representations and media.
I would agree with M C H in #92.
All pictures tell stories, good pictures might just tell better stories or tell them better. But as all pictures are a subjective view of reality, and thus provide information and feelings.
It all comes down to how you define a story. From the Winogrand quote (e.g., "A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening.", or that it's a lie, an illusion...), there is a huge confusion. Since when a story is supposed to be an accurate and objective representation of reality? On this regard, pictures are just like movies, paintings, sculptures, and literature. And yet we have no problem saying movies or books tell stories. Although they are equally subjective, are equally incomplete in time and are often fictional. Yet, it's story telling, and pictures are no exceptions. There is nothing in Winogrand quote which is the basis for distinguishing pictures from other forms of artistic representations and media.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
But again unlike some of the other forms you mentioned a single photograph the viewer is the one telling the story not the photograph. A motion picture is sound or if it were silent there were words and its made up of many images per second. So in that a single photograph is very different because it has no narrative. Literature you are told the story with words.
But the bigger problem and question why should it matter? I see all kinds of people chasing this myth and dismissing with their own vision and the way they judge other work and things that they feel don't tell stories when a single photograph isn't what tells it. So they therefor dismiss possibilities with their own work and also miss so much great work because they are looking and judging on things are merely myths.
I say quit worrying if a single photograph tells stories or better yet build a large body of work that all relates and does tell a story.
DSB
Member
I just checked out a few of your images that you have posted. Nice stuff. I guess it's all a matter of semantics and perception because I think that some of your images do tell stories. I think that we may be coming from different directions. From where I sit, maybe your professional work may not tell stories, but the images that you posted (personal work?) does. I believe that the professional work that I do really tells stories, but my personal work does not. Just my perception from what I viewed.
I really like the two women talking with the third woman in the coffee shop looking at them. I guess we will disagree about this topic. Who cares? Shoot away!
Best,
Dave
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Thanks Dave,
In my opinion most of the images I am shooting lately are about moments and visual elements coming together and my attempt at capturing them with some kind of visual meaning. Using language like repeating shapes, lines, tone and other visual tools and trying to capture that elusive moment when they come together to make a meaningful photograph.
I have done documentary projects in the past and those groups of photos hopefully told the viewer what I was attempting to document and of course I had written an artist statement so all of those elements hopefully got the viewer where I needed them to go..
I don't feel, no matter how great a single photograph is, that it tells a story nor should it try. Thats not to say it shouldn't show us things beyond the obvious. In fact it should. It should be more than the object being photographed or a just a noun. Building staying power in an image takes a strong use of language and the ability for the photographer to take the viewer to see beneath the surface. To see beyond the obvious or beyond the noun to what the event, thing or object is to the photographer but that has nothing to do with story telling.
For my professional work my clients hire really good writers most of the time and they are the ones that do the story telling and between there words, the graphic designers lay out and my photographs we can usually tell a good story and get the viewer to exactly the place the clients needs them to be.
Kingston
Member
Well, in a book the author is describing a situation, say, a character "he is tall, dark hair...". Then, the reader is interpreting to get the story in his mind. In a movie as well, viewers might have different interpretations. I don't see how it is different from a picture, the photograph is showing something and the viewer gets information from it.
But you're right, it does not matter that much at the end of the day.
FrankS
Registered User
Since airfrog is hung up on a literal interpretation of a picture telling a story, it should be pointed out that a book does not literally tell a story either. It takes a reader to interact with/interpret the text in order to get at the story. Similarly, the viewer of a photograph needs to provide his/her participation to get at its story.