anjoca76
Well-known
There is a wonderful photograph that hangs on my doctor's wall. It is probably famous, but I am not familiar with it elsewhere. It's in black and white and was taken, I was told, at the world's fair, sometime around the turn of the century. The frame is filled with faces of children and adults all looking at something in awe--or shock, or surprise, or something of that nature. I always wonder what they are looking at, which I presume was the photographer's intention when he or she made it. It's a terrific photograph, because although it doesn't tell a story, it makes one imagine what is happening outside the frame. It makes one imagine the story, which is in some ways even better than being told a story.
daveleo
what?
That's an insightful comment there.
I always felt that photographers are artists whether they want to be or not.
(And that was a very interesting post altogether . . . good stuff to think about.)
hepcat
Former PH, USN
In the style of photojournalism, a good photograph denotes a thought or a feeling or an idea which the viewer then connotes into something meaningful. If what the photogapher denotes and what the viewer connotes are the same, then the photograph has meaning and power and the communication loop is closed. Robert Capa's work exemplifies that process.
There are photos and photographers that bridge between art and photojournalism... Ansel Adams' work in Yosemite stand on their merit both as amazing landscapes and also tell the story of a beautiful and forbidding place that needed protection from commercial interests to remain viable for the people through the ages.
Art and fashion work can also denote that idea or feeling or thought that arrests and involves the viewer. Helmut Newton's work frequently makes the viewer stop to interpret what that statement is.
Video, on the other hand leads you down whatever path they intend for you to go. You're not an active participant, you're a passive observer and the content likely will have no lasting effect because you're never involved. There's never that conversation between the video producer and the viewer like there is in still photography.
So still photography, when practiced well, will continue to arrest our senses and involve us in very personal discussions with our viewers in a way that video simply cannot.
There are photos and photographers that bridge between art and photojournalism... Ansel Adams' work in Yosemite stand on their merit both as amazing landscapes and also tell the story of a beautiful and forbidding place that needed protection from commercial interests to remain viable for the people through the ages.
Art and fashion work can also denote that idea or feeling or thought that arrests and involves the viewer. Helmut Newton's work frequently makes the viewer stop to interpret what that statement is.
Video, on the other hand leads you down whatever path they intend for you to go. You're not an active participant, you're a passive observer and the content likely will have no lasting effect because you're never involved. There's never that conversation between the video producer and the viewer like there is in still photography.
So still photography, when practiced well, will continue to arrest our senses and involve us in very personal discussions with our viewers in a way that video simply cannot.
danielsterno
making soup from mud
good topic: All art/poetry/film making/drawing's etc. is story telling. Its up to the image maker of how literal the story is- thats the magic of creativity. it may of made more sense at the time the image was made, maybe not. But IMO its up to the viewer to connect the dots, not all images will resonate to all viewers, when it does: that is also the magic: the viewer and image maker have this virtual connection. the rule is there are none.