Judy,
No, the multitude is not completely objective. And most likely
compromises and such would prevent me from ever creating a completely
and totally objective photograph.
Oh, but I'm usually much more objective when I make a folding screen.
For some time I have been photographing the environmental space so as to
study, learn, observe the interrelationships of that space and a
culture. One will have an impact on the other and visa-versa. Many
times I know little or nothing of the culture. It can be like an
archaeologist uncovering a new discovery. Related, established fields
of study are Proximics and Feng Shui.
I learned very quickly that Viewers were not relating or noticing the
space in my work. Even I had difficulties at times; not finding in the
print what I had photographed. I thought of how I might more fully
deliver the message. I remembered an exhibit of folding screens at the
National Gallery of Art around 1984 (there's a catalog titled The
Folding Image). I had noticed that many of these screens made linkages
between reality and imagination, nature and technology, land and sea,
objective and subjective, utility and art among other relationships. I
realized that I could utilize the screen as a tool to pursue my study.
I made my first folding screen in 1989 at a trail on Green Mountain (two
hours north of Phoenix). It involved the spaces in front of and behind
a cluster of California White Oaks. I realized immediately this would
work as a screen (although I had never made a screen and did not yet
know the details I would need to solve). I leveled the tripod and set
up the 4x5, exposed three negatives as a panoramic, however
overlapping. The camera was aimed so as to accommodate the folding axis
(this is of critical importance). For some reason I felt that I needed
to expand the cluster of trees in order to more fully realize the
space. Because of this overlap, and since I wanted to avoid a
distracting repetition of the trees, I wanted between each exposure for
the sun and shadows to move (even though the trees repeated, the shadows
did not). These negatives were used to build three enlarged negatives
about 10x12. These larger negatives were used to make four PtPd prints
which were mounted in a frame custom built (by me of course) for this
purpose. When the screen is folded and viewed in various positions, the
space either in front of or behind the trees is accentuated. This
effect is caused by the distortion of viewing perspective and not just
the 3-dimensional aspect of the screen. It is interesting to note that
both spaces will not be accentuated at the same time.
Let me summarize by saying that the objective element was the nature of
the space in front of and behind the trees. It was my intent not to
create or recreate that space, but rather to adequately represent that
space as it had been discovered.
The selection of the axis is most critical for my use of a folding
image. Ansel Adams had made some folding screens, but only as
panoramas, and not taking advantage of the folding axis. Some of the
traditional Chinese screens only used the panels to sequence a story.
But many artists have used the screen with various media taking full
advantage of the axis. This has been researched quite well in The
Folding Image. The only other photographer (that I am aware of)
utilizing a screen is Glenn Ketchum. When I met with him in 1993 or so,
he was planning to have some silk embroideries made, copying his
photographs, and mounted as a single panel in a screen.
I have also photographed the images for panels from differing vantage
points and reassembling them so as to better define that which was
photographed. This is not unlike cubism. In fact I find much of the
work of Picasso to be quite objective. We he studied a person from
within and without and assembled the pieces, he really did create some
accurate objective rendition of that person and human being. Do not
make the mistake that I am saying the work is totally objective, for it
is not. However, Picasso's work seems much more objective than it is
credited. He really knew how to deliver the essence of the message and
he could get to the truth of the matter.
So, I'm sorry back; my screens may just be more objective than my other
work or some "straight photograph".
-- Jeffrey D. Mathias http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/