Value

<p>Taste seems individual. Value doesn't.</p>

<p>But I'm not sure how to reconcile the values I hold regarding art and photography with political correctness that's expected of me which seems to dictate "to each his own."</p>

<p>If someone doesn't like broccoli, I wouldn't try to convince them to like it. But I might try to convince them to eat it because I consider it of value. I won't often try to convince others to like certain photos or paintings but I might try to convince them to value them if I think they have significance, even just historical significance. I think value supersedes taste in terms of significant photographs and art. I have more of a stake in sharing photographic values and universalizing them, just as I would in ethics. If I value freedom, for example, I admit a preference for others to value it. If I value a certain kind of treatment of women or gay people, I want others to have or arrive at those same values. If I value commitment and individuality in making photographs, I universalize that and say it's a "good" thing, not just for me but for others.</p>

<p>Though there is much that is "subjective" about art, there is much that is not. Some are better photographers than others. Some have a more compelling or more distinctive or more individual vision than others. To deny that is to beg for common blandness.</p>

<p>This is tough, because I grew up in a tradition that demanded non-judgmentalism, which works in many situations. But I am not hesitant to judge photographs and photographers and vision as significant or not. </p>

<p>Do you have photographic (or aesthetic) values that go beyond the personal, ones you don't think of as subjective?</p>

<p>In a previous career as a stage director, I had several mentors. The first was a great teacher at Carnegie-Mellon named Larry Carra. One day he sat in on an acting class filled with students doing their best method acting, seeking the "emotional truth" of the scene. Larry watched quietly, and when the scene was finished, he said only one thing. "<em>You have to learn to act better.</em>"</p>

<p>A second mentor was the Roumanian director Radu Penciulescu. We, as directors, used to talk continually about the ideas we were trying to communicate in our work. His comment, only partly disguising his impatience with our posturing, was "<em>Feh. Ideas you buy in supermarket. It is defending them on the stage that matters.</em>"</p>

<p>To the "audient" (to use Radu's peculiar phrase), all that matters is that the work itself communicates the intent of the creator, that the work communicates a sense of value. The "audient" is at that point free to agree or disagree, like or dislike, interpret or accept.</p>

<p>I don't find it's possible to talk about value without talking about the value system that allows you to measure it. One's values (which we usually use as shorthand for "the things to which one has assigned a positive value") are based on world view ... on the premises one holds. Some people, for example, consider their lives to be of little value, and have constructed a world view that makes death the beginning of what they actually value. That sort of thing has a profound impact on the value system you use in day-to-day life, here in the actual physical world. Other people operate on the premise that their current existence is the only one they get, and that informs/shapes a completely different value system.<br /><br />Fred, you mention that you place a value on commitment and individuality. Obviously there are people who consider individuality to be an indulgence and even a sin. They are indeed going to have a hard time with your dish of philosophical broccoli - because the very fact that you're offering it is proof of everything they think they know about how wrong you are. I realize that most discussions about photography don't (have to) get tangled up in larger, cultural-world-view type stuff, but that really is what you're talking about here.<br /><br />Leaving aside issues of technical skill, your assertion that some people are simply better photographers than others is ... not going to stand up for some of the people that you seem to be interested in pulling into your world view. Photography being communication, the "goodness" of a person's approach to it as an art form is only as solid as the value system that measures it. And since there are value systems that utterly reject certain motivations for and topics of communication (and indeed, Fred, I know that you certainly don't consider all communication to be equally worthy, no matter how eloquent it might be), it doesn't seem constructive to even bring photography into the discussion. <br /><br />This is really about people's world views. You consider your take on things to be objectively more sound, rational, and better than some others' views. I completely understand that, since I feel exactly the same way. I find that it's possible to derive a value system from a reasoned view of reality, and thus I find less validity in world views (and the value systems to which they give rise) that are irrational or which eschew reason. And since that value system does trickle down to specific activities (like photography and art), there will always be friction at the most fundamental levels, even when talking about photography. Because it's all about the underlying premises upon which one operates.<br /><br />To answer your final question: yes, I have aesthetic (and thus photographic) values which I consider to be objectively solid. I don't celebrate cruelty, for example. But some people would look at my images of hunting dogs - and the handiwork for which those dogs are famous - and question my moral integrity, and thus the underlying <em>premises</em> on which my value system is based, when it comes to what is and is not cruel. And that goes back to world view. Addressing all of this in the context of photography is looking at the symptom, if you will, and not the problem. You can't hash it out in the venue of art until you first hash it out in the larger arena of how one imagines the big stuff: the nature of the universe, your place in it, and such. Get that straight, and then applying it to photography (or poetry, or landscape design at gas stations) is the easy part.</p>

<p>Fred I should surely not be the first to pronounce myself on the apparently interesting question you post here. As a non-native speaker I have difficult of finding my feet when you use of the term "value", "I value".<br>

As far as I understand the term in English it refers to appraisal, esteem, appreciation. Nothing in the term gives the connotation that would suggest that it is less subjective than a simple: "I like". More serious and strong appreciation of things that might make you make the efforts of trying to convince others, but still fully subjective.<br>

If you had chosen to formulate a certain set of values or value systems that you consider go beyond the subjective such as general principles of esthetics (at least that was the objectives of such "rules") I would understand, but I'm sure that was not your intention, or was it?</p>

<p>What is "non-judgmentalism"? Is it a tradition one can grow up in ??</p>

<p>I have read lately in one of the exhibitions, that Marcel Dushamp claimed that part (half !) of the art experience is created by the viewers, that interpret the creation according to their understanding and taste. This looks reality to me.</p>

<p>Anders raises a good point that as a non-native speaker we may miss some subtleties in word choice...To translate the verb 'to value' in my native language requires context to use the proper translated verb. So, disclaimer, I may miss something here.<br>

From the topic start, the key word seems significance. It looks to be the main divider between being of value and not being of value. Tricky then; significant to who? The application of significance in art, to me, seems still a matter of taste.<br>

It's like people telling one very specific historical moment has significance (raid of Bastille, battle of Gettysburg). But they don't, they're posterchilds, easy examples to bundle chains of events. Many significant artworks play the same role, I think (Beethoven's Eroica comes to mind).<br>

Significant differences are measured over time and, in my view, indicate evolution. The "one moment" significance seems to align to the idea of a revolution, but real revolutions are rare. Or better said: I do not believe in them.<br>

In this light, to me, significance usually looses its significance. It's still placing a work / event / idea within your own context and deciding whether it really matters to you. Whether you value it.<br>

 <br>

That all said: do I find some works and artists significant? For sure. They are to me, as part of a development, so not as isolated events. But I'm just saying that disagreeing on my list is likely, which goes a bit against the idea of value not being individual.</p>

<p>I think of value(s) as a universalised taste, the ones I have are not as important as the ones I have disregarded.<br /> Photographically, my values are my photographs, not something outside of them for me to dictate non-visually. I never liked teachers ( pushing values ). Photographs and images aren't that subjective, <em>they are there</em>, in the world, for anyone to look at and experience ( subjectively ), or not.</p>

<p><em>"You can't hash it out in the venue of art until you first hash it out in the larger arena of how one imagines the big stuff: the nature of the universe, your place in it, and such. Get that straight, and then applying it to photography (or poetry, or landscape design at gas stations) is the easy part."</em></p>

<p>Wrong, IMO, or at least nothing like "right" :-) </p>

<p>The juice of life flows most flavorfully in its conflicts, just as values, if that's what they are, continually test their merit in conflicted situations, find that merit only when they're in doubt. Dumbing values down to certainties is knee-jerking, sub-human. If you become sure of the <em>nature of the universe and your place in it</em> , all you'll get for your trouble is a good rating on P.N and a Tea Party identity.</p>

<p>Fred: Just as I thought I was sailing through this day, I came across this thread, and it stopped me, dead in my tracks. This is now the fourth time I'm looking at it, and I'm stumped. I will return again with what I hope won't sound entirely like babble.</p>

<p>Dennis, thanks, what you say is specific and descriptive. Yes, acting can be learned even as innate talent is important. Photography can be studied and learned as well. An additional something will make the work significant. I like that: "defending them on stage." My values can be seen in my photographs. Those <em>too</em> busy interpreting and bringing their own baggage to the photos may miss them. </p>

<p>Matt, I'm able to assert my values without building up a complete system. Probably no value system will be perfectly coherent and consistent, so smaller-scale values can suffice. I'm not averse to the kind of friction you allude to when values collide. Actions communicate values more than words or thoughts. Most people photograph homeless people with the best of intentions (underlying premises?). Yet the photos can still exploit. Pointing a camera down at a person on the street shows something different from getting down to eye level. But photographs can be fictions and someone can learn to get down on one knee even while disrespecting their subject. That's where a body of work can be telling.</p>

<p>Anders, there are considerations about the world and photographs that are more core than others, unrelenting if you will. I think of those as values (principles?). I don't much care for Ansel Adams's landscapes. But I value his consistency, commitment, work with the zone system, ability to print. I love the music of The Band but don't think they will have the lasting value (to a world beyond me) of Dylan. </p>

<p>Pnina, Duchamp also said <em>"I force myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own taste."</em> The so-called subjectivity of art is overrated. Too much allowing the creation to be that of the viewer can be (can be, doesn't have to be!) a way not to take responsibility for what one has produced or photographed. </p>

<p>Wouter, I tend to be more assertive. Teaching is often the art of figuring out the difference between value and taste. A teacher may encourage a student to find a coherent and committed way of working with colors that considers the subject matter and the emotions one may want to convey. But he needn't tell the student what color palette to use or whether to go rich or pastel. A good Philosophy teacher may applaud a cogent argument even while disagreeing with the conclusion. Some things are more basic, more principled, more foundational than others. Values are among them. </p>

<p>Phylo, nice insight: <em>"Photographs and images aren't that subjective, they are there, in the world."</em></p>

<p>I took a long time to write my response above, so I missed John's and Michael's posts.</p>

<p>Michael, I hope you'll add something. I always look forward to your responses.</p>

<p>John, yes, I don't have to address the BIG questions before I can address the little ones. The little ones are usually the ones that matter. The BIG ones are often a diversion.</p>

<p>Images may exist independently in the world, though I find that hard to accept.</p>

<p>Television makes images, but they're received rather than extracted. Books require extraction, the substance/significance/value comes from the work of the reader once the writer lets go of it. Substance/significance/value is measured by sweat. If the movie is better than the book, the book needs to be re-written or forgotten.</p>

<p>Nobody here says anything of value unless it's read and the value is extracted by the reader. That means, IMO, that long-winded, long-paragraphed posts are likely to be of less value than shorter posts because they're less likely to be read...less likely to earn readers.</p>

<p>JK</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>But I am not hesitant to judge photographs and photographers and vision as significant or not."</p>

<p>I am, because I have problems with that word. Significance means: "Important. Having a meaning. Indicative. Noteworthy". And it automatically implies <em>insignificance</em>: Unimportant. Meaningless, etc.</p>

<p>In a spoonful of water, an ice cube is significant. In a swimming pool it is not. An iceberg in the same swimming pool is very significant. In the ocean, it is not.</p>

<p>An average woman in a bikini at the beach is insignificant. In the lobby of the MET on opening night, or a Baptist Convention, very significant.</p>

<p>Significance depends on context. There are some photographers here (I will not name any) who are significant in the spoonful that is Photo.net. There are <em>none</em>, myself included, I would consider remotely significant at the global-level Ocean of Images.</p>

<p>So if you want to address significance, please define its contextual subset. Without that, pronouncements of significance will be <em>insignificant. </em></p>

<p>In terms of evolution, biological or artistic, often very small mutations, which many might judge insignificant, end up having very large and obviously significant consequences thereafter (basic chaos theory stuff).</p>

<p>There are heavy politics lacing Fred's ideas, and I am not concerned about them. Fred seems to see this judgment business as binary, significant, or insignificant. Not me.</p>

<p>I am not engaged in a tacit battle of the phenotypes, nor do I care to be. Nearly all hierarchical thinking in an Occidental context eventually degenerates into something akin to the politics of a jr high (oops, middle school) cafeteria, as we often see in this very forum. I don't want everyone, least of all my students, to think like, or agree with me. Nor do I want to convince/sell them. If I did, I'd find a pulpit and some preacher hair or be selling weapons. I want them to find their own way, whatever that is.</p>

<p>Do I have any absolute values that I use to gauge art? A list like cheesecloth to filter them through, a dog breeder's website describing a litter, or options list on a car? </p>

<p>No. Art may hang there, like a blown kiss fluttering in the wind, but judging its significance is a relational matter. I am not copping out in any way when I say I use my entire, unified being. Though ex post facto I can tell you very clearly what I think, why, & where it fits (which is more objective) and why.</p>

<p><em><br /></em></p>

<p>Luis, come on inside and play. You're not the teacher here. So you don't just get to prod me. Well, you do, but it's ineffective. Prod yourself. Come up with something. Be specific. Tell me a couple of your photographic values in context. Or not.</p>

<p>I've talked a lot about my own values in a variety of threads. I can only assume you've listened. For instance, I value personas and masks in my portrait work. I tend not to value candidness as much as deliberateness. That's because candidness looks often like disingenuousness, escape, or avoidance . . . hiding from. Not always! I also value what things look like, on the surface, which often flies in the face of political correctness which suggests we must look deeper.</p>

<p>Why did you change values into absolute values?</p>

<p><strong>"...if you want to address significance, please define its contextual subset. Without that, pronouncements of significance will be <em>insignificant. "</em></strong></p>

<p>It ought to go without saying that Fred shares his own perceptions, he doesn't tell others what to think and needn't qualify himself ...he's his own context, what he says doesn't need to be approved by authorities. </p>

<p><em>"Art may hang there, like a blown kiss fluttering in the wind, but judging its significance is a relational matter. I am not copping out in any way when I say I use my entire, unified being. Though ex post facto I can tell you very clearly what I think, why, & where it fits (which is more objective) and why."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

That's a weird set of phrases ... empty, but intended to oppress. It's reasonable to dismiss out of hand what someone claims to think when they write "I can tell you" and assert that they know what's "more objective" and what isn't.</p>

<p><strong>First</strong>, "art", to the extent that it exists as phenomenon or concept, doesn't exist in nowhere, "fluttering." If it exists, it's perceived.</p>

<p> ...an individual must recognize it. If that individual consideres it "significant" it is unlikely to also be "relational" unless that significance comes from siamese twins, joined at the skull...even less likely from scholars (as opposed to actual photographers, in the case of photographs). </p>

<p><strong>Second</strong>, authoritarians hold that the idea of "art" is something that's top-down and beyond the ken of lesser mortals. Whereas my understanding of art is that it is experienced..as transcendent, fey, magical...and as such <strong>it exists one person at a time</strong>. Not relational.</p>

<p>By its very definition connoiseurs are unlikely in this era to recognize art, mistaking decoration for it. It was not always thus.</p>

<p><strong>Fred -"</strong>Luis, come on inside and play."</p>

<p>I did, by responding to your post.</p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>You're not the teacher here."</p>

<p>Duh. Nor was I trying to be. I was explaining my objections carefully.</p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>So you don't just get to prod me. Well, you do, but it's ineffective."</p>

<p>No kidding, because I wasn't trying (in the slightest) to prod you. It's what you do (by your own admission in the OP). I clearly stated that I, unlike you, do not preach, cajole, try to convince or sell anyone. That meant <em>you, too.</em> I only stated the significant problems *I* had with the word 'significant' in your post.</p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>Prod yourself." Come up with something. Be specific. Tell me a couple of your photographic values in context. Or not.</p>

<p> Sorry, but the overall tone here doesn't feel friendly to me (and no, I am not saying you should do <em>anything)</em>. I'll take door #2.</p>

 

 

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>I've talked a lot about my own values in a variety of threads."</p>

<p>So you have. You talk about yourself incessantly and voluminously. Which is not to say I am judging it, only describing it factually. You have every right to do so as per the rules of PN and my own coda (not that it's required, I know). For the record, I read all of it, and find some of it interesting. What you talk about, how often, and how much, is not connected to what anyone else talks about, how often or how much. Or do you actually think you are leading by example?</p>

<br />

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>Why did you change values into absolute values?"</p>

<p>Because they were the means to an absolute end, which I strongly disagreed with, specially w/o a context.</p>

<p>I also talk about my own values (though NOT as a means to ascertain 'significance') in my posts. Don't you remember my post on Eggleston's red ceiling? The one about which you remarked: "I get a lot out of hearing your concise ideas, clearly and specifically stated, and your lack of fluff. It will serve as a memorable example to me of how to write about photos and of visual literacy."? Some of my values were in it.</p>

<p>_____________________</p>

<p>*Correction: I should have qualified that there's no one on PN <em>whose work I have seen </em>that is significant on a global scale.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p>re: Luis </p>

<p>a) since he rarely expresses ideas of his own I don't understand why he posts. </p>

<p>b) since he chooses to hide images he claims to have made in some mystery-shrouded purported past, it's hard to relate the ideas he's cribbed from others to that hidden photography. </p>

<p>re: Eggleston</p>

<p>fwiw (which isn't much) I find his work tiresome. It is of course popular. I was turned on to his work about thirty years ago, but it's become flat-out repetitive. Most "banal" photographers from his youth have moved along. But what sells, sells.</p>

<p>Ok, I'm ready to take a stab at it. (And, no, I'm not getting involved in the little game that's been going on in the last few posts.)</p>

<p>I think that my photography emulates my life. I feel that my endeavors in photography may be worthy of "universalization" (in Fred's sense) if they reflect the processes by which I create my work. And, in this respect, the key process is growing. To me, my work is worth absolutely nothing if it remains static. Allowing one's work to become formulaic is one step toward photographic purgatory. </p>

<p>Maybe Heraclitus was right after all.</p>

 

<p>I think now that I value authenticity in art above all else--I want the photo or other work of art to speak to me from the heart and soul of the artist. I want to see what the photographer has captured, and I want to know why the photographer/artist finds something of interest. It does not matter that the artist/photographer does not typically know me--he or she still speaks to me if the work comes from that authentic self. If there is no authentic self there, if there is too strong a sense of imitation and self-consciousness, I suspect (but cannot prove) that I can pick up on that absence of authenticity, and the work leaves me cold, untouched.</p>

<p>I suppose that all of the above is why I want to see the individual work in the context of the entire body of work, or even in the context of a life. I want to <em>feel</em> the work, not merely view it. I might want to analyze it, but typically, at the stage of enjoyment, I almost want to bypass my rational mind and let my emotions and natural responses take over.</p>

<p>Communication is thus finally about intimacy, and to a certain extent that intimacy is the ultimate value. I do not always find it. That is not always the fault of the artist, of course. On a given day, I am perhaps the problem. My mind is not open enough, receptive enough to appreciate the wonder of one person's vision being communicated to another. Nor is the communication necessarily what the artist/photographer was trying to communicate. We tell much about ourselves when we are not trying to convey a particular message, or when we are saying one thing but the observer of our work or our behavior is picking up on something else.</p>

<p>The authentic self speaks on many levels, I believe. The viewer/listener/reader takes what he or she can, what he or she needs. It might not be what the artist or creator intended to convey. It is still communication.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Time ran out while I was editing:</p>

<p>The authentic self speaks on many levels, I believe. The viewer/listener/reader takes what he or she can, what he or she needs. It might not be what the artist or creator intended to convey. It is still communication. One gives and another takes. What one receives or takes is not always what the creator of the work was trying to send or give.</p>

<p>There is your "power and glory," Fred: the intimate communication of two souls, for lack of a better word. What is of more value than that?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

 

<p><em>"What is of more value than that?"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I'll answer that one: intelligence, good writing, honesty, willingness to be foolish in pursuit of something important (as Diogenes). They're all more valuable than intimacy. </p>

<p>Intimacy is easy, personal (and photographic) worth is hard. No photos to share: zero photo value. </p>

<p>Lannie, thanks for taking the risks you've taken and sharing your images. Very valuable.</p>

<p><em> </em><br /> <em> </em><br /> <em> </em><br>

<em>

<p>"Do you have photographic (or aesthetic) values that go beyond the personal, ones you don't think of as subjective?"</p>

</em></p>

<p><br /> Fred, I find this question very much of a corollary of the recent (and possibly still on-going) OP on banal or trivial versus significant photography and an quite glad to see it cited in this sense. Upon reading over the responses to the other OP I am a bit surprised how few are willing to cite significant images and why they value them. I don't believe that this is or was due to a lack of objective values (value that some seem to feel are attempts to measure a result) or an unwillingness to apply them, people just decided not to.</p>

<p>What this may suggest is that confidence in one's values may not be that strong, or possibly that the values themselves are not recognised as being objective in nature (many societal as well as individual influences determine one's values, and what may seem objective for one is not that for another).</p>

<p>What are your objective values as opposed to subjective values? Can you name a few that would be so considered by others, let’s say by a dozen other photographers living in different societies? I certainly don't think that values are like taste, but the values that might be considered objective may be too removed from the thoughts of the creative photographer to be relevant to the quality of his image. For instance, equal rights for all in my country are something I consider of value and also objective (although it is a political value judgement that may not be shared by all), but it may not be applicable in a general sense to the significance of my photography. The Golden rule is a method of division of space that is mathematically (or geometrically) derivable and has been accepted over many centuries as a value in art, and now photography, but is it an objective value and even if so how relevant is it to my photography?</p>

<p>The closer we try to get in terms of objective values, the farther I think we get from values that can be applied to determining the significance of a photograph. And the farther we get in that sense, the closer we get to simply judgements of taste or similar subjective evaluations.</p>

<p>I am not afraid of judging other photographs, although I realise that such judgements are subjective. Those judgements may contain a few values or principles that I might consider as objective, but as a scientifically trained person I am aware of the shortfalls of assuming an unbiased position. When several other trained persons state that my values and results are perhaps quite founded, that might reinforce the possibility that they may relate to some objective value. That is a bit of how I see an approach being made to some form of objective evaluation or values.</p>

<p>Coming back to photography, I would be very pleased to see photographic values as opposed to taste applied to the description of what a viewer considers to be significant images as was (is) the subject of the aforementioned OP, but seeing even subjective aesthetic values applied to such description would still be useful.</p>

<p>Art is freedom of expression. As such, does it have to be beautiful, moral or compliant with objective values, to incite the artist to create it, or to have an impact on the viewer.</p>

<p>Although they may or may not qualify as objective values, I agree with Lannie on the question of the importance of being yourself (honesty, authenticity) in communicating via your photography, and in the ultimate importance of how the viewer perceives the communications, and his absolute right to do that how he pleases.<br /> <em> </em><br /> <em> </em><br>

<em>

<p>.</p>

</em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Intimacy is easy, personal (and photographic) worth is hard. No photos to share: zero photo value.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, John. I was writing more from the viewer's perspective, I think, not the creator's--not the point of the thread, I'm sure, but what the hey!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Wouter's evolution and Michael's invocation of Heraclitus are about change (over time). Phylo also addresses it as disregard for some values he once had (as I understand you, Phylo). A willingness to change seems like a value. Changes of values also occur.</p>

<p>John's tiring of Eggleston relates to evolution. I discovered Eggleston more recently than John, so I haven't grown tired of him. I don't know if I will. If Eggleston was, at some point in history, significant, can he remain of value relative to history and his time even if he has since become passé and/or repetitious?<br /> _________________________________________<br /> Though "significance" and "importance" may be used to define each other and are often interchanged, there are some differences. To be <em>important</em> is to matter much, to be more than ordinary, to be prominent or have considerable influence. <em>Significance</em> is rooted in "sign" and can differ from importance by connoting something being conveyed indirectly, even obscurely (pertains to photographs/art). <em>Significance</em> also can imply purpose. <br /> ___________________________________________<br /> Lannie, authenticity (I usually say "genuineness") is a value of mine as well. I appreciate the straightforwardness of your comments. You seem observably honest about being honest. Distance has prominence for me alongside intimacy. Longing or striving (aspects of Eros) seem to involve distance as does purpose. Self consciousness doesn't have to be inauthentic. I recently did a series of three self portraits that I consider purposefully self conscious and I think they're authentic. I appreciate your recognition that a viewer can fall short. As I said above, some viewers can't see beyond their own baggage when interpreting and most of us have off days here and there.</p>

<p>Arthur, regarding your question about subjective-objective value, you've said it yourself: <em>"I certainly don't think that values are like taste . . ."</em> That's pretty much my point. The question I asked was basically "What are your photographic values, if any?" </p>

<p>Fred, you say "<em>My values can be seen in my photographs. Those too busy interpreting and bringing their own baggage to the photos may miss them.</em>" The point of my post was that the intent is not enough. To you, your values may be seen in your photographs. Whether those values are communicated to the viewers is simply not up to you to decide, and it has nothing to do with people "bringing their own baggage.</p>

<p>For my part, I can see in your work those things that you value, that you find important. But I cannot see what values you are trying to express. And again for my part, in my own work I try to express certain values that I have found in the <a href="../photo/6489771">French Romanesque architecture</a> that I shoot almost exclusively. Whether those values find their way to the viewer, I don't know for sure. Perhaps all that the viewer sees is that these images represent things that have value to me, that are meaningful to me. All I can do is "defend my work on the stage."</p>