Photographs must tell stories?

Well, must they? I mean, do photographs must tell a story? If so, why is that? If a good photograph is just that, a good image taken of a whatever, an image which is well framed, well exposed, of an interesting subject, but lacks a certain je ne sais quoi…it is less than a photograph? And I mean the image we’re hypothetically discuss here is really good.

I, for one, really understand where this concept comes from. I understand it, because I like my photographs to have a sense of self-explaining a situation, to expose something that will guide the onlooker to somehow understand where I am coming from with that image. Would that mean that the onlooker will share the same feeling that I had? I guess not, for you know…the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But I have the determination to make it at least possible.

Camouflage  – Nikon F2 with Kodak Tri-X 400

Which is most important? The value of the image given by the onlooker, or the value I have assigned to the picture when I envisaged the moment and fixed it on celluloid? Are these equally important? Less, which one? Am I the master of that moment, as I saw it? Or this goes to the onlooker, who doesn’t give 2 cents on the image if he sees nothing important in it?

I have probably hundreds of images that say, well, nothing of real value or meaning. Are these worthless? Of course they’re not in my eyes, but what of the eyes of the beholders? Are they important in giving these value? And if yes, what parameters is this value judged upon?

So yes, a photograph must tell a story, if you ask me. However, who assigns the story, what is the story saying, that is another matter, which has its own set of questions.