Your comments on interactivity and process are very well presented and
exactly true in my methods as well. Although when you wrote:
> ...The major prophet of this idea himself didn't actually
> practice it. If you saw a gorgeous early 8x10 contact print from Ansel
> Adam's ...
I was thinking more of Edward Weston.
Judy Seigel's statement:
>...
> Indeed... and a very seductive path it is. I continually struggle to free
> myself from its coils... I do love the look of it... photography's siren
> song, in fact... but I fight it. ;- )...
may apply for some, but not for me. I have never felt an objective
approach to be seductive or to be the "coils" she indicates. I have
found the objective approach to be very challenging.
You had also written:
>
>...
> One should be careful about imagining how photographers work just
> because they might claim to "(pre)visualize", and it would certainly be
> incorrect to assume that most "straight" photographers actually believe
> in that fallacy....
I do strive, in a lot of my work, to "previsualize", but more
importantly to objectively understand the essence of what it is the
environmental space has to reveal. What you have referred to as a
fallacy may just be unbiased, objective observation; perhaps not to
different from journalistic documentation or scientific research. In
any event it is not so simple to previsualize and produce a "straight"
photograph. If there are any sirens out there, they are certainly
attempting to seduce the editorilization (new word), personal
manipulation, and alteration of the essence of what is before the
camera.
In this work of mine, success comes with the understanding learned from
that which is photographed; a failure comes from the missed opportunity
to gain knowledge due to my prejudices and biases (although this does
tell me something about myself). And, as any path chosen by one truly
committed to their work, there is a necessity for great discipline and
practice.
-- Jeffrey D. Mathias http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/