David, the quote says, "the objects must be isolated from their context and freed from all association." This can't happen, I believe. As I said, objects may be freed from their ORIGINAL context but they will always be seen within a context of some kind. And they will never be free of association, IMO, period. So, for instance, in the exhibition that quote goes on to talk about, the objects in the photographs are seen in the context of many other similar photographs which very heavily influences their viewing. That's part of the so-called project. The project, at least in substantive part, is to create such a context, which seems to me both repetitive and monotonous, therefore the headache mentioned. I wasn't at all thinking about the difference between the photographer maintaining the original context and the viewer not having access to it. I mostly set that aside. Because, to me, the PHOTO is what's important, what I've framed, more important than what I may remember of the original moment when it was taken. Important photos of mine that aren't family mementos don't have much to do with their original context. I rarely try to memorialize my emotions or capture what the moment feels like to me, as much as project and create something I think the photo can be apart from the reality of the situation. Any photo of a supposedly isolated-from-context object you take is surely not isolated from the part of its context which was that it was the object of your camera at the time. As a matter of fact, that may be the MOST important part of its context at the time you took the picture, and that, the viewer IS getting to see. Also, when I made the statement, I was thinking about real or imagined context, which is important in photography and, unless it's a documentary or journalistic photo can be given equal weight. If I see parts of a ship in a photo without greater context, whether I imagine it in the water or on land, with people on it or not doesn't really matter, because we're not talking about ACCURATE context here. At least, I'm not. I'd question whether we can imagine "part of ship" without either knowing a factual or conjuring up an imaginary context, and that was what I was thinking. Objects, as I said when I talked about the Golden Gate Bridge, occupy a space, whether in the world or in a photo, and that space will always be the context, often suggesting a narrative to fill that space, again, whether real or imagined.