> Jeffrey D. Mathias wrote:
>
> > Yes Judy, there is "objectivity"; although not in the sense as you have
> > portrayed. The challenge is not to translate reality to a piece of
> > paper. The challenge is to have the image on the piece of paper convey
> > the same message of that reality; and that this be done with a minimum
> > (idealy none) of manipulation or editorializing by the photographer, but
> > executed with the experience and ability of the photographer, so that
> > the viewer can understand the message of the reality.
>
> I don't agree with this one. Reality is not itself objective, and any
> sense of an objective recording of reality is delusional.
>
> I'm reminded of Garry Winogrand constantly repeating "I photograph
> things to see what they look like as photographs" to which A.D. Coleman
> responded some years later in an essay "no, that shows us what they look
> like as photographs *by Garry Winogrand*.
>
> ---Carl>
I would also suggest the possibility that what makes a picture
*interesting* is "editorializing" by the photographer. I mean I can go
look at your old canal or your cloud forms or your lump of tar for myself.
Haven't we all heard the stories of photographers working side by
side shooting the same scenes (even a whole class!) and each coming up
with something completely different ?! Frankly, I suspect this may be
something of an exaggeration, but I like the thought...
Still, Jeffrey's position is interesting *as a position.* I don't think
I've ever heard anyone take that position before, or not quite in those
terms (tho perhaps I've been insufficiently attentive) ...I, too, think
it's not possible, but that even the *position* would probably color the
work...( Which does give a conceptual tinge to the "straight"
photography, sort of...)
Judy