Judy said:
> Oh my goodness... I think this communication hardly ever occurs. Now I
> realize I risk getting both Jeff and Carl on my case,...
Judy,
Not at all; I have similar experience and views. "Missing the message"
and "left field" responses are just part of the fun of exhibiting or
showing work. I especially like to create work with a multitude of
messages, some intertwined, some unrelated. I like to include
subtleties and minor details. I prefer my work to be studied over a
long period of time giving opportunity for these subtleties to emerge.
An aspect I enjoy with my folding screens is that they must be viewed
from a variety of folded positions before they can be fully understood.
Perhaps I might figure that the longer it takes, the more satisfied and
elated the viewer may become.
When it gets right down to it, this "communication hardly ever occurs".
This might very well be an indicator as to shortcomings of our society
or culture. Are we overly prejudicial? Are we overly self- righteous
or almighty? Do we have to manipulate and dictate just how everything
must be? Do we control what we see? Does what we see control us? How
much do we care about understanding?
(People of the list, no answer is expected. It is my hope to have
answers: no, no, no, no, no, and greatly.)
If we need a scapegoat, maybe we can blame advertising: The bombardment
which desensitizes for the sake of making a buck. [Try this: Spend two
weeks hiking around the wilderness enjoying things. On your way home,
travel the same route, you will likely notice every billboard and add.
It is doubtful if you will remember the billboards and adds passed on
the way to your hike.] It is critically important for any artist to
train their senses so as to remain alert and avoid becoming
desensitized.
However, advertizing has provided for the research and availability of
products. Just as photography replaced much commercial drawing, so too
will electronic media replace commercial photography. I believe this
significantly contributed to the respect given to twentieth century
printmaking as an art, and will do the same for photography in coming
years. Perhaps the evolution of commercial use away from photography
cannot proceed fast enough. But then what might happen to the
availability of many materials. We must remain keenly aware of what
commercial markets are providing. The same products from the same
stores are found everywhere; the diversity of products is diminishing.
It becomes harder and more difficult to obtain crafted items or raw
materials. Small business must be supported at any cost over the
___-marts etc. (An important issue for alt-photo, but enough of
politics.)
Back to objective and subjective; I received a private E-mail relating
objectivity and subjectivity to differing religious beliefs. An
interesting and productive metaphor as long as one accepts another's
belief as having identical potential. I cannot understate the problems
when one imposes their beliefs upon another. "Straight" photography
should be observed from all sides. I truly feel that an important
aspect of "straight" photography is to take advantage and utilize
objective components. In writings of Edward Weston and Alfred Steglitz
(for example), describing their work, this seems to be quite clear (at
least to me). Some like Frederick Sommer and Minor White are quite
objective in their subjectivity. Ansel Adams is more subjective in his
landscapes and more objective in his portraits. And what about Walker
Evans or Manuel Alverez Bravo? Is this just subjective commentary? I
think not; there is real truth to their photographs. And what about
photojournalism? Is not it a mission of any true journalist to report
the facts and not their personal commentary? What makes an effective
journalistic photograph? Is the viewer concerned with the subjective
interpretation of the photographer or the reality of the situation?
Don't bother asking what is reality. Bottom line is: how objective or
how subjective is a tool the photographer has to deliver the message.
This becomes something the viewer has to learn in order to fully
understand the photograph and the intention of the photographer.
I find it always most productive to keep an open mind when interpreting
art. Of corse some art might be tailored to intentionally communicate
to a certainly biased mind.
-- Jeffrey D. Mathias http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/