Human is a mix of sensibility & logos, so is art. That’s why we create art, that’s the charm of art. Art is the closest thing to human nature; it is the creation of the contradictions of human nature.
But the problem is, sensibility can’t be taught either in school or book, you can only feel it, experience it. It’s because we need to use language to explain everything, but the language itself is the product of logos, in other words, the outcome of logic. When you are writing or speaking, you need to put words into sentences, put sentences into paragraphs carefully, and finally make others understand. How can you use a logic thing to teach the sensibility part of photography? Sure, there so many logos things in photography too, including composition, colour, light, and the camera things etc., but there is a sensibility part in it too, and that sensibility part usually determines whether or not this photograph can be a perfect and touching work.
On the other hand, That’s why I hear a lot of photographers said: “It’s hard to say…” “It’s a feeling…” “It’s is mysticism things…” They seem to run out of words when talking about photography. I believe that they’re not trying to hide anything or not good at articulate. This is because language is inherently limited. If language can be used to describe images, what do we need images for?
So, there’s my point:
- Language can’t explain the art completely, such as photography;
- Because of that, the books which try to analyze “Master’s great photos” is unreliable, at least their explanation is incomplete;
- When we write a caption for photos, we should not use words to describe the image, which is not only repetitive but also impossible. What we should do is to use words to describe the information which is not in the picture.