> ... 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
Jeffrey, to me the above is a definition of *subjective,* not objective
photography. You explain that the photographer is giving his or her
interpretation, which the viewer may or may not "get." If that's not
subjective, what is?
> 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..
> Why is it thought to be impossible to be objective? ....
I dunno, tho as we see it may be impossible or nearly so .... but why is
it so important?
Let me suggest a reason -- it gives a *premise.* We all need a premise on
which to base (or justify) choices we must make in the morass of
possibilities.
> 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.
Call it true discipline if you like... I call it framework or context. I
think any *vision* requires discipline. We live amidst clamor, information
overload.
>.... A true "Viewer" of a photograph should always question
> if they are really seeing what has been photographed.
I would rather take a certain indeterminateness as inevitable ... as in
those psychological tests showing how subjective all vision, even about
"objective" photographs is...
> 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
Of course art is for the masses.... tho often not the same art as for the
non-masses, which is itself variously fragmented. Ever since I heard that
David Letterman was popular, and read some of his "jokes," I gave up on
the masses. Nothing against ART for the masses in principle, of course,
but not necessarily a criterion one way or the other...
> 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.
Well again, Jeffrey, seems to me you're proving how subjective your vision
is, and since you INTEND to be "objective", aren't you saying "objective"
is if you see what I want you to see?
>
> 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.
It allows you to *aim* at the "objective side," of course. But so would
gum if you set your mind to it, tho probably requiring more discipline. In
fact this discussion could be used to prove that "subjective" and
"objective" are as much mindsets as definable points... Or perhaps
poles around which our conscious intents revolve...
cheers,
Judy