Concepts Handholding with Storytelling

[Harlequin565]

Interesting one this (for me at least).

The thing that really draws me in to other people's images is the storytelling aspect. I like project work, and I like series work. Someone who is trying to tell a story about whatever their thing is. It shows passion about something (even if I don't share that passion) and a commitment to their work.

I've tried it myself and often feel that my work is over simplified and hand-held. Tonight, I watched the latest video from Cinemastix which basically pulls all the exposition scenes from The Bourne Identity. (

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdcSFsQRsnc
) to make (IMO) the movie less "hand-holdy" and more "compelling". I use inverted commas there to stress my word choice in the hope you know what I mean. To be clear, I like movies as much as photography and take a lot of influence from great story tellers as well as great cinematographers so I found this video quite absorbing. By the end, I felt that I would have enjoyed a 90min runtime more with less of the hand-holding.

Finally, the question: For the project-oriented folks out there. Do you "control" your hand-holding with a project to tell your story? I.e. do you have any images in there that are used to progress what you're trying to say in a "simplified" way for your audience. Do you feel you're "not there yet" with that level of communication? Do you not overthink it, and just put in what looks good and what works for you (or are you an overthinker like me?) Or is there another factor that helps you decide how to storyboard your work and deliver a level of communication that hits a good balance between saying too much and not saying enough?

Going to shamelessly tag @Ed Sutton @benc98 @Chipper @viewfromthenorth @myotis and @Mr Perceptive just for the hell of it... But anyone please do feel free to chime in.

Hope this one made sense!

 

[viewfromthenorth]

The Bourne Identity is one of my favourite films, in fact the entire trilogy was amazing so that’s a good starting point!

My initial response is that I use text as the handholding element, but I’ll have to reflect further on the question.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Interesting one this (for me at least).

The thing that really draws me in to other people's images is the storytelling aspect. I like project work, and I like series work. Someone who is trying to tell a story about whatever their thing is. It shows passion about something (even if I don't share that passion) and a commitment to their work.

I've tried it myself and often feel that my work is over simplified and hand-held. Tonight, I watched the latest video from Cinemastix which basically pulls all the exposition scenes from The Bourne Identity. (

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdcSFsQRsnc
) to make (IMO) the movie less "hand-holdy" and more "compelling". I use inverted commas there to stress my word choice in the hope you know what I mean. To be clear, I like movies as much as photography and take a lot of influence from great story tellers as well as great cinematographers so I found this video quite absorbing. By the end, I felt that I would have enjoyed a 90min runtime more with less of the hand-holding.

Finally, the question: For the project-oriented folks out there. Do you "control" your hand-holding with a project to tell your story? I.e. do you have any images in there that are used to progress what you're trying to say in a "simplified" way for your audience. Do you feel you're "not there yet" with that level of communication? Do you not overthink it, and just put in what looks good and what works for you (or are you an overthinker like me?) Or is there another factor that helps you decide how to storyboard your work and deliver a level of communication that hits a good balance between saying too much and not saying enough?

Going to shamelessly tag @Ed Sutton @benc98 @Chipper @viewfromthenorth @myotis and @Mr Perceptive just for the hell of it... But anyone please do feel free to chime in.

Hope this one made sense!

I'll get back to you when I'm fully awake, have watched the video and understand what you're on about! With the caveat that I don't watch many movies and have never seen The Bourne Identity.

 

[myotis]

Interesting one this (for me at least).

The thing that really draws me in to other people's images is the storytelling aspect. I like project work, and I like series work. Someone who is trying to tell a story about whatever their thing is. It shows passion about something (even if I don't share that passion) and a commitment to their work.

I've tried it myself and often feel that my work is over simplified and hand-held. Tonight, I watched the latest video from Cinemastix which basically pulls all the exposition scenes from The Bourne Identity. (

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdcSFsQRsnc
) to make (IMO) the movie less "hand-holdy" and more "compelling". I use inverted commas there to stress my word choice in the hope you know what I mean. To be clear, I like movies as much as photography and take a lot of influence from great story tellers as well as great cinematographers so I found this video quite absorbing. By the end, I felt that I would have enjoyed a 90min runtime more with less of the hand-holding.

Finally, the question: For the project-oriented folks out there. Do you "control" your hand-holding with a project to tell your story? I.e. do you have any images in there that are used to progress what you're trying to say in a "simplified" way for your audience. Do you feel you're "not there yet" with that level of communication? Do you not overthink it, and just put in what looks good and what works for you (or are you an overthinker like me?) Or is there another factor that helps you decide how to storyboard your work and deliver a level of communication that hits a good balance between saying too much and not saying enough?

Going to shamelessly tag @Ed Sutton @benc98 @Chipper @viewfromthenorth @myotis and @Mr Perceptive just for the hell of it... But anyone please do feel free to chime in.

Hope this one made sense!

I'm not sure I fully understand this, but I've watched the video. I don't watch many movies, but I love these insights into movie production.

I don't really do projects as such (I should do), but I have done what would be described as projects in the past, and I've made videos and "films" (16mm and 35mm) in the past. And in these circumstances I consciously think about explanatory fill shots, to help the viewer understand "the story" even if they aren't great photographs, or core bits of video

I think the benefit of a telling "a story" with a sequence of photographs, rather than presenting a collection of stand alone "best" photographs is that each photograph only needs to work as part of the collection. So you can have mix of stand alone "great" photographs, along explanatory "link" photographs that work together.

But, I don't think this is always needed, it depends on the project. For me, a project on "My Village" would benefit from some intellectual intent. An awareness of the audience for the project and some form of storyboard, Which would come from thinking about what I wanted to say about my village and the images I would need to produce to say it. Some would be aesthetics driven and some explanatory. driven.

Although, there is an overlap and very soft boundaries, I think of images as being descriptive, documentary or expressive. For a "My Village" project I would probably plan the photographs in that order. What is needed to describe the village (The church, the two pubs etc)? How best to document these features ( Architectural picture of church, plus picture of vicar), and then how I can make a personal statement through my photographs about the village (expressive).

But, equally, a project can be entirely based on a collection of related photographs e.g reflections in puddles, which doesn't need this level of organisation/explanation. Just a collection of "best" photographs with any necessary explanation and links made using an explanatory text, or captions.

So the amount of thinking and storyboarding depends on the audience together with the long term project aim along with with the shorter term objectives needed to achieve this aim,

I believe, the key is in understanding the audience you want to share your work with, and this could well change between projects.

So, that is my unhelpful answer to your question... it depends.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Sorry. I got about three minutes into the video and a) thought the movie was a load of cobblers, b) was bored to tears. I did say I don't watch many films*, and none like that.

But maybe I know what you are getting at. Do storytelling pictures need words to explain them? My answer is increasingly "Yes".

I look at lots of photos and photobooks. There is a genre of 'art documentary' that operates in a 'poetic' manner. Sleeping by the Mississippi for example, or Jem Southam's River Winter. When done well it creates a mood (poetic) that is understood on an emotional//visceral level. Unfortunately it leads to a lot of people who see the surface of the pictures and apply that to their work, which creates a body of work with no substance, just a collection of images that look like 'art documentary' pictures but might be claimed to be 'metaphorical'. I don't honestly believe photography does metaphor as it's a literal medium, showing exactly what the lens sees. There's a lot of this poetic/metaphorical s***e about thinking it's art.

Straight documentary (for want of a better term), IMO, can benefit from explanation, particularly if it is dealing with a subject that is unfamiliar to the majority of people. More familiar subjects can be treated differently - without text, and even in the 'poetic' style - and still be understood by almost everyone. There has to be a way in to a project for viewers or they're just going to flounder around looking at a set of pictures.

I apologise if I've got the wrong end of the stick.

* I've recently watched The Seventh Seal for the umpteenth time. It's one of my two favourite movies. The other is Some Like It Hot. Go figure!

 

[benc98]

loved the bourne trilogy, not seen it for a while and never watched any of the sequels or follow-ups after the initial three films. The YouTube video was a great essay and makes a point well with a good example. In general, I'm not a movie buff

Do you "control" your hand-holding with a project to tell your story? I.e. do you have any images in there that are used to progress what you're trying to say in a "simplified" way for your audience. Do you feel you're "not there yet" with that level of communication?

It really depends on the project and the subject matter, your viewer(s) will bring their own interpretation to your work, and you might need (it could be important) to shut down those alternative interpretations by including additional context. At the moment, I'm of the opinion it's better to use words than pictures to provide that context.

The other way of approaching it is to give space for the audience to work it out, almost become new authors of the work by bringing their own reading into it - this could be more fun for you as an photographer and the viewer will be less patronised (maybe) and engaged in the work.

I created this book dummy last week for a small project and I was testing out some ideas - I experimented with sequencing and words, so excuse the ropey pages

View: https://youtu.be/6kq6WQzSwjw?si=wQr-0t9BY0Uf_zT2


It's a non-linear story, unlike the Bourne film and something like W. Eugene Richards Country Doctor, which is linear (and needs words). but I think my project does tell a story, the words at the start give context and anchors the work to some extent and the single word captions offer ambiguity.

 

[Harlequin565]

At the moment, I'm of the opinion it's better to use words than pictures to provide that context.

See I find this interesting as I've felt the need to add either an intro or an afterward to my zines "just in case" someone didn't get it. I know when I read @Paul Morgan 's "Caustic" zine, the information was all added at the end, and I didn't have the wherewithall to figure it out before I got there. Only with the text did the lightbulb finally light.

Your demo book hits that spot perfectly for me, to the point where I would probably only need the images and titles to figure it out, especially with that last image. I think it encapsulates precisely what the video was talking about in that if you remove the text, the zine still works, and possibly (in my opinion) might be even better. The reward, for this viewer at least, in "figuring it out" gives it value.

Unfortunately it leads to a lot of people who see the surface of the pictures and apply that to their work, which creates a body of work with no substance, just a collection of images that look like 'art documentary' pictures but might be claimed to be 'metaphorical'.

This is a really accurate point well made. I'm beginning to think that it boils down to what @myotis said

believe, the key is in understanding the audience you want to share your work with

This rings true for me, and probably explains why I posted the OP. I don't really have an "intended audience" for my work these days - I just make it. I wonder if that's weird.

I've just had a look back at @Thmaga 's zine from during lockdown. I don't think there's an online "flip through" of it unfortunately, but for that example, the text is almost part of the presentation. It's not there as a formal explanation, and beautifully enhances the images whilst telling the story at the same time.

 

[myotis]

See I find this interesting as I've felt the need to add either an intro or an afterward to my zines "just in case" someone didn't get it. I know when I read @Paul Morgan 's "Caustic" zine, the information was all added at the end, and I didn't have the wherewithall to figure it out before I got there. Only with the text did the lightbulb finally light.

Your demo book hits that spot perfectly for me, to the point where I would probably only need the images and titles to figure it out, especially with that last image. I think it encapsulates precisely what the video was talking about in that if you remove the text, the zine still works, and possibly (in my opinion) might be even better. The reward, for this viewer at least, in "figuring it out" gives it value.


This is a really accurate point well made. I'm beginning to think that it boils down to what @myotis said

This rings true for me, and probably explains why I posted the OP. I don't really have an "intended audience" for my work these days - I just make it. I wonder if that's weird.

I don't think you necessarily need an audience. Having any audience in mind probably changes the relationship between the photographer and their photographs, which can be a good or a bad, thing

My photography is very much a personal affirmation of my connection with the, (mainly) natural world. Making photographs adds to that experience and processing the pictures allows me to relive the experience.

I also enjoy the craft of photography, and the time spent trying to make photographs "look"the way I saw the subject when I pressed the shutter. I find this relatively easy with people and wildlife, but landscape remains an enormous challenge, which I both enjoy and hate.

But, I don't have any overwhelming need to have an audience for my work, which possibly is a bit "weird", given the assumption that art is about communication and making some sort of personal statement about the world. But we normally only see art from artists who want to share (except for those who get discovered after death)

I get a lot of enjoyment from looking at the "art" of others and feel I "should" be sharing my work. Every so often I start to make the effort to share my work, but fail.

I've just had a look back at @Thmaga 's zine from during lockdown. I don't think there's an online "flip through" of it unfortunately, but for that example, the text is almost part of the presentation. It's not there as a formal explanation, and beautifully enhances the images whilst telling the story at the same time.

 

[Thmaga]

Oh this is an interesting thread and thanks for the @ @Harlequin565 funnily enough I have been thinking about that zine/project recently. I'm looking to tighten up the graphic design of it and put it online and have toyed with a few follow on projects, though I haven't been able to settle on them.

On to the general thread, I have been pondering some of these issues as well, I was 'reading' a photobook the other day and started questioning how text can interact with the work.

I think there's probably a level of purism with visual art, or at least a tradition of relying solely on the visual medium to convey the concept/narrative/message. Some might argue that 'needing' text would render the visual work substandard in not being able to convey the message itself (I would disagree with this).

Of course there's also the element to which visual art is subjective, written narrative can often be seen to be a bit more leading for the viewer in understanding or interpreting the concept, but again I don't think that applies in many cases, but it relies on a good handle of writing and visual art to be able to produce a coherent piece that isn't too leading.

On to the practicalities of executing a project, I think it depends on the concept from the outset really.

I wouldn't say you can over think it, as curating or selecting the images for a project is really key to the whole thing.

Sometimes an image can stand alone, other times there's an element of narrative with a set of images, or images that give each other context. A project can be a mix of all of those. There is a line between not handholding the audience and not actually communicating anything at all I suppose.

There's times to ask yourself, what does this image contribute to what I'm trying to say? Rejecting a beautiful image that doesn't fit, or build the bigger picture is definitely part of that. Though 'zooming out' to consider the overall picture can be really hard.

It all gets a bit more complicated when you're considering how to mix in written content with the visual stuff.

At the end of the day, if you have something to communicate you have a whole spectrum of ways in which to do it, and it is really a matter of choice for the artist how 'hard' they might want to make the visuals 'work' as part of it/

Projects don't always emerge the same way either:

Sometimes you're out shooting with a clear message/narrative in mind, thinking about how you can build up the message or story, and then spend some time carefully curating the images after.

Other times it can be more organic and the overall concept comes alive or changes through the process itself, I've found unintentional patterns or messages in some work and ran off with that, or started trying to convey one thing and taking a step back realised the overall piece of work does something different.

That's got my creative brain engaged!

 

[benc98]

There’s a discussion on this weeks A Photographic Life podcast about using words in photobooks. I know the discussion in this thread isn’t all about using words, but the podcast seemed relevant enough to share here

 

[Thmaga]

There’s a discussion on this weeks A Photographic Life podcast about using words in photobooks. I know the discussion in this thread isn’t all about using words, but the podcast seemed relevant enough to share here

That's timely, I haven't listened to that for a while. Will tune in. Thanks for heads up

 

[Ed Sutton]

There’s a discussion on this weeks A Photographic Life podcast about using words in photobooks. I know the discussion in this thread isn’t all about using words, but the podcast seemed relevant enough to share here

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqEcoFyqwI4

 

[viewfromthenorth]

Having reflected further, as well as read the responses since my initial one, I've concluded that my initial thoughts still hold true.
To elaborate, I think words and photographs in this context are inseparable, certainly in my own work. Heck, even if you don't have an intro, you have a title for the project / book / zine, unless you're being obtuse or completely objective.
But can images alone tell a story? Possibly. Your image choice and sequencing can force a visual narrative or point of view. But to make it unambiguous would require a certain choice of images. There again, you might want an element of ambiguity to let the viewer draw their own conclusions and again you could edit the sequence and selection accordingly. An example of this could be a photo story on a controversial topic where photographs of both sides of the argument are presented. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head but it's early.
As an aside I'm a big fan of Cafe Royal zines and I know that Craig Atkinson leaves it completely up to the photographer as to whether they want an intro or captions, etc. As many zines are just retrospectives, many just about get away without any text beyond a title, but those covering an event or occasion need it. On the other hand, where there isn't or is there limited information presented it has lead me down some interesting rabbit holes on the internet finding out more, so they've been the catalyst for further enquiry.
This also raises the question as to the ambiguity and objectivity of photographs when presented with and without context, be that text or other photographs. But I've not had a cup of tea yet so I'll need to ponder that one further.......

 

[Ed Sutton]

story on a controversial topic where photographs of both sides of the argument are presented. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head but it's early.
As an aside I'm a big fan of Cafe Royal zines and I know that Craig Atkinson leaves it completely up to the photographer as to whether they want an intro or captions, etc. As many zines are just retrospectives, many just about get away without any text beyond a title, but those covering an event or occasion need it. On the other hand, where there isn't or is there limited information presented it has lead me down some interesting rabbit holes on the internet finding out more, so they've been the catalyst for further enquiry.

That's what p***es me off about Café Royal books. The zines are a permanent historical record in many cases, in which case I believe they should have details about each photograph for future generations. All it would need is a caption/info list or short explanation at the back of each book. Not all the books need that, but I don't think it would do any harm.

Not captioning/explaining documentary photos I find sort of arrogant, elitist and pretentious. As if the photographer desperately wants to be an 'artist'. Ironic when so much contemporary art needs text to explain it!

Remember Daniel Meadows's rule 9 of Photography Engagement:

 

[viewfromthenorth]

One last observation, I’ve just pulled Chris Killip’s In Flagrante Two off my shelf as I’ve not looked at it for ages and I vaguely recalled that it had no intro. And I was right, nothing. There’s nothing on the book flaps either, or back cover. The only text is at the end - a thumbnail index of images with a one line title / location caption, and a sentence listing the two labour and two conservative PM’s who were in power during the period that the photographs were taken.

I’m guessing that this was in response to the re-contextualisation of some of the images when they’d been used as ‘evidence’ of the conservatives destroying northern communities.

I’ve not got the original book so don’t know if that is the same, and I can’t afford to buy a copy as the prices are now astonishing. Interestingly, Killip’s Sea Coal book has a few pages of introductory text (although the late Mik Critchlow had an unacknowledged part in that story that Mik wasn’t particularly happy with).

 

[Ed Sutton]

Interestingly, Killip’s Sea Coal book has a few pages of introductory text (although the late Mik Critchlow had an unacknowledged part in that story that Mik wasn’t particularly happy with).

History is written by the winners. When you look into it there were other photographers shooting (exploiting?) the seacoalers. Possibly why Killip found it hard to get accepted at first.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

History is written by the winners. When you look into it there were other photographers shooting (exploiting?) the seacoalers. Possibly why Killip found it hard to get accepted at first.

Exactly this. Mik was local to the area and if memory serves me correctly knew some of the seacoalers. It’s a few years since I spoke to Mik about it but I think he helped Killip quite a bit, something he never got credit for.