Fotoartist wrote:
Does a photo need to tell a story or is a pile of random junk (albeit composed) a good enough subject?
Wonderful photographs! I really love these and can see them up on a wall in a pristine hall or room, a doctor's office, an engineering and manufacturing office, and more. I love the colors, the texture, and the composition. For me, they represent a step back in time.
Regarding your question, I think the first consideration is your intent in creating the photograph. However, whatever the intent, not all viewers will see it the same way. I believe that is some cases we could help guide the viewers thoughts by adding titles or captions if we so choose, but left unto itself, a photograph will invariably be interpreted by the viewer from within the viewer's experiences, emotions, and life circumstances at the moment. This, I believe, holds true for just about any form of art. In reflections of my life, I have found photographs, paintings, books, music, etc., that I bought because in some way they touched me in a certain way or spoke me during that moment of my life. Years later, returning to the same, I find the same items perhaps not as appealing or connected with me and I must ponder why they were important to me enough to commit resources---time, money, etc.---to obtaining them. It is only when I look into what was transpiring in my life, my emotional maturity level, and interests that the significance is restored.
Overall, while we may have a specific subject or story we are trying to tell, the viewer may not see the same without captions and titles. Sometimes I will apply titles and captions for this reason, whereas at other times, I leave it to the viewer to interpret, connect, and enjoy through their own world.
Sincerely,
Charles