Do You Understand Your Own Pictures ?

[daveleo]

This is the philosophy section correct? Okay then ....

I don't understand every still life picture that I make.
In fact, I've been trying for a few years now *not* to make another one until I understand why it is I do this.
But it's hard, because that's all I want to do, really - make intiguing pictures of things thrown together.
It's fascinating. It's boring. It adds up to a package that makes people wonder "What is this? Why is this "?

To be clear, here are two of mine that resonate in me for reasons I don't know. When I made them, I simply assembled things as they appeared best to me.

.

.
.
So ...... (what should be my question here?)....
Should we show pictures that even we don't understand?
When someone asks you "What is this?", what's an intelligent answer?

😕
.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

No offence, but to me those two are dead simple. In terms of "understanding".
To me "understanding" of the picture is divided by two categories.
One - picture brings the message.
Two - picture triggers viewer imagination.
Yours do One and triggers Two.

Do You Understand Your Own Pictures ?

No.

I understand what my pictures of trees are most easily taken by viewers. Those are simple pictures to take for me.
But the rest of my pictures I can't understand why they are getting liked or not so much...

 

[bmattock]

So ...... (what should be my question here?)....
Should we show pictures that even we don't understand?
When someone asks you "What is this?", what's an intelligent answer?

😕
.

You may find these helpful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics_of_photography

http://stunik.com/vu/DFAP/LookingAtPhotographs.pdf

One of my favorite books on the subject is:

http://www.amazon.com/Camera-Lucida...3990889&sr=8-2&keywords=semiotics+photography

Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography Paperback – May 1, 1982
by Roland Barthes (Author), Richard Howard (Translator)

Personally, I do not do much with still life photography, but I do enjoy it as a viewer. I like your examples above. I don't know what they 'mean', and in that sense, I don't have to in order to appreciate and enjoy them. If you don't know what they mean either, that's OK with me as a viewer.

I do what my instincts tell me to do. In my case, that seems to end up being a lot of vernacular photography, a lot of 'rustic' or local event type photography, and I seem to be attracted to human faces as much as anything else.

I don't really spend a lot of time thinking about what it means. Maybe it has no meaning. But I don't have a problem with people who search for or need meaning in their photography. I get it, I just am not so inclined.

Hope the above links help you.

 

[Bill Clark]

Nice photographs. I'm a people photographer though.

Maybe after a couple glasses of wine I'd find more meaning but then I probably would't be able to type anything.

 

[jsrockit]

Really like the first one! What's hard to understand -- they are still lifes, in the long artistic tradition. And the first one is simple, but rich in shadow and texture.

Agreed... 🙂

 

[daveleo]

Maybe my question is.... should I feel stupid because even I can't "explain" some of my pictures.

People ask "What's does this mean?" and I say "It's a clamp and an orange. It doesn't mean anything. I just like the way the two things belong together".
Most people don't like that answer.
A very few people take these pictures at face value and just enjoy looking at them. That's all I want them to do, really, but I feel kind of stupid not being able to come up with a philosophical interpretation in words.

Anyway, I've decided to get back into this type of picture making and let the viewers struggle with whatever meanings they need to see there.

Thanks for the comments, and (@bmattock) I ordered a copy of that book - thank you.

 

[JP Owens]

I'm with Winogrand when asked why he shoots photos, "I have a burning desire to see what things look like photographed by me."

That's enough meaning for me. Photos mean different things to different folks.

 

[jsrockit]

Maybe my question is.... should I feel stupid because even I can't "explain" some of my pictures.

Sometimes a pretty photo is just a pretty photo. And it won't be pretty to everyone and you just have to accept that.

 

[mawilliams]

The creative process involves different areas of the brain than areas having to do with reason and making meaning of things. This is why it doesn't make sense to analyze visual art from a cognitive perspective. Just let it flow and when you need to come up with a solid cognitive justification for your images so that people who come to your shows can feel like they get it, then you write all that BS about "what it means." 🙂 Nice work.

 

[Hsg]

Do You Understand Your Own Pictures ?

I do understand my pictures. I know for example why they appeal to me and why I captured it.

And I'm also careful about what my photos say about me, for example its easy to get a grasp of a photographer's personality by looking at their photos. As they say, people judge you by your worst actions even though you might be a highly righteous person. The same way other photographers judge a photographer by their worst images rather then their best, so one should always be careful as to what photos one shows to others and this cannot be done without understanding one's pictures.

Jay Maisel says a photographer is responsible for every millimeter of their photo and I agree with that.

 

[farlymac]

I'll often take a photo, and after looking at the scans, and doing a bit of work on them, still can't figure out if they will convey what I was thinking to anyone else. But then sometimes they don't even look to me like what they should.

But still life photos are always up to interpretation by the viewer, and even if in your own mind the message is clear, someone else will come up with either a completely different message, or none at all.

I wouldn't worry about any of it, Dave.

PF