The meaning of photos
 

Must there always be a meaning when we look at photos? I understand that there should be a balance and some form of composition. Is it not enough to look at photos for what they are?

Oooh, there's a deep and meaningful question. The answer could be debated on a philosophy forum for weeks.

All photos have meaning, the difference to me is how obvious that meaning is. I can like a photo just for what it is, the photo still has meaning, I just might not be able to conciously pin down what that meaning is at the time I look at it.

Does that make sense?

Duncan.

Dont think it makes any sense at all duncan really ;)
I think this is a very interesting question. If you saw a macro photo of a flower for instance would this have a meaning or is it just a portal through which the photographer expresses what inspires him? we are all moved by different things, beauty, expression etc and some photos may well trigger memories of one kind of another. I think any true meaning stops with the photographer as we the viewer can never truely understand his motives for taking it. SOmetimes though like Duncan says a flower is just a flower ;)

It is then true, that sometimes we just take photos of something that strikes as as beautiful. While, at other times we try to compose on purpose to convey a message, what ever that may be.

Yes gerhard I think many photos dont have any deeper meaning than the photographer wanting to portray what is beautiful. People often view paintings with meaning as I think their are so many different components such as use of colour and brushstrokes that can say so much but I dont think it is quite so true of photos. That isnt to say that sometimes there isnt meaning behind them but because they are showing a fleeting moment in time I think it is difficult to portray a meaning that is easily translated to the viewer.

Much as some people read a story as simply a story while other people search for the allegory? Picures or stories can be taken very differently by individuals.

So if someone who produces a photo intends it to have one meaning and it has a totally opposite meaning to the viewer has the photo failed or is it really only the motivation and inspiration that has driven that person to take that photo in the first place what really matters?

I can see I have triggered a thought process Gerhard ;)

No not all photographs we take are masterpieces some are just snaps.

Then there are some that you look at again 6 months later and wonder why you are keeping them

No, I don't think that the photo has failed at all. Failure would be only if photo mean't nothing to either the viewer or the shooter. It doesn't matter what the viewer takes from it, the interpretation is personal and if the shooter was inspired to take the picture in the first place, that's also good enough even if the hoped for result wasn't achieved. ( I have to think that or I'd have give up taking pictures :rolleyes: ).

Glad you said that, I was thinking much the same myself, but after a bottle of Merlot I couldn't have put it quite as well:)

It is true, tastes differ. We take photo for our own pleasure and strife to take better photos. Then we tell the world to go to hell if they don't like them, but deep down, we would prefer that everybody thinks our photos are fantastic.

Hi Gerhard

I must agree with that thought entirely, I used to do lots of slide talks to natural history societies,bird and photographic clubs etc., I got a great buzz when there were oo's and aarr's from the audience, I got an even bigger buzz if the club chairman/woman praised the quality of my photographs at the end of the show.

nirofo.

What you are saying is completely true.
I did a slide show recently for our Natural History Society that was really well received. I gave me a real lift to hear the reaction.:D

Photos cannot have inherent, quantifiable meaning.

There may have been meaning in the heart/mind of the photographer at the time s/he took the photo, but the result - the photograph - carries with it no absolute meaning.

For themes or symbols which, due to statistical happenstance, are easily recognizable by a large portion of the viwers, a tacit agreement on the photos "meaning" might be assumed but that does not impart actual meaning to the photograph.

OK, if you say so.:eek:
Meanwhile my photos have meaning, good or bad, to me and to the people seeing them.

Hi Terry

I'm sorry, I can't agree with that entirely, whilst it's true that some photographs carry no obvious meaning other than they depict a scene, an object etc, other photographs can and do carry implicit meaning. For example, the nostalgic feeling one gets when viewing a photograph of a particularly beautiful and well lit scene that brings back memories of being there, or it could be that even if you're not familiar with a particular scene you still get the feeling that you would like to be there because the picture instills that feeling. Another instance perhaps is where you have spent many hours photographing wildlife and to have the feeling of intimacy with the subject returned to you all over again when you view the photographs. There are many instances I can think of where the photograph imparts "meaning" for myself and no doubt others!

nirofo.