The only people I’ve ever shown my pictures to are my wife, a few friends, and then, just like that, without anesthesia, to some 50 unknown fellow photographers and four critics, back in October in B and H’s Event Space.
Until then, very rarely did I have to explain anything. At the event I got to answer some questions, but it wasn’t the place or the time to go into lengthy explanations in the hope to turn my critics around, which only now strikes me as odd, because, for the most part, I don’t believe photographs should need to be explained: if a picture’s worth a thousand words, why should it require any explanations? Doesn’t that beat the purpose of the whole “capture the moment” thing?
(The five pictures I presented for the critique, however, are safe from this self-imposed rule, but only because they were grandfathered.)
I’ve heard master photographers explain their images, but this has been the case only when listening to them speak about their work, and would do it again, as they were always truly fascinating stories, kinda like a “behind the scenes.” But other than this, I’ve never seen photographs accompanied by more than their titles or their date and/or location. If anything, it’s always others who will write to no end about them. About balance, about composition, about light, about colors, you name it.
So, in keeping with tradition, I’m going to shut-up and let others say whatever they want. I just want to take pictures.