I’m probably in a minority on this one. However, I find myself increasingly troubled by what appears a trend towards the use of ever more ‘arty’ language to describe photographs, the rationale for photographic projects and creators’ areas of specialism.
Sometimes, it almost seems as if photographs are judged as much on the words that accompany them as the images themselves.
How often do we see phraseology along the following lines?
‘…the project explores the complex interaction between perceived reality and lived experience, within an historical context, amongst a minority and little known community…’?
Is this really what the project set out to do? Could it be post-rationalisation? Is it the belief that complex syntax and ‘big words’ somehow add importance to the work and elevate it to a higher level of achievement? Perhaps it is just part of a search for artistic recognition?
No doubt many will view such descriptions/explanations as central to conveying the photographic mission. Many others will appreciate the ‘arty’ language. There is, therefore, no right or wrong. There will be different opinions.
The writing that communicates most effectively is invariably both concise and simple in structure. I prefer to look at an image and draw my own conclusions about the content. A picture is ‘worth a thousand words’ and all that. Give me a brief caption by all means but otherwise let the photograph tell the story.
After all, the images that have the greatest impact and the ones we remember most are those that are remarkable for their content. Those that require lengthy explanation may well be making a point but, I suspect, are often soon forgotten.