M C H
Member
blahhbity blah blah
Do pictures tell stories?
- Thread starter Carterofmars
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 198
- Views 17K
airfrogusmc
Veteran
A book does tell you a story through narrative and is literal for the most part. Different forms all together and thats exactly what a single photograph lacks narrative.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2107132&postcount=86
FrankS
Registered User
A book does not tell a story without someone engaging with it. Same with a photograph or a painting or a sculpture or a play. Art requires the engagement of the viewer.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
First I never said that photographs didn't demand engagement from the viewer in fact I've said just the opposite. A book is descriptive and its not just one word or one sentence. It is paragraphs and chapters all designed to tell a story just like a body of work or a series like Michals work or Minor Whites work not just one photograph no more than a word in a book could tell a story. I once thought that a single photograph told stories and over time and the more knowledge I gained I realized how wrong I was. And I enjoy both the viewing of work and the process of making photographs so much more now that I let all that go.
FrankS
Registered User
Just one more post on this and I'll leave it alone.
Have you ever heard this: "A picture is worth a thousand words."
Have you ever heard this: "A picture is worth a thousand words."
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I've heard a lot of things that are popular and believed by a lot of people that are not true.
As I said earlier that at one time most thought the world was flat. 😉
nikonosguy
Well-known
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Perfect example of a photo not telling a story. But it does ask questions. Who put those flags there? Why are they there? Who is the guy and background and why is he there? What has he got to do with the other element in the frame? When did this take place? Whats the context? Without narrative there's no story. Add some words or more images that show more of a larger whole then maybe but this is like a piece to a puzzle. With out the rest of the pieces it makes little sense.
taskoni
Well-known
This can be said for your thoughts on the subject too.
You see, you should sometimes accept that the coin have two sides. Just flip it around, life is too short for limiting yourself and the ones around you with primitive thinking.
You said earlier you have being teaching photography?
I am not going to waste my time in this thread.
I am out of here, wisely following Frank.
Regards,
Boris
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I'm a very good teacher and so was Winogrand and he was very educated in the arts and more important than that, one of last centuries, after WWII, more important photographers so sorry Boris...
Platos Cave...
BTW Boris first photograph was not 1839. It was 1826 by Joseph Nicephore Niepce and the piece was "View from the Window at La Gras" 1826.
RichC
Well-known
I'll have one more go, then I'm out of here too...
As I've said before, there's nothing wrong with appreciating a photograph - or any picture - primarily through its graphic structure (shape, line, tone, colour) and juxtaposition of objects. (Airfrog: I get why you're not interested in the story-telling aspect of photography.)
Airfrog's argument seems to be that a story can only be told by a medium that fixates on a single story (regardless of whether it's truth or fiction): for example, the story in a series of pictures or a book.
This is completely illogical.
Take Airfrog's photograph in which a man coincincidentally mimics the pose of the character in a poster. We are gratified by the pleasing visual structure and congruence of forms, but noticing the content of the photograph we try to understand and apply context to the picture, and in doing so we create a story. It is impossible to look at ANYTHING man-made (especially an object like a realistic picture) without attaching meaning - resulting a story. I've got an old silver pencil with the inscription "To Miss Williamson, July 1949": from this simple fact, we will all create a story, individual to each of us.
Airfrog would say that his photograph does not tell a story but it does ask questions. Who is this man? Where is he and why? What is the poster about, and what is his relationship with the man? These questions don't revolve about a single knowable (truth) or imagined (fiction) event (i.e. one story) but lead to a multitude of possible connected events: in other words - contrary to Airfrog's belief - a multitude of stories.
A story is not something baked into - intrinsic to - an object, and depends on both its author and audience. Because of this relationship, there can never be a single story attached to an object: every story is thus unique. In other words, objects are catalysts not containers for stories, which depend on the audience for their existence, and an object (whether, for example, a novel, a series of photographs or a single photograph) is associated with multiple stories, each unique to a reader/viewer.
It matters not one whit that a novel (or a series of photographs) guides the reader (or viewer) towards a particular storyline whereas a single photograph is open ended. They all tell stories: there is no difference. And literature can be just as ambiguous as the single photograph, relying on the reader to take an active role in the creation of the story. The writing of Samuel Beckett (the "Waiting for Godot" bloke) is a prime example: I suppose Airfrog thinks Beckett didn't write stories because - very like Airfrog's photograph - his writing does not attach itself to a "single" story!?
I've conflated "narrative" and "story", but strictly they're not the same thing, and the difference is worth noting: the narrative is how a story is told (i.e. technique and structure), while the story is the content of the narrative (i.e. meaning). Narrative and story are indivisible and two sides of the same coin, but Airfrog ignores this reality, saying that only narrative exists in a single photograph - an impossibilty!
Now, if Airfrog said that - given a single story to tell - a book will narrate it more clearly than a photograph, then that's a different kettle of fish! Literature does some things better than photography, one of which is that it can narrate more effectively.
As I've said before, there's nothing wrong with appreciating a photograph - or any picture - primarily through its graphic structure (shape, line, tone, colour) and juxtaposition of objects. (Airfrog: I get why you're not interested in the story-telling aspect of photography.)
Airfrog's argument seems to be that a story can only be told by a medium that fixates on a single story (regardless of whether it's truth or fiction): for example, the story in a series of pictures or a book.
This is completely illogical.
Take Airfrog's photograph in which a man coincincidentally mimics the pose of the character in a poster. We are gratified by the pleasing visual structure and congruence of forms, but noticing the content of the photograph we try to understand and apply context to the picture, and in doing so we create a story. It is impossible to look at ANYTHING man-made (especially an object like a realistic picture) without attaching meaning - resulting a story. I've got an old silver pencil with the inscription "To Miss Williamson, July 1949": from this simple fact, we will all create a story, individual to each of us.
Airfrog would say that his photograph does not tell a story but it does ask questions. Who is this man? Where is he and why? What is the poster about, and what is his relationship with the man? These questions don't revolve about a single knowable (truth) or imagined (fiction) event (i.e. one story) but lead to a multitude of possible connected events: in other words - contrary to Airfrog's belief - a multitude of stories.
A story is not something baked into - intrinsic to - an object, and depends on both its author and audience. Because of this relationship, there can never be a single story attached to an object: every story is thus unique. In other words, objects are catalysts not containers for stories, which depend on the audience for their existence, and an object (whether, for example, a novel, a series of photographs or a single photograph) is associated with multiple stories, each unique to a reader/viewer.
It matters not one whit that a novel (or a series of photographs) guides the reader (or viewer) towards a particular storyline whereas a single photograph is open ended. They all tell stories: there is no difference. And literature can be just as ambiguous as the single photograph, relying on the reader to take an active role in the creation of the story. The writing of Samuel Beckett (the "Waiting for Godot" bloke) is a prime example: I suppose Airfrog thinks Beckett didn't write stories because - very like Airfrog's photograph - his writing does not attach itself to a "single" story!?
I've conflated "narrative" and "story", but strictly they're not the same thing, and the difference is worth noting: the narrative is how a story is told (i.e. technique and structure), while the story is the content of the narrative (i.e. meaning). Narrative and story are indivisible and two sides of the same coin, but Airfrog ignores this reality, saying that only narrative exists in a single photograph - an impossibilty!
Now, if Airfrog said that - given a single story to tell - a book will narrate it more clearly than a photograph, then that's a different kettle of fish! Literature does some things better than photography, one of which is that it can narrate more effectively.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Of course they tell stories. They just don't tell the same story to everyone. The story can be anything from "This is what my cat looks like" (a short, boring story, without much future) to "Once upon a time, an aviator crash-landed in Tibet..." Depending on the imagination of the person looking at it, this a potentially much longer and more interesting story -- or, if you're mind-bogglingly literal, about as exciting as "This is what my cat looks like".
Build a story around this:
Cheers,
R.
Build a story around this:
Cheers,
R.
Attachments
bobbyrab
Well-known
Rich, I'm curious as to why you specify that it's any man made object that contains a story. If we accept your definition of what storytelling is, surely it could be applied to any object at all. If I look at an apple I immediately determine if it is fresh or past it's best, at a push I might contemplate if it's been imported and if so where it might have come from and what chain of events brings it to be in front of me now, how did it become bruised etc.
If I accept your definition, then it seems to me that all of these thoughts are legitimate stories derived from looking at the apple in exactly the same way as you are from any photograph.
If that is the case, and please put me right if I've missed the point, then your not particularly saying that photographs have any advantage of telling a story than any other inanimate object, really you can derive a story from anything and everything.
I, like many others asked 'can photographs tell a story', would assume the question implies do photographs have a particular quality that they can convey a concise story to the viewer, to which my answer would be no, they convey an impression,a starting point but nothing more. For example, your image of the girl with the dogs, I can't know for sure she's not scared of, and running away from the dogs, there's no confirmation in any photograph of any story you wish to project onto it.
I'm happy to live with your definition, but by attributing story telling capability to everything seems to curtail a more interesting discussion on what are the strengths and weaknesses of photographs to tell a story.
If I accept your definition, then it seems to me that all of these thoughts are legitimate stories derived from looking at the apple in exactly the same way as you are from any photograph.
If that is the case, and please put me right if I've missed the point, then your not particularly saying that photographs have any advantage of telling a story than any other inanimate object, really you can derive a story from anything and everything.
I, like many others asked 'can photographs tell a story', would assume the question implies do photographs have a particular quality that they can convey a concise story to the viewer, to which my answer would be no, they convey an impression,a starting point but nothing more. For example, your image of the girl with the dogs, I can't know for sure she's not scared of, and running away from the dogs, there's no confirmation in any photograph of any story you wish to project onto it.
I'm happy to live with your definition, but by attributing story telling capability to everything seems to curtail a more interesting discussion on what are the strengths and weaknesses of photographs to tell a story.
Michael Markey
Veteran
So do I.
"A picture shows you what something looks like ,to a camera".
You are free to draw conclusions from what you see ...but they`re your conclusions not the pictures or the photographers.
RichC
Well-known
Umm... I was trying to be keep things simple which was why I didn't explain my use of "man made".
It's the difference between an object conveying information in general and a story in particular: all things impart information, but not necessarily a story.
This hinges on the definition of a "story", which is generally along the lines of "the deliberate presentation of a work showing interrelated events". So, stories can be created only by humans, not objects. A story is the presentation of information, organised with intent.
A photograph deliberately taken to show the relationships between objects is thus a form of story-telling. This remains true even if the photographer is not interested in the connections they have depicted: by selecting certain information and manipulating its interrelations, a story has been created.
A story has to be expressed, i.e. it requires intent. That its meaning may be wholly ambiguous and its interpretation vary radically between individuals is immaterial. It is also of no consequence that its creator may have no clear idea of the story, just that a confluence of events seems important to record (as Airfrog does in his photographs). Airfrog is more interested in the act of story-telling - of narration - than in the stories themselves: he's more interested in the technique of imparting visual information than what the information is.
= a story!
If I read a novel but understand it entirely different to what the author intended, then that meaning is more down to me than the book. According to some definitions in this thread, then that novel would somehow no longer be a story!
The meaning of a story is irrelevant. If someone has written a story, it remains a story regardless that it may be impossible for anyone except the writer to know what it's about. The same holds true for a photograph: how much of the photographer's intent I perceive or how much personal interpretation is involved in my reading of the photograph does not affect the fact that the picture is telling a story.
As I've said, how well a photograph tells a PARTICULAR story is, well, another story!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
bobbyrab
Well-known
So an apple can't convey a story but a knife can? Does the man made object have to have been made with intent to tell a story or do all man made objects qualify as storytelling devises?
If a story is information organised with intent, would a blank frame taken by the accidental firing of my camera while in the bag, with no intentional information be an exception to your rule?
I know these questions all seem very trite, but it seems to me your definition of story telling is a very broad and all encompassing, yet you want to have quite specific rules as to what objects can and can't be telling a story.
If a story is information organised with intent, would a blank frame taken by the accidental firing of my camera while in the bag, with no intentional information be an exception to your rule?
I know these questions all seem very trite, but it seems to me your definition of story telling is a very broad and all encompassing, yet you want to have quite specific rules as to what objects can and can't be telling a story.
RichC
Well-known
Meanings are always fugitive: for example, when is a plant a weed? Or, to take a more famous example (from a semantics problem described in the 1950s), when is a man a bachelor: according to the dictionary, "when he's unmarried". But that is actually totally inadequate: a bachelor cannot be gay (but only if we exclude the euphemism "confirmed bachelor") or a Catholic priest, but he can be a Protestant priest (if not gay); and what do we mean by ‘marriage’ – must it be sanctioned by the state, or would a Wiccan ceremony count? And the conditions for being a bachelor can continue ad nauseaum...
So, we can't apply strict rules to meaning: we need instead to apply a broad consensus view - i.e. what society generally considers to be true - and be aware that this meaning will generally apply but that context is important. Meaning does not have strict border - it's not like a container; instead, think of meaning as borderless - like a cloud, where away from the central concept, meaning is fugitive and may merge into neighbour clouds of meaning.
Back to stories. A story is understood by most people to mean an account of a series of connected events (fictional or factual) - and that story-telling is deliberate. Stories are also understood to be told using a medium - usually through vision (pictures or words) or through sound. This core definition of story would be as understandable to an ancient Greek as it is to us today.
To answer your questions, the act of story-telling involves the creating of some thing - an inevitable outcome of the creation of a story: the story has to be deliberately encoded, and that means changing something, so the result of a story is a man-made object. You can't have one without the other. So, to talk about "story-telling devices" is a red herring - you can use anything you like to tell a story, provided you can somehow change it.
The accidental picture is best considered just that - an accident. If we start to attribute story-telling to events outside of our control, then the concept of the story then becomes so broad as to be meaningless. Let's not start allowing, say, rocks, the wind and the rain to tell stories!
In short, I suggest we stick to the idea that a story has to be a deliberate human action: an account of a series of connected events! The central tenet of our cloud of meaning...
airfrogusmc
Veteran
You are correct sir.
Michael Markey
Veteran
It does equal a story Rich but my point was ... its your story .
A picture may well have inspired you in whatever fanciful notion you may concoct but the picture isn`t telling the story ...you are.
Unless your claiming undue influence 🙂
A picture may well have inspired you in whatever fanciful notion you may concoct but the picture isn`t telling the story ...you are.
Unless your claiming undue influence 🙂