12 steps to the worst photograph ever - part 12 - Story telling

Story Telling refers to the image’s ability to evoke imagination. One beautiful thing about art is that each viewer might collect his own message or read her own story in an image.

Thank God that I am finally at the end of this stupid ordeal.

I should never have taken up this BS to begin with. Who give a lick about 12 steps? Anything that requires 12 steps, like AA, should not work. I should have known that.

I do want to say one last thing in regards to the paragraph above. If every single observer got a different impression from a work every time, then I say that piece of work (shit) has failed miserably; of course unless if the primary intent was to invoke different reaction every time (highly unlikely. Yeah right). Art is not an excuse for inability to get the message across. In fact, that should be the last thing an artist/photographer wants; a work that can not make a point.

This last statement goes a very long way in showing that these PPA folks just don't get it. Very truly and tragically sad, in my opinion. My God.

I do agree though that telling a story should probably be the primary function, or purpose of photography. But, then again, the word "story telling" really ought to be well defined, and I don't think it is a good idea to agree and move on just because the concept just "sounds good." The thing is that yes it does sound good to say that a photograph tells a far reaching tale. Sure.

But, I ask you. What about a picture which tells just a half of the story, not in entirety, and leaves the other half to the imagination of a reader? In hands of awesome photographers, this can well be compelling.

I think it is extremely difficult to tell a poignant story in one shot anyway. I am not sure if one wants to. If the story is worth telling, then you may cheapen it by trying to put it all in one picture.

This picture actually does tell a story, but technically speaking, it really stinks. It is not even focused correctly. But, this is by far not the worst picture I have taken. On the other hand, this picture demonstrate how awful a picture can be, even if it is telling a story.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if you have a story to tell, the technique probably does not matter as much. The attention is drawn to the story, not the technical aspect of the picture. If a critique involves lots of technical terms, this can only be one of two things; one is that the reviewer has no idea how to look at a photograph, or that the picture has absolutely no story to offer.

There is nothing wrong with having no story to tell.

There are no rules.

Finally, I can get on without this 12 step nonsense . . . . . . . . .

Pentax K-7

FA 50/1.4

1/60 @ f/2

-1.0 ev

ISO 100

RAW