In the end the appreciation of photography is completely subjective

As is the qualification and appreciation of art.<br>

This does not mean that there can be some sort of "collectivisation" of subjectivity, i.e.: when an individual appreciation is shared by

many different people, also many of them, masses.<br>

But it remains subjective.<br>

I think that Barthes is right when he says that photography, in the end, is unclassifiable. Of course, each of us can develop their own

classification.<br>

But the "universalisation" is on the one hand based on subjectivity, and on the other "democratic" in some way.<br>

Recalling Barthes again, a photograph can never be separated from what it represents. And the perception of the represented object is

subjective, even if "collectivised".<br>

Of course there can be opinion leaders, trend-setters, who are recognised and capable, and who will bring forward their subjective

judgment and give it a collective value. But still subjective.<br>

<p>So...what's your question?</p>

<p>Noooo....really?</p>

<p>This is true of essentially all forms of expression and communication, and seems a forgone conclusion, really. Well, sort of.<br /><br />I wouldn't say that it's <em>completely</em> subjective, in that it's possible to produce output using photographic processes, but to deliberately have that output be so lacking in information content that it defies parsing other than as a deliberate stick-in-the-eye aimed at people who try to categorize things. In which case it's more a bit of performance art than a photograph, per se. Say, a solid white or solid black print, purposefully unable to communicate anything via image, but instead to communicate through the artist's willingness to be impenetrable.<br /><br />But such theatrics live around the fringes of all arts, and don't really bear on the discussion as most people would have it. Otherwise, this is like discussing opera, and expecting someone who only understands and has seen Wagner to comment intelligently on classical Chinese opera. It's pointless without context, a shared vocabulary and cultural familiarity. Photography is a process of communication and it's just as silly to imply that <em>appreciation</em> of it can be objective as it is to say that about "writing."</p>

<p>The attention always seems to go to "subjective" whereas I'm thinking (at least in the last five minutes) that "objective" might be more interesting to consider. It seems to me (given five minutes of consideration) that there are (at least) three ways that one can conceptualize "objective" relative to photography:</p>

<p>1) The photograph has a truth independent of me that I can get from it.<br>

2) The photograph has a truth independent of me that I cannot get from it because my subjective perspective interferes.<br>

3) The photograph does not have any truth independent of me.<br>

a. And/or there is no such thing as "truth" therefore objective/subjective means ... what, again? Okay ... so we won't call it "truth," just call it Bob. Bob is there in the picture. *Something is there, for Pete's sake!</p>

<p>[Luca, sorry for bringing the T word into the discussion, but if you pull up the objective/subjective carrot, there it is! I can show it to you in a photograph!]</p>

 

<p>I think what Julie has alluded to is the fact that, of all the art forms, photography is the one which is subjective when intended as art, or objective (hopefully) when intended as evidence, such as forensics and photojournalism. These are fields where Julie's three "T"s apply. This is not to say that the objective intent can't be corrupted, or that individual subjectivity never comes into play when viewing those photos (just ask a lawyer.) But, photography as art is totally subjective, always has been, always will be, always should be.</p>

<p>The lines between them sometimes blur. Some photos intended as documentary work have such a resonance that they become a kind of transitional art. Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother" and Joe Rosenthal's Iwo Jima flag raising photo come to mind.</p>

<p>Anyway, as one line of an old Irish folk song says,<br />Truth is a fix-ed star...</p>

<p>Luca, what does "subjective" mean to you and how does it supposedly exclude what you think is "objective"?</p>

<b>Luis</b><br>

In summer 2010 we had a long discussion here on what makes "good" photos.<br>

No response or conclusion really.<br>

When one ventures into photo critique, it often happens to be rebuffed.<br>

Rules do not help.<br>

This is a sort of conclusion drawn.<br>

The implicit question is: "what do you think?".

<b>Leslie</b>,<br>

So you seem to agree!

<p>What I think is that the fact that opinions vary about a whole world of things has nothing to do with there being such a thing as subjectivity. Opinions are formed not in some sort of homonculus-like inner self, like the insulated bag in your vacuum cleaner. They are culturally-influenced, genetically-influenced, experientially influenced. You are NOT alone. Surely, we all have opinions which vary. Just as surely, that doesn't create a subjective-objective distinction.</p>

<p>_________________________________</p>

<p>Additionally, I consider that, while opinions and judgments may vary, there may be less variation in terms of a certain aspect of our responses to photos. It's often what we DO with and how we FEEL about those responses that vary, while I often think the responses themselves are much more similar among folk, who don't notice that because they get caught up in their "unique" and "subjective" feelings.</p>

<p>We see a cross, we all know what a cross is and it's hard for a cross not to be tinged with its religious connotations. Then we move to the level of having been molested by one of those darned priests and our ultimate feeling about the cross starts to individualize. But we are not unmoved by our already-formed thoughts/biases/prejudices about the Catholic church, which we likely share with a whole lot of other people.</p>

<b>Matt</b><br>

<I>purposefully unable to communicate anything via image, but instead to communicate through the artist's

willingness to be impenetrable.</i><br>

What would be objective in this case?

<b>Julie</b><br>

I'm ok with truth.<br>

But what is truth in photography? How do we know it is truth? How many truths are there in photography? Can't

everybody find their own truth in photography?

<b>William,</b><br>

So we too are in agreement.

<p> I like to browse around old photos sometimes at a thrift shop. I will pay a quarter for a good one. Basically I just like it or I do not kind of thing.</p>

<b>Fred</b><br>

Subjectivity.<br>

I've been considering this aspect extensively. I was advised to read Barthes' Camera Lucida and some of my

unstructured ideas I found there.<br>

We also discussed it at length in this forum in summer 2010.<br>

The individual's perception and the relationship with the image, which is unseparable from what it shows us, seems to be

always the main driving point of the image's appreciation.<br>

Be it through <I>studium</I> elaborating knowledge, sensations and feelings, without an emotional entanglement, or

through <I>punctum</I>, the emotional "sting".<br>

It seems to me that according to this, any photo can be appreciated or not appreciated starting from the individual and

subjective factors which inform the <I>studium</I> or the <I>punctum</I>.<Br>

<Br>

Of course<Br>

<I>Opinions are formed not in some sort of homonculus-like inner self, like the insulated bag in your vacuum cleaner.

They are culturally-influenced, genetically-influenced, experientially influenced</I>,<br>

But still the viewer's "self" is both the driver an the connector of all these influences and thus informs the

way they are "structured" and build the relationship with a photograph.<br>

The subjective drivers and connectors in the end can expel any objectivity.<br>

This does not mean that different subjective perceptions and appreciation of photography cannot converge, or be based

on common denominators, thus creating a "shared" subjectivity.<br>

Which is not objectivity, though.<br>

__________________________<br>

This also applies to your example of the cross, where a subjective and condemnable personal experience determines the

appreciation of a symbol which, distilled, is a symbol of love. But let's stick to photographs, ok?

<p>I was talking about photographs of crosses, so I was sticking to them.</p>

<p>The "self" is overrated. Just the other day, I had a great shoot with someone I've photographed before. I got very annoyed with the person's bossiness and unwillingness to compromise and share the experience, almost to the point where I wanted to call off the shoot. I muddled through. I came away with some of the best results from one shoot, about a dozen out of a hundred images that I consider will go into my portfolio eventually. I think it's because I got "outside" my "self."</p>

<p>One of the characteristics of art I appreciate the most is transcendence, which includes of me. When I am NOT the driver, I am often much better off. Think of Muses in this context.</p>

The "self" might be overrated, but still it comes through each and every time.<br>

From observation I still believe that it is a key determinant in appreciating a photo, if not the only one.

<p>I just disagree. No biggie.</p>

<p>4. The photograph is a tutti-frutti truth like a massive multi-layerd, multi-flavored, multi-frosted Birthday cake -- which, upon being viewed, renders unto/into each of us, one slice (maybe I'll have two).</p>

 

<p>Yes, but not all subjectivities are equally well informed by objective facts like that it is a fact that this photo is good or this one is bad.</p>

Appreciation of art at the individual level is purely subjective. That explains the Elvis on black velvet paintings.

 

An historical and academic appreciation of art is more complex.

<p>Elvis on black velvet paintings is not art. It's kitsch.</p>

<p>______________________</p>

<p>Now there will inevitably be some who disagree with me and think Elvis on black velvet painting is art. Some will think it's good art and some will think it's bad art. None of that makes it subjective.</p>

<p>Disagreement of parties doesn't make what they're disagreeing about subjective.</p>

<p>Scientists disagree all the time. Doesn't make science subjective.</p>

<p><strong>Luca - "</strong>In summer 2010 we had a long discussion here on what makes "good" photos.<br /> No response or conclusion really."</p>

<p>As I recall, we had quite a few responses, and thankfully no conclusions. The moment we have a list of what makes a "good photo" those things will become goalposts and photographty a mere game. That's leaving art out of the equation. <br>

<br /><strong>Luca - "</strong> When one ventures into photo critique, it often happens to be rebuffed."</p>

<p>Ain't it grand?<br>

<br /><strong>Luca - "</strong>The implicit question is: "what do you think?".</p>

<p>Purely subjective? Only in the minds of those who are inexperienced in the arts. Nor purely objective. I would put it as a kind of <em>informed subjectivity,</em> and we are all not equally informed, experienced, observant nor intelligent.<br>

_______________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Fred G - "The "self" is overrated."</strong></p>

<p>Amen to that. And to the "unique" and precious crap.</p>

<p>Luca, I also disagree with you that it is the only determinant. </p>

<p>[bTW, with uncooperative subjects, I let them have the reins and direct until they spin themselves out. Once there's gaps of silence between their directions, I step in. By that time, they're a lot more tired and docile.]<br>

_______________________________________<br>

<strong>Luca - "</strong> Can't everybody find their own truth in photography?"</p>

<p>As long as you stay incommunicado. Truth extending beyond yourself is an agreement.<br>

_______________________________________<br>

<strong>Luca - "</strong><em>to communicate through the artist's willingness to be impenetrable.</em>"</p>

<p>There are artists that are transparent. Many viewers, I would say the vast majority are visual illiterates, thus unable to see much in the art itself, thus they assume the art/artist is impenetrable.<br>

_________________________________________________________-</p>

 

<p>'The individual's perception and the relationship with the image, which is unseparable from what it shows us, seems to be always the main driving point of the image's appreciation."<br>

<br /> 　<br /> I would agree up to a point however an image has life of its own and can be read in many different ways. A photograph is not a factual statement but a personal Interpretation of what the photographer may think they are seeing and communicating.<br /> So, in that way a image is always subjective to the viewer and indeed the photographer on reflection can also see it in a different perpectives. The real beauty of photography is the fluidity of its nature which is difficult to grasp and define with mere words as it has own defined comminication skills.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A photograph is not a factual statement but a personal Interpretation of what the photographer may think they are seeing and communicating.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with a photograph not <em>usually</em> being a factual statement. Some documentary work, forensic work, catalog work, etc. is at least as factual if not more factual than a statement could ever be.</p>

<p>I don't view photographs necessarily to personally interpret what the photographer may think they are seeing and communicating. (Yes, I do this sometimes.) I view photographs more because I want to see what has been shown, in all its aspects. The photo is usually more important to me than my projections about the photographer.</p>

<p>When looked at from the view of the photographer, which is what Allen may have been thinking, rather than viewer, I don't see my own photos as interpretations of what I think I'm seeing and communicating. I see them as expressions and as displays. They are not what I <em>think</em> I'm seeing and communicating, they <em>are</em> what I am seeing and communicating. I will sometimes interpret, though I generally tend to leave that to others. Interpreting is different from analyzing or assessing or critiquing, which I tend to do more of.</p>