This question is indirectly inspired by what was surely one of the most unlikely 'joint' exhibitions of recent years, that of Ansel Adams and William Eggleston at the Hayward Gallery in London (and probably elsewhere), though I do hope this thread does NOT become a discussion of their relative merits, since this is not my intention. What was interesting to me was their quite different notions of how you should look at a photograph, and hence (implicitly) their different ideas of what purpose the image should serve. On the one hand, you have an exquisitely hand-crafted object, often monumental in subject and scale, which demands your concentration, that you study it at length in order to fully appreciate all the fine detail it contains. In other words, not only does the photographer adopt a patient, meditative, awe-struck attitude, but he implicitly demands the same attitude of the viewer. Each image makes the same claim, separately. On the other hand you have a huge proliferation of seemingly-casual images that seem to suggest that you take or leave them as you see fit. Maybe this is interesting?, they seem to say. If not, then no matter. Move on to the next one, at your own pace. Of course, this attitude has its analogue in the (relative) impermanance of colour prints, in comparison to the archivally-toned B and W print. I've become interested in taking this further: using 35 mm colour slide projections and sequences to suggest an even stronger sense of impermanance and diffidence, and combining this work with large format monochrome, though of course no-one is obliged to take me seriously. Have you ever thought about how different aspects of the medium as well as different styles imply or demand different kinds of response from the viewer, or themselves contain an implicit photographic philosophy? Would be interested to hear everyone's thoughts, but please don't tell us why Adams and/or Eggleston is a genius and/or tired old has-been.