>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.
By perchance have we gotten lost here? What are we assigning the
"objectiveness" and "subjectiveness" to? Quite a twirl here.
Two people standing in the same place and at the same time seeing the
"same" thing will have two different subjective experiences. The "Rashamon"
syndrome to be sure.
Any interpreting by humans or agents (machines?) that can interpret will by
definition be subjective. The only objectivity is the scene or the actual
photograph of the scene. Once either of those is translated into an
experience, it loses its objectivity.
Cameras are objective, photographs are objective, but experiences of
cameras of photographs are subjective.
Actual and experiential have been proposed as better terms. (I forget -- D.
Dennet maybe.)
--Dick Sullivan
Bostick & Sullivan
PO Box 16639, Santa Fe
NM 87506
505-474-0890 FAX 505-474-2857
<http://www.bostick-sullivan.com>http://www.bostick-sullivan.com