The story behind the image - helpful or not?

Jonathan, I don't think it's that an image "should" stand on its own: I think an image *does* stand or fall on its own. However, this should, in my opinion, in no way be seen as a limit on the nature of the enjoyment that happens around or because of or related to etc. etc. an image.

An analogy (that's got a lot of holes, but oh well). Eating artichokes. You like them? You don't like them? The artichoke experience should/does stand or fall on its own artichokiness.

However, where you are eating them, how they are prepared, who prepared them, who you're eating them with, your history of artichoke eating, stories about artichoke eating, growing, tragedies and triumphs, artichoke breeders who improved this noble vegetable -- all can enrich and develop the artichoke experience. Yet, I would still claim that the particular artichoke you are eating/experiencing stands or falls on your tongue-ish experience.

Yeah, the story behind the image, like this one brought up in a sportshooter.com thread . . .

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=39647

and this is the story . . .

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_making_of_sugarloaf_rock.shtml

The story exposes the lack of truth of the image.

Depending upon the photograph, I generally prefer the inclusion of a scratch and sniff card as opposed to a background story. I can better inhale the perfume of the image that way. (Unless, of course, an artichoke is involved -- in which case a suitably piquant remoulade is considered preferable.)

Now that that's out of the way: I find background story useful for historical, contextual, or biographical purposes. But I don't think the significance of an image should hinge, positively or negatively, upon that background. I don't want to go down the "it depends -- let's define every eventuality" rabbit hole, but to a certain extent it does depend on the photograph we are talking about, and what impact, if any, that background story has upon it.

[Edit -- Timely post by Jay Hector above, which provides potential examples of when a story DOES impact the quality/significance/judgement of an image. Saints preserve us from any more "PS is/is not cheating" threads.]

For an example, I may look at a photograph of a rock climber clinging to the side of the Eiger. It may or may not be an engaging or dramatic image. I later find out that the image was taken by a fellow climber who, in passing the camera back to his partner moments after the picture was taken, had a mishap and plunged 2000 feet to his death.

Does this improve the quality of the image itself? No. It makes it more interesting, but that quality of being "interesting" comes from the story, not the photograph.

Another example, this time a real one from Diane Arbus:

http://americansuburbx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Diane-Arbus-Child-with-Toy-Hand-Grenade-in-Central-Park-New-York-City-1962-Custom.jpg

The first few times I viewed this image I had certain reactions, felt certain feelings, and made certain judgements about it. Some time later I came across an anecdote (apocryphal or not) that Arbus intentionally kept holding off, or re-taking, the photograph for the very purpose of eliciting that particular look of anger and frustration on the boys face.

Does this story alter my initial reactions to the photograph? In my case, no. I've heard some people say it "cheapens" the impact, or that Arbus "cheated" or "staged' the photograph. I've heard some people say that she was brilliant for doing so. To me, however, the image still stands as the image (emblematic, symbolic perhaps, of many things). Again, the story is interesting, but the image remains the same.

I generally give a 'back story' to the images I post along with extensive colloquy and other things in comments.

I have quite a following of people who read these 'back stories' and other things, plus a few detractors.

To the detractors: No one has to read the back stories or the soliloquies, the colloquy between myself and other members, but the comments seem popular, and many find the feature interesting.

The process, over over eight years here, has generated feedback of support that outnumbers detractors more than nine to one, and there are over 15,000 comments.

For someone not interesting in reading, just look at the image, and if moved, one way or the other, make a comment. Reading the colloquy or 'back stories' is not required reading.

Many find the comments underneath the photos interesting reading. I am sure a few members come to visit my photos as much for the colloquy and back stories as well as for the photos themselves.

There's also extensive instruction scattered throughout the comments in, say, in 'how to shoot street', and experience the feeling one gets when one encounters almost inevitable street situations.

In an older 'camera club' one might corner a member to discuss 'what were you thinking when you spied that scene or got into that circumstance' but this is a virtual forum, and it's harder for members to ask such questions, so I try (1) to anticipate such questions and then (2) to answer those questions thoroughly with the idea to educate those who come here to this virtual photo club.

And I try to avoid what some may seem as common abbreviations such as 'OOF' for Out of Focus or 'DOF' for Depth of Field in the belief that some newcomers may be so fresh to this craft that such abbreviations are lost on them -- better to actually write them out.

I am continually in the process of synopsizing the pertinent parts of the commentary tutelage on street into a book and/or text to save time and trouble for future generations of student photographers and photo aficionados who may not want to wade through 15,000 comments for the nuggets of 'how to shoot and/or experience street' (among the hundreds of various other topics discussed).

Despite all the bells and whistles in the comments, in the end, each photo stands on its own.

A photo must be intereseting and hopefully well done for someone to click on it.

The comments, back stories, soliloquies, commentaries, colloquies, lessons, and observations in the end are chaff, and -- I hope -- interesting chaff.

If the choice is to look at one of my photos or to look at another's, and the choice is to read what I hope are interesting comments and perhaps participate in interesting colloquy, then I hope the choice will be to click on my photo first.

One thing is for certain: no one is going to look at photos based on comments alone - the photo has to be able to hold interest on its own.

Also, although I may shoot some pretty nudes and landscapes, I shoot lots of 'street', and 'street' as I shoot it can sometimes be pretty gritty. Members don't always understand 'street' unless an observation is made about why the photo was taken. "Street' is often misunderstood by those who think "'good photos must be 'pretty'".

In putting the effort into helping develop colloquy that has developed into more than 15,000 comments (at least half mine), the object has been to share with fellow photographers - to answer their questions and in many cases to answer the questions they have not yet though to ask.

But in the end, it's the image.

(and almost certainly a book from a distillation of the'street shooting' tutelage).

john

John (Crosley)

I like to initially experience images at the purely visual level, without taking in the title, if any, or any kind of backstory. This is not because I believe it should stand on its own, just personal preference. It is one level of many, and curiosity and enjoyment often makes me want to dive into many levels of an image. I am also big on context, and believe no man or photograph is an island.

For me, simply viewing images, a photograph needs a title and nothing more. I should see everything that needs to be seen in the image. I don't care how it was done, or the circumstances around the picture. I don't care what other pictures the photographer made, if they were successful or completely unknown. I want to experience the picture unburdened by outside influence. I will decide fairly quickly if I like it or not although divining why generally takes more thought.

After that initial contact, however, I may decide I want more information or not depending on the picture or the circumstances in which I'm viewing. Certain documentary type photographs are sometimes too cryptic to understand fully without a caption. Yet artistic images are rarely helped by literary explanation, which is not the same as words and images being used together, by design, to form a powerful communication whole.

A photo critique is a unique process. If critiquing an image, I definitely don't want anything out side the image to influence me. The image in front of me is the object of interest. Nothing must distract me from feeding that image directly though my own set of interpretive filters and preserving the integrity of the opinion development process. I try to avoid all side stories, back stories, creation processes, photographers intentions or history or other peoples opinions. None of that is relevant to my own visual and emotional experience of that singular object at this unique moment. Different people, with different filters, at different times will see different things. If I am to be true to the work, I must accept that and say what I see in it. Some feel that they must bolster their opinions buy getting supporting elements from the photographer, their processes/methods, their past work or even in comparisons to others work in the the same genre. On the extreme, some reviewers feel an image must past some litmus test( film or digital/is it real or photo-shopped?) before they allow themselves draw an opinion. I feel no need for such peripheral analysis. I trust my eye, my experience and my heart. Everything I need to know about the picture, for better or worse, is right in front of me in the picture. So yes, IMHO, the image stands or falls on it's own merits.

Of course, one does need to be careful. Discrete background story checks are always a good idea.

What if you said, out loud, that you thought a picture was good and it turned out to be by Ansel Adams? Gasp! Everybody knows that he's got cooties this year!

Or suppose you said, out loud, that you didn't get anything from a picture and it turned out to be a genuine Eggleston??? All of the forum Heathers are wearing Eggleston this year!

My Mom planted a gardenia bush outside the front door of her house a couple of months before she got sick. When I was in Florida during her final days, I would stop and take in the smell of the gardenias on my way out to the hospital in the morning and on my way back in late at night. Since childhood, I have loved that smell. For a period, whenever I had company, I would get a couple and float them in crystal bowls in my house and it would bring a luscious bouquet of perfume into the air. Now, gardenia has taken on a new scent for me. I can't smell it without a bittersweet feeling coming over me. Though I may not be able to specify what it is, even my first whiff of a gardenia as a child came with a history that helped determine how I felt about it and reacted to it. I have never had an ISOLATED experience of a gardenia.

Everything I experience comes with history, known or unknown. A story has already been written within which a new photo strikes me. There are all kinds of associations that I make with the visual world in a photo. I am not and no photo is a blank slate just because I'm seeing it for the first time.

Photos have to be presented. They may be matted, framed, hung on a wall, lit a certain way, printed in a book, shown on a bright screen or a dull screen . . . They already are being influenced by an array of things and contexts that are "outside" the photo. A story or title can simply be part of that presentation.

_________________________

A simple title like "Self Portrait" makes me see a photo a certain way and I appreciate that. Because I think a self portrait should be seen as a self portrait. I understand the sentiment that says a self portrait should stand on its own but I also understand the sentiment that would say you're not seeing the whole picture if you don't know it's a self portrait.

A photographer may title his work or write an accompanying story (narrative or metaphorical) just because he wants to, because THE PHOTOGRAPHER deems it part of the photo, just as if he would have included some visual detail in the photo itself. The title, for the photographer, may be part of the emotional surround of the photo. It may not need to be justified any differently than the inclusion of something within the frame needs to be justified. A viewer may not care who this photo is of, but I do. We, as viewers, may need to get over ourselves. The title may not be for us or about us, just as the photo may not have been made for us and may not be about us either.

Louis Meloso:
After that initial contact, however, I may decide I want more information or not depending on the picture or the circumstances in which I'm viewing. Certain documentary type photographs are sometimes too cryptic to understand fully without a caption. Yet artistic images are rarely helped by literary explanation, which is not the same as words and images being used together, by design, to form a powerful communication whole.

Luis G:
I like to initially experience images at the purely visual level, without taking in the title, if any, or any kind of backstory. This is not because I believe it should stand on its own, just personal preference. It is one level of many, and curiosity and enjoyment often makes me want to dive into many levels of an image. I am also big on context, and believe no man or photograph is an island.

.

I too prefer to look at an image without looking at the title or knowing any initial back story. But interest in a particular image can lead to looking at other work or biographical information about a photographer. Years ago my wife gave me a copy of "The Family of Man" as one of several books on photography for a birthday gift. It sparked my interest in some of the photographers, among them Yasuhiro Ishimoto. Curiousity piqued by an image or photographer can lead to broadening the depth of knowledge about both by looking for back stories and biographical information. This can lead to viewing an image in a slightly different way.

Fred -- Yes, in the matter of self portraits I do like to know if I am looking at the photographer. Again, a personal preference, certainly not a demand or a requirement. On the subject of of titles I do confess to a certain prejudice against titles which point to a particular meaning or interpretation. I lean toward factual simplicity as in "Two men on Wabash" as opposed to "Greed on Parade" or "The self-absorbed blindness of Corporate America". However, in the instance of Fred's photograph of his Dad above, I think "Dad" qualifies as factual simplicity while also freighting the image with more impact than if he had entitled it "Man in Motorized Wheelchair". If I viewed that image first, without looking at the title, it impacts me a certain way, but the emotional impact and universal connection to the photo increases upon reading the simple word "Dad".