What is the importance of Artistic Intent in photography?

[Bollygum]

We see many different types of photos these days and often there is little or no comment about the photographers intention. In some cases it probably doesn't matter a lot, as the photo was essentially opportunistic (the martians landed in my backyard and I grabbed a camera and took a snap), but in others it can enhance the appreciation of the photo, or perhaps, degrade it. With essentially factual photography the intent maybe important, but it is often just a description of how the photo was taken, which maybe a great interest to other photographers but not to the general public. Or it may be a description of how the location was got to and time timing of the photo, which in some cases may be very interesting.
In the case of constructed photos the artistic intent can be very useful in appreciating the image, and sometimes the result can be quite amazing. For me, this works best when there is a clear intent (even when unsaid) to create an image that has an internal consistency and message. Often it is done with multiple images, overlays and sets. Much of the work is done by photographing made-up people or sets and then combining the results with photoshop or other software. In other cases there seems to be little of no intent other than to create an attractive (clickable) image. There can be extreme reticence about saying what the image is meant to be or how it was constructed, and the intent may actually be to deceive the viewer into thinking that the image is real or it had some message. Of course, it is rare that the producers of such photos survive very long.
I have noticed that most simple competitions do not allow a description to go with the submitted photos. I often hear that a photo should be able to "stand on it's own merits". This is, no doubt because judges cannot even look properly at every image, let alone read a description and think about it. The net result is that we trivialise photos in these comps. The person who can create a thumbnail that has impact has a distinct advantage. Many competitions allow manipulation, probably because it is hard to police, and they work on such small images that detecting any manipulation would be difficult. Anyway, manipulation can be ok, as long as it open and has purpose.
I could go on for some more, but I will see if anyone else is interested in this topic.
Any thoughts?

 

[Devoted Lens]

That's quite heavy! To be honest you could apply your thoughts above to just about any art form - drawing, painting, theatre, music etc. There is no 'right' way of doing photography, it is such a subjective thing, and everyone has (and is entitled to) their own means of expression.

 

[Bollygum]

That's quite heavy! To be honest you could apply your thoughts above to just about any art form - drawing, painting, theatre, music etc. There is no 'right' way of doing photography, it is such a subjective thing, and everyone has (and is entitled to) their own means of expression.

I take your point. Maybe it doesn't matter for most. As for applying it to any art form, yes, it applies to any art, some more than others.

 

[Byker28i]

That's quite heavy! To be honest you could apply your thoughts above to just about any art form - drawing, painting, theatre, music etc. There is no 'right' way of doing photography, it is such a subjective thing, and everyone has (and is entitled to) their own means of expression.

OP could start by formatting that huge block of text to make it easier to read

I have noticed that most simple competitions do not allow a description to go with the submitted photos.

But on the other hand there are many other competitions that allow descriptions, that encourage artistic merit, prestigious national and international competitions.

Many competitions allow manipulation, probably because it is hard to police, and they work on such small images that detecting any manipulation would be difficult.

Many don't, besides normal editing, and if there is significant editing it has to be declared. Many entries have been disqualified having been found out to be 'faked' or significantly edited.

Can you define these simple competitions you mention?

 

[Bollygum]

O

Can you define these simple competitions you mention?

The Sony competition that has a thread on it is one.

Sorry about the long sentences in the original post.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

Sorry about the long sentences in the original post.

It's not the sentences, it's the fact that it's one long paragraph.

 

[Byker28i]

Well Sony sponsor/run the World photography awards. Whilst the Open Competition doesn't require a series description because it's individual images, the Professional does as it a series of images.
https://www.worldphoto.org/sony-world-photography-awards/2018/professional

Taylor Wessing always has a detailed description with the image
https://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/twppp-2017/exhibition/

The Smithsonian competition has a separate section for altered images
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/

BJP International photography awards wants a series of images and a 2000 word description
http://www.bjpipa.com/small-print/

So I guess it depends on which competition you look at. Some of the prestigious ones will not accept manipulation, some will in categories and some will for artistic reasons. Some want descriptions, some wont, but thats why there are different competitions, to appeal to the different practices for photographers. Just as there are those who specialise in portraits, landscapes, documentary etc, so there are those who produce more thoughtful, artistic work, and there are competitions to suit everyones work. You just pick the one you enter, or in my case, view...

 

[Bollygum]

Well Sony sponsor/run the World photography awards. Whilst the Open Competition doesn't require a series description because it's individual images, the Professional does as it a series of images.
https://www.worldphoto.org/sony-world-photography-awards/2018/professional

Taylor Wessing always has a detailed description with the image
https://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/twppp-2017/exhibition/

The Smithsonian competition has a separate section for altered images
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/

BJP International photography awards wants a series of images and a 2000 word description
http://www.bjpipa.com/small-print/

So I guess it depends on which competition you look at. Some of the prestigious ones will not accept manipulation, some will in categories and some will for artistic reasons. Some want descriptions, some wont, but thats why there are different competitions, to appeal to the different practices for photographers. Just as there are those who specialise in portraits, landscapes, documentary etc, so there are those who produce more thoughtful, artistic work, and there are competitions to suit everyones work. You just pick the one you enter, or in my case, view...

You are quite right of course. I guess I don't really enter comps, so I missed many of them. The only comps I tend to see are the ones that get pushed at you and most of them are what I would call simple comps.

 

[Wayne Els]

Many competitions allow manipulation

This really depends on the category that you enter. Most salon type competitions allow some manipulation in the open colour and mono sections. Creative by it's nature is often heavily manipulated. But nature/wildlife and travel sections usually allow only very minor editing/cropping of images described in their rules entry.

 

[Bollygum]

It's not the sentences, it's the fact that it's one long paragraph.

Well, I apologise for the long paragraphs then. Were they really overly long?

 

[Bollygum]

This really depends on the category that you enter. Most salon type competitions allow some manipulation in the open colour and mono sections. Creative by it's nature is often heavily manipulated. But nature/wildlife and travel sections usually allow only very minor editing/cropping of images described in their rules entry.

I think it's the Salon type comps I am thinking of. They seem to be quite trivial, but it is good to be assured that there are many other comps that do look a bit deeper.
I'm not sure that creativity has to be manipulated, but I guess that depends on what you mean by manipulated. In a sense, all photography is manipulated. Even pure journalism is manipulated to the extent that one angle and timing is chosen above others.

As an example there is this
http://time.com/4485344/napalm-girl-war-photo-facebook/
and this
https://www.gettyimages.com.au/deta...ast-camera-with-napalm-news-footage/157030036
The b&w image with the soldiers has lots more power to shock. Both are real, but one has much more artistic impact.

 

[Wayne Els]

I think it's the Salon type comps I am thinking of. They seem to be quite trivial, but it is good to be assured that there are many other comps that do look a bit deeper.
I'm not sure that creativity has to be manipulated, but I guess that depends on what you mean by manipulated. In a sense, all photography is manipulated. Even pure journalism is manipulated to the extent that one angle and timing is chosen above others.

Trivial - interesting. Aren't all photography competitions trivial really? Does having to describe what you were trying to achieve make it more worthy? or does it mean your image might not convey what you want it to?

As for manipulation, creative in competitions is often a montage of several images brought together in a fantasy/Dali type way. They don't have to be but that is the type of image that seems to do well in those categories.

 

[Bollygum]

Trivial - interesting. Aren't all photography competitions trivial really? Does having to describe what you were trying to achieve make it more worthy? or does it mean your image might not convey what you want it to?

As for manipulation, creative in competitions is often a montage of several images brought together in a fantasy/Dali type way. They don't have to be but that is the type of image that seems to do well in those categories.

Well, some comps appear to be less trivial than others.

It strikes me that there are 2 meanings of manipulate. I tend to use the first, but some may use the second.

1. 1.
   handle or control (a tool, mechanism, information, etc.) in a skilful manner.
   "he manipulated the dials of the set"
   synonyms: operate, handle, work, control, use, employ, utilize
   "the workman manipulated some knobs and levers"
   • 
     
     
   • 
     
     
2. 2.
   control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly or unscrupulously.
   "the masses were deceived and manipulated by a tiny group"
   synonyms: exploit, control, influence, use/turn to one's advantage, manoeuvre, engineer, steer, direct, guide, twist round one's little finger, work, orchestrate, choreograph
   "the government tried to manipulate the situation"

 

[Phil V]

Well, I apologise for the long paragraphs then. Were they really overly long?

It’s the huge block of text, it becomes impenetrable.
Short paras, double spaced at end, then the reader can find the next line.

 

[Phil V]

I’ve never had any interest in entering competitions, I’d assumed from the title, that the question was wider than a few trivial competitions.

 

[Bollygum]

I’ve never had any interest in entering competitions, I’d assumed from the title, that the question was wider than a few trivial competitions.

It is. Or at least I intended it to be.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Likewise I don't really 'do' competitions.

Re intent and description, I saw the Gursky exhibition at the weekend, and that has sparked a few thoughts. Some of the earlier work was very clearly conventionally photographic, and shot with planning and intent to create the image more-or-less as presented. However, much seemed to have been shot as source material to use to create something later, and while there was intent present at the time of shooting, it was with the expectation that the image would be 'created' later. Some of the work was created using images supplied by others.

I found that exhibition interesting because it showed work that wasn't really photography in the conventional sense, and while some images stood up for themselves, others were pretty much worthless without an explanation. And you had to believe/accept the explanation before they had value.

Intent at the time of capture has been made a big deal on here in the past, but I'm starting to see that as far too narrow-minded, where it assumes that the time of capture is the only legitimate place to be creative. There is a natural progression that says the capture is the starting point for creativity, and that the process should continue with image development and modification. Much of the Gursky work presented seemed to be composite images.

 

[Byker28i]

This. Exposure to other peoples work through exhibitions, competitions etc really help to promote ideas

 

[Phil V]

It is. Or at least I intended it to be.

Ok then, but your OP could do with a little editing to get that across ...

Photography, like playing a musical instrument is a mix of art and craft. And like amateur musicians, most photographers lean more towards the craft than the art.

Just look at the critique threads anywhere online... ‘tack sharp’ ‘perfect exposure’ ‘she’s gorgeous’ etc.

Photographers rarely want to discuss intent (which should be part of asking for critique) and most photographers aren’t happy discussing concepts or intent. They’ll happily write 200 words about a new tripod, but struggle to write that about what a photograph says to them.

For practitioners of a communication medium, photographers can be terrible at communicating.

 

[john.margetts]

We see many different types of photos these days and often there is little or no comment about the photographers intention.

My mother would have quoted a famous dancer (she knew the dancer's name, I don't) who was being interviewed after a performance. The interviewer asked what the dance was about and the dancer's reply was that she had clearly failed.

If the picture does not communicate, bin it. If your pictures need essays to be understood, sell your camera and take up journalism. (Note: I am in curmudgeon mode today).

 

[JohnFar]

A good question.

For the photographer: a clear artistic intent is very important. Why are you taking photos, what are they really about? Quite often I 'see' a potential picture but don't take it because it's just not the type of photo I want to take.

For the audience: not sure it really matters. Do you like this photo or not? Have you spent enough time looking at it?

For the conceptual art community: text seems important in explaining intent. Personally I often find both pictures and explanation obscure - but that's my problem.

 

[Bollygum]

Likewise I don't really 'do' competitions.

Re intent and description, I saw the Gursky exhibition at the weekend, and that has sparked a few thoughts. Some of the earlier work was very clearly conventionally photographic, and shot with planning and intent to create the image more-or-less as presented. However, much seemed to have been shot as source material to use to create something later, and while there was intent present at the time of shooting, it was with the expectation that the image would be 'created' later. Some of the work was created using images supplied by others.

I found that exhibition interesting because it showed work that wasn't really photography in the conventional sense, and while some images stood up for themselves, others were pretty much worthless without an explanation. And you had to believe/accept the explanation before they had value.

Intent at the time of capture has been made a big deal on here in the past, but I'm starting to see that as far too narrow-minded, where it assumes that the time of capture is the only legitimate place to be creative. There is a natural progression that says the capture is the starting point for creativity, and that the process should continue with image development and modification. Much of the Gursky work presented seemed to be composite images.

I love well constructed composites, those which seem have a purpose.
I think that the creative process can be before and after the point of taking the photo, but either way the creative intent is important. It may be how it get to the spot where you can photograph wild snow leopards, or it may be how to select and combine images to produce a good composite, or both.

 

[Phil V]

For the photographer: a clear artistic intent is very important.

I’m not sure that’s true, I’ve seen posts from very good photographers stating that their sole intent for shooting an image is to recreate an image they’ve seen elsewhere, to practice a particular technique, to create a record shot etc.

In fact a quick trail of the critique sections here confirms that, with very little ‘unique’ content, and the ‘creative’ section being the least creative section we have.

 

[Bollygum]

A good question.

For the photographer: a clear artistic intent is very important. Why are you taking photos, what are they really about? Quite often I 'see' a potential picture but don't take it because it's just not the type of photo I want to take.

For the audience: not sure it really matters. Do you like this photo or not? Have you spent enough time looking at it?

For the conceptual art community: text seems important in explaining intent. Personally I often find both pictures and explanation obscure - but that's my problem.

Wow - the first compliment on the question
I am the same. I will often admire what i think could be a great photo if I had the skill or perhaps just the time to do it, and I will move on to take the photos that I know I can do and that fits into what I am trying to achieve. Sometimes, often on holiday, I get a chance to try different things and that can be fun.

 

[Bollygum]

I woul

I’m not sure that’s true, I’ve seen posts from very good photographers stating that their sole intent for shooting an image is to recreate an image they’ve seen elsewhere, to practice a particular technique, to create a record shot etc.

In fact a quick trail of the critique sections here confirms that, with very little ‘unique’ content, and the ‘creative’ section being the least creative section we have.

Perhaps this shows part of what iritates me. Creative often means purpose less juxtapositions.
As for the person copying an image, surely that is similar to Van Gogh painting many of the same still life to perfect his technical grasp of painting. We all need to do things like that.

 

[Phil V]

...
As for the person copying an image, surely that is similar to Van Gogh painting many of the same still life to perfect his technical grasp of painting. We all need to do things like that.

No, it’d be like Van Gogh sat in a studio copying the Dutch Masters. I’m not even sure they’d have been good, and we wouldn’t have all his original content.

 

[TheAndyA]

I wish I were more intelligent and 'wordy' than I am, but I'm just not. I seem to struggle to translate my feelings into words. Some people are just better at doing it than others?

I know a chap who's an artist and I was chatting to him last week, he was telling me that he's just updated his webite and I thought I'd take a look. https://davidplatts.com

Part of his personal statement, regarding his own artwork reads as follows -

At a time of so much information and worldy explanations, I choose to rarely make statements about my work. Too much knowledge can cloud our perceptions and steer us away from the ‘truth’.

I quite that approach

 

[Bollygum]

I know painters who have spent their lives copying the styles of different people. They will never be a Van Gogh, but they produce good work. I have one on my wall, amongst a lot of other art.
Some people are great technicians, but for some reason aren't so creative (maybe forging paid the rent, unlike the creative, Van Gogh, who was destitute).

 

[Bollygum]

I wish I were more intelligent and 'wordy' than I am, but I'm just not. I seem to struggle to translate my feelings into words. Some people are just better at doing it than others?

I know a chap who's an artist and I was chatting to him last week, he was telling me that he's just updated his webite and I thought I'd take a look. https://davidplatts.com

Part of his personal statement, regarding his own artwork reads as follows -

At a time of so much information and worldy explanations, I choose to rarely make statements about my work. Too much knowledge can cloud our perceptions and steer us away from the ‘truth’.

I quite that approach

Perhaps there was a consistency in his work which allowed the viewer to construct the artistic intent. As we do with many artists, like Van Gogh for example.

 

[TheBigYin]

Well, for most of my still life stuff, everything is about the intent and message...

I also tend to post images with a fair bit of info about the intent, the symbols, hidden meanings etc...

for example...

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/the-ephemeral-nature-of-music….588792/
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/ontbijtje.581017/


I don't know, perhaps because I tend to work this way, a lot of images just leave me slightly "cold" in that they seem to be missing a vital spark that raises them above mere record shots... Of course, for certain genre's perhaps a technically perfect record shot IS enough - but I still have this little voice in my head whispering "...but what is the photographer trying to SAY about this subject" - maybe that's why I don't spend much time in certain forum areas.

 

[TheBigYin]

In fact a quick trail of the critique sections here confirms that, with very little ‘unique’ content, and the ‘creative’ section being the least creative section we have.

guilty as charged Phil... I've been riping off the Vanitas School of Painting for years

Problem with the "creative" section is that a single new creative technique is explored by one person, then everyone piles in and does their version... I've been trying to come up with a more helpful name for that forum area, but when I suggested the "me too" section it was rejected

 

[ancient_mariner]

I love well constructed composites, those which seem have a purpose.
I think that the creative process can be before and after the point of taking the photo, but either way the creative intent is important. It may be how it get to the spot where you can photograph wild snow leopards, or it may be how to select and combine images to produce a good composite, or both.

One of the reasons why I went to the exhibition was to see Rhine II. I've seen it small online, but wanted to see it up close in the huge print format Gursky uses in the hope there would be more to the image. There isn't. For me, as a photograph, it's a complete failure because it doesn't say anything and is extremely dull, however as a piece of art with an explanation and a set of reasons behind it the work makes sense. The explanations are needed because the information required to understand what the image is about is simply not available in the picture itself. There were other Gursky pictures that I much preferred, but AFAIK they haven't been sold for outrageous sums of money like that piece.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I guess it all depends on the reason you're taking photographs, their purpose, who will be looking at them and where. Photos can be fulfil purpose their without having any 'artistic intent' - or any technical merit.

This is always the difficulty when people start talking about what photographs should be. They bring their own outlook on photography to the debate while ignoring the fact that there are many outlooks to be held on the same medium.

 

[sirch]

I have noticed that most simple competitions do not allow a description to go with the submitted photos. I often hear that a photo should be able to "stand on it's own merits".

Just to deal with the competitions point, I have always taken the "stand on it's own merits" requirement as being a way to take out any attempts to influence the judges by descriptions of the effort involved to get the shot, the fancy processing methods or expensive/obscure/down-right-obtuse equipment used.

Several people above say they don't do competitions, I do but only those which are just a bit of fun and are judged by public voting or a by a panel. I do them to push myself, not to win anything.

often there is little or no comment about the photographers intention

I remember once hearing the art critic Brian Sewell complaining that the problem with modern art was that it could only be understood if you read the accompanying paragraph explaining it. Now I think he had the benefit of a classical education and so could look at some allegorical painting of King Charles floating on a cloud or whatever and would know that it was a take on some greek myth etc. However without the benefit of the classical education and without a similar essay explaining it, it's just a somewhat daft painting of a pompous king (you might think it is that anyway ...).

So I feel that you are correct in that without some context, all visual art is open to interpretation and being misconstrued. That of course is exactly what some artists want, they have expressed an emotion and leave it up to you as to how to respond, personally I often tend towards this stand-point, I like to know what people think without me telling them what to think.

That said and if you look at the visual art world, it is often about exhibitions and bodies of work but we tend to just throw the odd photograph out there with no context, no body of work. So how do we know what the person is trying to convey. So if I did want to provide context, I would rather provide a set of photos that lead people in the direction I want rather than writing a paragraph; but I have found that is not always possible, or is exceptionally difficult, so resort to the text.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

•


It is NOT IMPORTANT BUT UNESCAPABLE!

Unescapable to the point where one has to fight it in order to
stay — when needed — with a more natural rendition.

When one can say "I, me" that one comes with the whole set of
cultural influences and his /hers own preferences, and these are
the root of one's artistic intent.