No Words forum

I understand that. I already said you've stated it clearly and I have no reason to question you on it. Do you think I'm trying to convince you otherwise? Why would I do that? As I said, I'm sharing.

 

For me to share that I benefit from explanations, both from others and myself on occasion, doesn't mean that's all I care about and doesn't mean I want you to feel the same. I said, generically, that I do think there are people on PN who would prefer others didn't explain and discuss photos in a certain way. That doesn't mean I think they should. I'm just put off by and suspicious of why they don't want others to do so.

 

I like the Baudrillard quote even though I think it's limited. It's a way to look at photography and I can learn from it. But, for me, it's not the be-all and end-all. I've studied enough philosophy to know I can get plenty from each philosopher I read, even those who would fight each other to the deaths over their differing beliefs. I'm not much of an ideologue when it comes to philosophy or photography. All these ideas, even when presented dogmatically as Baudrillard and so many others do, just get put into a pot of my own soup. I appreciate and get inspiration from all kinds of ideas, even ones I think are limited or don't express quite the way I look at things.

 

As I said, I do think that no photograph exists in a vacuum and both the taking context and viewing context play a role in what we see as the object in the photo, which I believe not to be the same thing as the object the camera was pointed at, even though they're intimately related. For Baudrillard to think that the object does all the work is fascinating, idealistic, worth considering, worth working with at times, and seems somewhat out of touch to me if not seen as a matter of degree rather than an all or nothing scenario. Again, this is me sharing, not trying to convince you of anything.

It is a specfic kind of "sharing" I can't share, because I don't take photos for reasons you want to share. On those terms I have nothing to share. I am not attempting to "say" anything with my photos. The past 25 years I have taken only taken photos in two locales I know extremely well, down to the bedrock (I mean literally down to the bedrock). If I get around to creating some web photo essays or books, the likely concept would be "change over time" of those locales. My photography is not about art, not about self-expression (is it obvious now it is the subject/object?). I have no "passion" to be a photographer or artist.

You want to share provenance? Materials and technique? How to photograph far off-trail in the wasteland sites of abandoned uranium or copper mines in the high desert? I'm up for that.

I’ll repeat one last time that I don’t want you to share and understand you have nothing to share in the way I’m talking about. I respect the way you see your photography and your photographing. I’m simply telling you about the sharing I might do and have done with other photographers unlike yourself. I don’t expect all photographers to work similarly or be alike. That I enjoy and learn from explanations doesn’t mean I think that applies across the board. You’ve asked me to talk about what “explanations” mean to me and then seem to keep assuming my answers show that I’m expecting something in the way of an explanation from you. I’m not!

_____________

On a side note, I wanted to add to what I said about the “object.” While many photos are of an object, the subject of many photos is an idea or feeling. The object is used as the means to convey that idea. A friend did a photo series called “Jazz.” There is no visual object known as jazz, so he used other objects and the way he photographed them to express “jazz.” This is likely something you wouldn’t do or care to do, but other photographers do. Object as means rather than end or object as means and end.