Thank you for extending the discussion, I always enjoy this kind of civil delving in…
Technically, a movie is also a series of photographs. So, yes, I agree that one can weave a story with a series. But what I really meant to take on in this article was the distinction of storytelling within the endeavor of creating a single image. So, perhaps, we may agree after all?
But about this “genre” of photography… I think many photographers read articles like the ones you sent and it actually confuses them more. Because we have an inherent sense of what a story is — the ones we read in books and see on TV and in movies — but then we get somewhere with our cameras and there’s a fairly large chasm of difference in what we can actually affect in those terms. So, this was the original intent of the article — to put what is generally referred to as “storytelling” into terms that any up-and-coming photographer could grasp. Which, if you get technical about it, is really about the scene, not an entire story.
When someone walks into your house for the first time and says, “you have a lovely home,” they are making certain connections simply from your living room. They haven’t seen your bedroom or garage or the state of the bathrooms. They are gleaning all they feel they need to know about your home from that one view. So, in the larger sense, the storytelling that most people discuss in photography is akin to the “lovely home” one gleans from the living room. My article is simply saying, “you’re saying home, but you’re really looking at the living room. So, let’s talk about the living room.”