W.G. Rowland wrote:
I don't have enough background in photography to know if my observations are valid or not, so I figured I'd just throw the question out there..

How important is having the subject connect with the viewer to various styles of photography?

I'm not just talking about eye contact, although that plays a role, I suppose..

But whether candid or posed, some photographs are abstract in that you're looking at a person, object, or scene as an outsider and are not made privy to the thoughts and emotions going on in the scene (except what you can infer on your own)..  And other shots the emotional context of the image is central and merely viewing it draws you into the scene..

If I'm making any sense (and I may well not be - long night), does this distinction exist, and does it play into one style of photography more than another?

It's important to me, I guess, when it's important.  Tautology I know.

I've been thinking about this question a good deal very recently as I'm doing sketchs for various projects. 

Emotion can more easily be conveyed with facial expressions. That's our code to guaging what's going on with other people.  That's probably why the internet discussions can be so weird and sometimes strained is because we lack the 3-d cues that tell us what's really going on with what a person is thinking or meaning.

But I don't think it always takes a direct facial contact to attempt to convey emotion.  The pose the body takes, the context of the scene, the colors, shadows, dimensionality, can build in the same way layers of oil create an impasto.

I don't know if I'm making sense either, lol, pain meds make me loopy.

But the kind of photography I do, is very much about emotion, or trying to convey to the viewer a sense of emotion or sensation.  And as you can see from the small sampling in my portfolio, that the face is often not primary to composition.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
I guess to be clear on this I'd have to define what a connection is.. But since I'm not sure, it's hard to define.. Moreso, because I'm not sure it's even a valid concept since different people connect with different things..

I guess, to me.. A picture I connect with is one I can look at and think, "This says something to me."  Usually when I think that it's on an emotional level, but that may well just be me.  When it doesn't, but it's still a good pic, I usually think, "This is pretty."

I'm not trying to convince anyone they should do one or the other.. I'm just curious with various styles of photography (art - or at least figure studies - fashion, glamour, commercial, etc..) how much does this play into that particular style..

Not looking for hard numbers.. Just some anecdotes..

It seems to me that every style of photography should be able to connect to the viewer, why else do it?  The difference  is language.   Typically to connect in glamour you're using a different set of visual cues than you are in "fine art" photography versus commercial.  There are overlaps, work that doesn't always fit into a specific genre context, but the risk is always that the viewer might not be able to understand the cues because the context is now a landscape they're not familiar with.  And this is particularly true if with an audience that has literally no foundation in complex cultural/visual references. 

And then there is the issue of what people connect with.  There are certain universalities, emotions so strong that to not feel might put one into the category of sociopath, but on the other end, employing such overtly strong visuals risks one of stooping to base sentimentality or sensationalism.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
I don't have enough background in photography to know if my observations are valid or not, so I figured I'd just throw the question out there..

How important is having the subject connect with the viewer to various styles of photography?

I'm not just talking about eye contact, although that plays a role, I suppose..

But whether candid or posed, some photographs are abstract in that you're looking at a person, object, or scene as an outsider and are not made privy to the thoughts and emotions going on in the scene (except what you can infer on your own)..  And other shots the emotional context of the image is central and merely viewing it draws you into the scene..

If I'm making any sense (and I may well not be - long night), does this distinction exist, and does it play into one style of photography more than another?

W.G. Rowland wrote:
I guess to be clear on this I'd have to define what a connection is.. But since I'm not sure, it's hard to define.. Moreso, because I'm not sure it's even a valid concept since different people connect with different things..

I guess, to me.. A picture I connect with is one I can look at and think, "This says something to me."  Usually when I think that it's on an emotional level, but that may well just be me.  When it doesn't, but it's still a good pic, I usually think, "This is pretty."

I'm not trying to convince anyone they should do one or the other.. I'm just curious with various styles of photography (art - or at least figure studies - fashion, glamour, commercial, etc..) how much does this play into that particular style..

Not looking for hard numbers.. Just some anecdotes..

If there's no "connection" between the viewer and the image, the viewer will just move on.  Would you hang a photo/painting/sketch/etc. on your wall if it didn't generate a response in you?

What that connection is, varies between viewers (ie; some people get bondage photos, others don't).  But for the image to be "successful", there needs to be some connection with at least one viewer.

Anjel Britt wrote:
(looking in opposite direction)

you know i'm a bit daft...

don't you?