Why's and Wherefore's?

[ABERS]

I recently read an article in a magazine which questions whether a comment made on a photograph should include supplementary questions as to why the picture was taken in the first place.

The author aknowledges that questions are sometimes asked, but theses are usually about what equipment was used and where it was taken, what post processing was used, things that have no bearing on the actual finished image.

There was, or still is, a thread here entitled 'Why do you take photographs?', but that is a catchall question, not specific to any one particular image. Do you ever look at a picture and think 'Why was that taken?, or What is the photographer trying to convey here?'

I suppose if you are moved to ask such questions you could quite rightly say, in your opinion, the picture has failed because you haven't understood or appreciated it.

Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if in the comments section you said 'What's this all about then?'

What would be your reaction?

[pburness]

Good philosophical question...
My reaction would be to explain the picture in more detail, I certainly wouldn't be offended if somebody was questioning the content of an image, I'd probably be flattered.
In fact for me, the best images are the ones that make you think 'what's this about, what is going on there etc.' and a great - possibly the best - at this was Henri Cartier-Bresson who made you look into the picture rather than at it.

Phil

[Cathus]

I think there is sometimes too much emphasis on the deep & meaningful philosophy behind photography. The ins & outs of a cats' backside about the meaning behind a shot, what it means, what it conveys, the personalities involved, etc, etc as if a shot doesn't have sufficient gravitas unless you are able to write an essay on the whys & wherefores.

It sometimes feels as if you are less of a photographer if you present an image just because 'you liked it'.

[KeithT]

Personally, my thoughts are: if you need to ask why a photographer took an image, then the photographer has either failed to convey the message visually (if indeed there is a message), or the viewer is looking for something that isn't there in the first place. Most photographers take pictures to satisfy an artistic need in themselves. A lot of professional photographers take pictures to satisfy the needs of a certain publication they wish to sell to. As for any philosophy behind a photograph or piece of art, that is often considered as an important aspect by the viewer and not usually the photographer or artist. Like all published art critique, photographic or otherwise, it often borders on the metaphysical and the one who delivers it often waffles on with an impressive vocabulary that really means sod all to most of us at the end of the day. If someone gets a philosophical moment from any of my pictures, then good luck; but don't expect me to have any idea of what it is you are talking about.

EDIT: Henry Cartier Bresson was trained as a portrait painter. His training shines through in his photography. He was concerned more about composition and the way that the elements of a picture come together to make a pleasing and interesting image than he was about any philosophy behind it. At the other end of the scale, Robert Capa, took images of war because he was a war correspondent, no more than that. Certainly not because he was trying to make a philosophical point.

[MattUK]

It's an interesting subject. It's a particular facet of art that I despise; trumped-up deep and meaningful over-analysis of a piece of art.

When I take photos, they're almost always simply because "I liked it"

My photos are supposed to capture a moment, or a slice of my experience, and allow others to experience the same. They're never supposed to portray some deep and meaningful reason or point. That's why my photo names are about as anonymous as they can be.

[wavemachine]

I agree with Matt on this, why do you need to conjure up a massive story behind a shot simply liking what you see and capturing it is a good enough reason for me which a lot of purists would deem as simply a record shot. However if you have explored all the angles thought about DOF, exposure compensation, chose a focus point, found foreground interest, composed using the rule of thirds or even deliberately breaking that rule etc then you have had a vision of what you want to capture so already there is a story behind the image.

I guess there is one thing sharing an image with familly and friends to sharing it with the public whether that is in a newspaper or exhibition, I can't help feeling that some people try to look to deeply into photographs sometimes there is no harm in doing so but if you don't find anything step back and appreciate it for what it is. I recently took a sunset which was published in our local rag after all almost everyone likes a good sunset and the wow factor of a nicely captured daily occurance is enough for the majority.

Having said that one of the main reasons I do the comps is I find it helps to imagine an idea and workout how I am going to shoot the image from an idea so once again there is a story forming so I believe simply I liked it is a good summary but the thought process behind why you liked it and how you captured it is a story in itself.

I seem to have gone full circle here

[jinky]

99% of the time I take a shot I take a shot for a memory, the light, cos I like the subject or it`s a snap. The odd one has a deeper meaning and rarely I find does anyone see it - so I must fail.Every now and agian though someone sees it and I think - that`s a good one!Trouible is I think lots look at my photos and wonder "Why the hell did he take that one" .

[DavidVenables]

Yesterday, I watched a woman in a long tight dress stomping around a stage clapping to some guitar music accompanied by a guy slapping and banging away on a wooden box he was sitting on while another bloke balled his head off, in a language I couldn't understand, as though in pain. I couldn't tell you if they were the cream of Flamenco acts but I thought they were good to listen to, and I'd watch them again even if I had to pay!
The best I can hope for is that someone sees my images and wants to look again, and again and then maybe keep it (in some way, is a print necessary) and then want to show it to others.
“We work in the dark, We do what we can, We give what we have, Our doubt is our passion, And our passion is our task, The rest is the madness of art” - Henry James


sorry about the bold type t came with the cut and paste!

[ABERS]

Today our club members are putting up their panels of prints for the club's annual exhibition, there is no selection process to go through, you put up what you like, usually in a panel of six prints, or whatever number you think will fit into the space available to you.

With some 60+ people exhibiting there will be a wide range of genres for the public to view. The viewers comprise people who come in off the street and have very little or no idea about the photographic process that has been gone through to arrive at the pictures on view, and photographers.

It is usually the former group that enjoy the exhibition for what it is, a display of pictures, and go away pleased that they have spent 30-60 minutes visiting, depending on the weather outside!

The second group, the photographers, spend ages looking, examining, discussing amonst themselves the why's and wherefores of the pictures.

So perhaps the old saying "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise" is applicable to looking at pictures.

[Markulous]

I love to tell a story that goes with my images but if I don't think they'll stand up by themselves as an interesting image then they don't go into the story - quite why anyone would think this was philosophical I can't think!

Please could someone explain why an image has to be "self-explanatory". I've seen plenty that most definitely aren't and all the better for it! But putting an explanation to an image can add to it