Do pictures tell stories?

The accuracy of the story is not under discussion. No one would claim that anything tells a story accurately.
 
For me, as a former newspaper staffer, a single image can tell a story but only for the instant of time that the image was taken. For example, a shot I made of a family in tears with a military photographer crouched in front of them would seem to indicate that the family had just seen something horrific. Does it tell the whole story? Absolutely not but for the instant in time that I took the image the viewer knows there is something outside of the frame that is causing this family pain. Another example, on a basic level, would be a shot I made of a paramedic as he lifted a stretcher with a patient on it. The patient is bloody and unconscious. The viewer knows that there is someone in need of medical attention but why? And does the patient survive? A still image only tells a part of a story to me. A single image is not the beginning or the end, just a moment in time. BUT a single image can have such impact that one will remember till their dying day....
 
seagrove said:
For me, as a former newspaper staffer, a single image can tell a story but only for the instant of time that the image was taken. For example, a shot I made of a family in tears with a military photographer crouched in front of them would seem to indicate that the family had just seen something horrific. Does it tell the whole story? Absolutely not but for the instant in time that I took the image the viewer knows there is something outside of the frame that is causing this family pain. Another example, on a basic level, would be a shot I made of a paramedic as he lifted a stretcher with a patient on it. The patient is bloody and unconscious. The viewer knows that there is someone in need of medical attention but why? And does the patient survive? A still image only tells a part of a story to me. A single image is not the beginning or the end, just a moment in time. BUT a single image can have such impact that one will remember till their dying day....
Click to expand...

Hmmm so there are not captions and written words in articles with those photographs? If the photograph told the story words wouldn't be needed.
 
I have no qualms or hesitation dismissing anyone who attempts to deny and invalidate MY OWN experience. Simple as that. "Let Fools be Fools" probably works for both of us, right airfrog?
 
gns said:
Well, they could certainly start to at least, because with a sequence or series, you have introduced the element of time.
Click to expand...

Yes absolutely. Thats why documentary photographers like Robert Frank worked in large bodies of work and there were forewords in they're books by great writers and chapters but yes the photo essays of say W.Eugene Smith and the documentary photographers like Davidson, Frank, Lyons, Evans all told stories with the projects but those were not single photographs and thats exactly why the had to use many images and words because the single photograph, on its own, is not able to tell a story.
 
FrankS said:
I have no qualms or hesitation dismissing anyone who attempts to deny and invalidate MY OWN experience. Simple as that. "Let Fools be Fools" probably works for both of us, right airfrog?
Click to expand...

I am not dismissing your minds story telling ability or YOUR own experience. In fact just the opposite. What I am, and I'm not the only one here and I have shown that some of the greatest have shared our opinion, what I and the others are dismissing is the single photographs ability to tell stories.
 
You have not addressed my point about figurative speech and semantics being the root of this kerfuffle, but I'll leave you be now.
 
FrankS said:
You have not addressed my point about figurative speech, but I'll leave you be now.
Click to expand...

Frank again, the photograph, if it is engaging, is inspiring the viewer to tell his/her own story. And thats a great thing. Respect the viewer enough to let him or her participate and all the great photographs do just that.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Frank again, the photograph, if it is engaging, is inspiring the view to tell his/her own story. And thats a great thing. Respect the viewer enough to let him or her participate and all the great photographs do just that.
Click to expand...

Now, isn't that EXACTLY what I've been saying?:bang:

Please read my post #139 where I have restated my views.
 
FrankS said:
So this whole discussion is based simply on a disagreement over semantics. A "picture tells a story" is figurative speech, as I've already said, and does not mean that an image speaks aloud in a voice to tell us a story, just as a book does not recite its story aloud either.
Click to expand...

I think there are at least 2 different points being argued here. One is the definition of the word, story. To some it seems a story could be any example of a description or even any man made thing. To others (including me) it refers more specifically to describing a sequence of related events. This is simple semantics. The other point of disagreement is over what it is to tell something. Some have the view that anything they imagine as a result of viewing a photo has been told to them. Others (me), hold more to the idea that there is a difference in what is explicit in the work and what is interpretation on the part of the viewer. This may be less about semantics.
 
"To some it seems a story could be any example of a description or even any man made thing."

Isn't that a noun? Or a sentence at best?
 
gns said:
Well, they could certainly start to at least, because with a sequence or series, you have introduced the element of time.
Click to expand...
Is it necessary to create individual pictures, or can an image consisting of multiple exposures provide that element of time? What about a single long exposure? How long need such exposure be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom