Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by davidrosen, Jun 18, 2019.
If you take a picture but no one is there to see it, does it make a sound?
Not with an electronic shutter.
Ok, so when I told my wife about this posting she did not get it. I told that's the story of my life; most people don't. What I really wanted to discuss is whether you think it is worthwhile to take photos if nobody else sees them? That is not to say we should derive pleasure from our own work. But, is that the end game? Are we not looking for some validation from other people? And for some, in the form of monetary compensation?
My work is and always has been for my own enjoyment. If others liked it, fine, if I got paid, fine. It's me, me, me.
Since this is a Philosophy forum ......
David, SCL is right, to put it more esoterically, are you a Photographer or not? Is this something you do because you have to ... or something done for attention?
I do a lot that never sees the light of day, I don't even show them to my wife. I do it because I feel the need to. I like what I make & it makes me happy. That is the only validation that matters. Anything on top of that (attention, money, pats on the back) is nice, but not necessary.
“There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.” —Ansel Adams
“The picture is not made by the photographer, the picture is more good or less good in function of the relationship that you have with the people you photograph.” ― Sebastião Salgado
One of the more beautiful sounds in the world is the sound of conversation.
You have to be able to get off on your own stuff, otherwise why bother.
Photography offers endless challenges Micro to Astro and beyond. So long as you try new genres and enjoy the results - onward & upward!
So, although the photographer can view his or her photos, Adams distinguished between photographer and viewer. I contend it is not enough for the photographer to be the only viewer.
Sorry, not enough for what?
To quote Ray Davies :
'People take pictures of each other,
To prove that they once have existed'.
My photos are an attempt to remind me of how I felt on each occasion - and sometimes something of that feeling is transmitted to others.
BTW, it is not the tree that makes the sound - the noise is made when it hits the ground.
Unless, of course, it is a "Sounding Board."
Enough to say only the photographer needs to be the viewer (that is, if you consider the act of photographing more than mere vacation or family event snapshots).
Is that the choices? More than or just mere vacation or family event snapshots? I like to share photos, even event and travel snaps. If I'm shooting for my personal work, than It has to first be something that means something to me. If other's like or don't like it, doesn't matter nearly as much as whether I do. Saying that, I do enjoy it when people like my photographs, but its not the main criteria.
My favorites are the ones that sneak up on me and make me feel a little strange and unfamiliar.
To each her own. Might be enough for me but I’m also a glutton - always want more.
Some of the photos I like most are the ones I don’t like.
There is some truth to that statement. There are bad photos I just cannot bring myself to delete. I guess they "speak" to me in some way. Is not that a sound?
My philosophy is delete everything unless…
Think of the storage costs, the environmental costs, data centres aren’t cheap. Think of your own self esteem. Having a million photos is not necessary
"Whatever it is, I'm against it" ?
What you like or dislike now, may change as "time goes by"
As a result, I'm really glad that I pretty much saved everything. I think the ecological costs of 11 TB, as opposed to 1 GB are not great
Separate names with a comma.