Philosophy of Photography

I'll make my pictures. I guess the only question is...will I make them for

me...or for them.

 

It doesn't matter what the answer is. The question is the truth.

The truth is true when the check clears the banking system.

i predict this going to be good... ;)

Even if you <i>are</i> "making them for them," you're still ultimately doing it for yourself. Different objectives and motivations for a particular shot or project, but it's you that you're serving, regardless.

<br><br>

<i>The question is the truth.</i>

<br><br>

It's Saturday night. I think Anthony is in his cups, perhaps. But now that I'm talking about drinking and philosophy... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1MgCV6uGuc" target="_blank"><b>a little Python always fits</b></a>. Ah, the good old days.

Sometimes, when you make pictures for them, you don't make them for you, and that can make them bad pictures.

Make them for yourself.

You need to say more about truth if your original statement is to have any meaning. Otherwise it's just a big generality.

 

One thing photography is is a means of expression and communication. It takes two to communicate. There's nothing wrong with considering both: me and them.

For money, for them.<br>

Otherwise, for yourself.

i'm going to have a joint and re-read this and ponder what it's all about.

if you don't mind.

i may remember to comment later :D

Matt's post is the last word on the subject. Thanks for that link. I forgot about that one. They don't make comedy like that anymore.

Its an interestng statement because I think I'll always want to make photos for me, however, if one is being paid, the clients needs and wants are supposed to be more important. Does that mean I should take the "me" factor out of it? I don't think its possible as there is always going to be a part of me in the end results, no matter what the client requests. I guess you have to take what they want and create something that works for them, without compromising your vision. Maybe it would work in the real world, maybe not.

For our common truth, through my eyes and sometimes on them - never for money.

In my experience, I take them for me mostly. If I'm getting paid or it's an assignment, I take

them for them, and someday I hope to get paid for the photos I take for me, That's when I

will have made it in the profession. Until that day comes, I'll keep my day job and take photos

for me whenever I can.

Better don't make them, if you can. It is all one big illusion, anyway. An addictive behavior in works.

"...make them for myself..or for 'them'(emphasis supplied)." Are these THEM the little green space people,Tony? They have been getting into MY brain too:-) gs

No one mentioned that them and you are the same thing.

Them is always others and never an "alter ego" unless we have a problem of identity !

I agree with Bruce.... there really is no you and them...there is only US. Soon as we start to realise we are not alone but all one, this world will be a much nicer place!

We are obviously talking about different things. As soon as we start realizing we are not alone

and all part of humanity the World would surely be a better place. Photography is however

mostly a separation between the "I" behind the camera and the "them" in front. Only

interactive postmodernism in art (including photography) tends to alter this by making the "I"

and the "them" into one united happening.

Hi Anders. What makes you think that: "Photography is however mostly a separation between the "I" behind the camera and the "them" in front." ?

Spatial physics ! ... and more profoundly the voyeuristic element of observing the World

which I think is inherent to photography.

 

That does not prevent the photographer to be a person that lives his life in full solidarity

with "them"and being a part of "them". That a photo can play an important role in

maintaining and promoting humanity does not change the fact (?) that the act of shooting a

photo in most cases is a separation between the "I" and the "them".

Spatial physics sounds good but people normaly think of photography as a technique of obtaining an image by utilizing a light sesitive material. Are you suggesting it actually is a "separation ..?" Would you explain this?

 

What's spatial physics, anyway?

Ilia, it becomes a ping pong between you and me so maybe we should continue that by e-

mail or better wait for another occasion to elaborate on the question.

Always for me...never them.

 

One aspect of the digital revolution that really bugged me in the past (digital quality is arguably on par with film in many instances today) were the 'pros' who would tell me that they had switched to digital because, though it was not as good as film (this being 4-5 years ago)...it was 'good enough' for their clients.

 

Personally, I see nothing professional about this. Would you go to a physician for, say open heart surgury whose attitude was 'I don't do great surgury...but it's good enough'.

".... it becomes a ping pong between you and me ..."

 

Now you're getting there. It doesn't matter what the answer is.