Do pictures tell stories?

Gabriel M.A. said:
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?
Click to expand...
This made me laugh.
I'd say it's Hyroglifics or perhaps the universal language of Charades?

Gabriel M.A. said:
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.
Click to expand...
That last sentence sounds very true to me.
Some people say that only good photos tell stories. I'd say they all do if you care to look. However, as you say, if the photographer does not know WHY they are doing something or have a clear understanding of the themes they want to explore it probably will not be a clear story or even a good photograph.

A black frame on the proofsheet may be the story of what the back of your lens cap looks like. :)
 
Souljer said:
This made me laugh.
I'd say it's Hyroglifics or perhaps the universal language of Charades?


That last sentence sounds very true to me.
Some people say that only good photos tell stories. I'd say they all do if you care to look. However, as you say, if the photographer does not know WHY they are doing something or have a clear understanding of the themes they want to explore it probably will not be a clear story or even a good photograph.

A black frame on the proofsheet may be the story of what the back of your lens cap looks like. :)
Click to expand...


So you're saying that Winogrand and Mary Ellen Mark did not not have a clear understanding of what they were creating and didn't create amazing work because it kinda reads like that because they were two of many great photographers that believed a single photograph doesn't tell a story.

The problem when you try and narrow your vision and choices down to something that doesn't exist (a great single photograph tells a story) you wind up missing so much great work maybe in your own your work and the works of so many great photographers because of that preconceived idea.
 
airfrogusmc said:
So you're saying that Winogrand and Mary Ellen Mark did not not have a clear understanding of what they were creating and didn't create amazing work because it kinda reads like that because they were two of many great photographers that believed a single photograph doesn't tell a story.
Click to expand...

I don't think that was typed anywhere.

Because a violin isn't being used to play beautiful music, and one says that the violin is not being played, it's not meant to say that Brahms did not have a clear understanding of opera. Because opera uses violins and a story, and Brahms used violins but not a story...etc. etc. Yes, that was quite a leap that came out of nowhere.

Brahms composed excellent music for violin (or that used violins). For composers whose ideals tell them that writing operas is the ultimate goal of a composer, Brahms was still a great composer.

However, there are some people that insist that any composition that is not an opera isn't worthy of being a musical composition. Pointing out that that statement isn't true isn't to be interpreted as a condemnation of opera. Unless, of course, by those who cannot possibly understand that music can exist outside of an operatic composition.

The same thing can and should be said of the dichotomy "all good photographs must tell a story".

airfrogusmc said:
The problem when you try and narrow your vision and choices down to something that doesn't exist (a great single photograph tells a story) you wind up missing so much great work maybe in your own your work and the works of so many great photographers because of that preconceived idea.
Click to expand...

Right.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
I don't think that was typed anywhere.

Because a violin isn't being used to play beautiful music, and one says that the violin is not being played, it's not meant to say that Brahms did not have a clear understanding of opera. Because opera uses violins and a story, and Brahms used violins but not a story...etc. etc. Yes, that was quite a leap that came out of nowhere.

Brahms composed excellent music for violin. For composers whose ideals tell them that writing operas is the ultimate goal of a composer, Brahms was still a great composer.

However, there are some people that insist that any composition that is not an opera isn't worthy of being a musical composition. Pointing out that that statement isn't true isn't to be interpreted as a condemnation of opera. Unless, of course, by those who cannot possibly understand that music can exist outside of an operatic composition.

The same thing can and should be said of the dichotomy "all good photographs must tell a story".



Right.
Click to expand...

But again apples and oranges. A single photograph would be like a sentence in a novel or a note in an opera not a story either way. Now relating single images or notes or sentences can build into a story.
 
airfrogusmc said:
But again apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

If stories are apples and photographs are oranges, why are we requiring apples to be paired with oranges to become valid apples, but not requiring the same for oranges?

Shouldn't they just be either apples and/or oranges?
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
If stories are apples and photographs are oranges, why are we requiring apples to be paired with oranges to become valid apples, but not requiring the same for oranges?

Shouldn't they just be either apples and/or oranges?
Click to expand...

Stories aren't but different art forms are. But I guess you can apply that a single photograph no more tells a story than a word or a paragraph does to a novel or a note makes an opera.
 
Ah, a crate of apples can only be sold if we purchase orange juice, because they're both different forms of fruit.
 
Short answer ...

Short answer ...

"Do Pictures tell stories?"

Short answer - yes, and I'll leave it at this for tonight

Like a good joke, if you need to explain an image, is it that really good?

I am sure there is a joke in there somewhere but ... awww I forgot.

Street-5.jpg
 
Hi,

airfrogusmc said:
So you're saying that Winogrand and Mary Ellen Mark did not not have a clear understanding of what they were creating and didn't create amazing work because it kinda reads like that because they were two of many great photographers that believed a single photograph doesn't tell a story..
Click to expand...
I don't know if I should laugh or cry...

A great example of political spin though.
You managed to find a story completely different from what's written based on your own agenda. So I guess there's still hope.
airfrogusmc said:
The problem when you try and narrow your vision and choices down to something that doesn't exist (a great single photograph tells a story) you wind up missing so much great work maybe in your own your work and the works of so many great photographers because of that preconceived idea.
Click to expand...
:bang: <- (...wondering if this tells a story...)
Ironic. That's almost exactly how I feel about what you are saying. You are narrowing your vision and choices by excluding possibilities rather than being open to them. You are obsessing on the fact that a picture describes a time and place. Yes that's true, so? I'm not saying that every picture MUST have a clear story. If you want to focus on some other aspect of your composition, that's great. Story or narrative does not need to be top priority or obsessed over any more than describing a time and place, color, composition or even focus and exposure. Just relax, open your eyes and make pictures you like. I'm sure that's what Winogrand and Mark and so many others did and do.

By the way, a photo is a photo, not a word or a paragraph. Trying to judge photography by literary standards is... not correct. Why not start complaining that your camera can't write as good as your fountain pen or that your pants don't make a very good jacket? A photo can describe a time and place better and worse than any novel and a novel can describe a time and place better and worse than any photo. They each do it in different ways and have different strengths and weaknesses. Would you say a movie (multiple frames telling a specific story) is the same as a novel (multiple words and paragraphs telling a specific story)? They are not directly comparable in my opinion. They are just two of many tools to do a certain task; tell a story. No more alike than a hammer and saw, both of which you might use to build a house, for example.

Maybe my definition of a story or how I see it is just easier and more flexible than yours. As I said back in post 178, I think of a photo as more like a poem or haiku and that's enough of a narrative for me to appreciate it. You want it spelled out like in a book, I don't require everything you do. That's fine. If you have all these rules and criteria that must be met perhaps it is impossible in your world for a photo to tell a story. I'll look at each photo and decide what's possible after I see it, not before.
 
Without reading the whole thread, but seeing the above condom store picture, I will answer the OPs question with a yes and no.
We might imagine what the lady is thinking when she is passing the condom store. Not only is the picture relevant to the passerby, but also to the viewer for its potential humor and the possibility of being involved beyond being just a viewer (imagining what she is thinking). Yes.
I see tens of thousands of street pictures of people walking by a camera with nothing being relevant to the viewer other than a stranger walking by. This is a historical snapshot in regards to time, but without merit in regard to story potential, that is, beyond, who is this person, where are they going and why am I seeing this picture? For this kind of picure I say, no, to the OPs question.
A photograph is a historical marker in time that shows the person, place or thing as it was at that moment. One picture by William Smith can tell a whole story, but he would admit the story is not finished with this one picture. There are always moments that will follow that will tell the rest of the story.
Yes and no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom