How do I get the viewer to experience what I am experiencing when I take the photo?

<p><strong>JK - "...</strong>it can be like a fishing fly, floating, maybe being snapped up..."</p>

<p> John, I've been fly-fishing for over five decades. That would be what is called a "dry fly". It's the water's surface tension that keeps them from sinking (and the floatant that keeps the feathers from sucking up water, too).</p>

<p>1) Since " meaning" refers to a verbal construct there's no way it can be conveyed with a photograph.<br>

2) when one says "x," and upon being told that one is being unclear responds "x+/-" or "however" it means specifically that one does not know what one meant in the first place...so couldn't convey it.<br>

2) when one dodges and weaves, one is consciously or unconciously attempting to avoid being pinned down...one does not have a "meaning" to convey. Prescription: Hemingway in "A Moveable Feast"<br>

IMO of course. Though Strunk & White would have agreed.<br>

I think photographs can seem "significant" to viewers. They can arrest attention or precipitate questions or emotional responses, they can excite or bore. They can't convey "meaning" any more than they can convey B-flat/minor or salt flavor.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis, yes. I said "fishing fly" because I didn't want to compare photographs to insects :-)</p>

<p>Maybe kitten/duck/scenics are like bass-fishing lures? "Street" is like fishing for catfish with dough-balls?</p>

<p>Where have you fished recently? Tie your own? This is a good line of thought. I don't even have a license at the moment... it's time to review my kit.</p>

<p>Honestly, John, I perceive a fair amount of dodging and weaving on these threads as well. For me, it's a balancing act how much to dwell on them. If I'm honest with others, I'll call them on it <em>specifically and directly</em> and perhaps advance the discussions beyond the superficial and the ego. If I get too caught up in it, I risk playing a game of gotcha and not allowing others enough breathing room to process their uncertainties and mistakes.</p>

<p>[Waaaay off topic....but since John asked...<em> </em>]</p>

<p><strong>John - "</strong>Where have you fished recently? Tie your own? This is a good line of thought. I don't even have a license at the moment... it's time to review my kit."</p>

<p> Most of the time I fish around my home here in Florida. I was at Sanibel/Captiva (near Ft. Myers) recently, fishing for snook, mostly wading in the surf around Bowman's Beach and the Pass on an outgoing tide. I only practice catch-and-release (and the snook are out-of-season anyway). They are plentiful, but not many of the large ones come out during the day. Most run around 5-15 lb. FYI, for this kind of (mostly) blind casting I use a floating shooting head with a 9# rod (I love my aging 9' 9# Sage and battered Abel). My favorite fly for this kind of fishing is the Clouser Minnow, and I carry them in several colors, from size #4 to 2/0 2nd favorite is an old-school, simple, easy to tie and effective pattern called Joe Brook's Blonde. 3rd is a Lefty's Deceiver.</p>

<p> Just in case my shoulder gets sore from all that casting, I also take a 7' bait caster with a Calcutta reel, 8-12lb line, and several kinds of lures, my favorite being a yellow 3/8 oz feathered flathead jig. Always take a spinner for my wife to use.</p>

<p>I tie all my saltwater flies, but no longer do the freshwater. My eyes and hands aren't what they used to be. Besides, I always get better tips from the fly shops if I drop some bucks on recommended flies. I love fishing the Rio Grande around Creede, CO. Usually fly up, meet with my cousin & his wife, and drive out there from KS about once a year.</p>

<p> John lives near some of the best rainbow waters in the lower 48.</p>

<p>[As to what types of photos correspond to what types of flies, that I leave to John.]</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis, thanks! I envy the patience of fly fishermen as well as their ability to focus on things that count, demonstrated especially by fly tying and selection... fishing has to do with wisdom. My approximation has been traditional archery (wood bows & wood arrows), different socially from fishing as we wander or compete in small groups. I make arrows, some make bows as well. Maybe our "making" and "tying" are similar to the <strong>physical flavor of analog photography</strong> ... my sense is that digital work tends to be head-limited, which explains the confusion about "art" (ie "art"= "beauty")... technical perfection of snapshots, nature, minimal interest in emotional/conceptual etc. Yattayatata. Go fish!</p>

<p> to the OT:</p>

<p>If one is sufficiently skilled and famous, others will inevitably say things to suggest they're on the same page. Perhaps those are the issues.</p>

<p>Marcel Proust supposedly comes close to achieving Lannie's goal. I don't read French, but Proust in English is just one more narcissist, not nearly as resonant for me as, say, Updike or Nabokov. </p>