And, if you did I would guess that without the experience or past
efforts of research into the "message" and without an interest, you
could not produce nor understand that photograph. The moment of
discovery, the vantage point, the anticipation of forces coming
together, tempered by the skill and preparedness of the photographer
answer further a question sought by the accumulation of knowledge as to
the essence, the equivalence of that being photographed. Perhaps what
the viewer thinks of as an old canal, cloud forms, or a lump of tar is
not the message at all; perhaps the viewer has to re-think their
interpretation; perhaps the photographer is working by rules the viewer
refuses to acknowledge. Or perhaps the old canal IS just an old canal.
Carl is to the point when he says that the viewer may see something
different from the photographer which may be out of the control of the
photographer as well. It is imagined that part of the challenge is to
convey the proper message, or at times even a message, to the viewer.
As this is rather difficult not knowing the capacity of the viewer, I
generally work on conveying the message to myself.
Judy Siegel then said:
> ... ...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...)...
And Carl Weese said:
> ... The differences with two photographers with fairly mature visions turned loose in the same park or on the same city block can be astounding. As though they were photographing differnt worlds, which of course subjectively, they are.
Why is it thought to be impossible to be objective? If so, I maintain
that it is just as impossible to be subjective. Even if the most
subjective intentions are employed, the photographer is slave to the
objective aspects and abilities of the equipment and materials used. On
a scale of objective-to-subjective, there are many places where one can
work. It becomes a matter of true discipline to intentionally work from
a certain place on that scale.
Yes, the position and camera placement, the moment, the materials, the
processing, the what-ever are selected by the photographer; and the
photographer can also chose a place on the scale of
objective-to-subjective. Of course, there are always some who think
that everything is predestined or that the universe is a hodgepodge of
randomness. Who the heck cares? All I know is that if one looks at the
majority of my photographs and sees an old canal, cloud forms, or a lump
of tar, they most likely have missed the environmental space I am
photographing. A true "Viewer" of a photograph should always question
if they are really seeing what has been photographed. Is art for the
masses? It seems that the more utilitarian the art becomes, the more of
the masses that seem to appreciate it. If someone doesn't like my
photograph, do they ignore it or do they find out why they don't like
it? If someone gains knowledge from or likes my photograph, do they see
the same thing I photographed? Should the Viewer find or understand the
intent of the photographer? Should the Viewer re-interpret the
photograph? Perhaps the Viewer must make a decision as to where they
should place themselves on that scale of objective-to-subjective when
viewing that photograph.
The point of all this is to stimulate awareness in that there may be a
huge variety of positions on an objective-to-subjective scale available
to the photographer. Does the choice of position on this scale have an
influence on the particular process one uses? It seems that Judy works
in Gum to be a the subjective side of the scale. I find that PtPd
allows me to stay on the objective side. (Hum, tied this to alt-photo.
Now to generate responces.) I am confident others can use processes in
various positions.
-- Jeffrey D. Mathias http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/