Limits and impacts

[eyadnalsamman]

Again another perplexed questions for me. What are the implicit-explicit

limits of the photography for both photographers and society? Also, what are

the implicit-explicit impacts of the photography for both photographers and

society?

[ronaldo_r]

sounds like a chapter from an MBA text book

[beeman458]

"What are the implicit-explicit limits of the photography for both photographers and society?"

 

In real terms, there literally, are none.

 

"Also, what are the implicit-explicit impacts of the photography for both photographers and society?""

 

What genre of photography; snaps, portrait, PJ, artistic?

 

Do you plan on changing the world? What's the intent of your question and how does the answer apply to your photographic effort.

[pico_digoliardi]

<i>implicit-explicit limits of the photography </i><p>

One <u>cannot take</u> a picture of something that does not exist.<p>

<i>implicit-explicit impacts of the photography</i><p>

One <u>can make</u> a picture of something that does not exist.

[eyadnalsamman]

Thank you all for your comments and I did mean to get more specific answers for my post. All I wanted to know was only the impact and limits of photography on people. For me, I am living in a very poor society which has no interest about photography. People think about other essential issues and consider the photography as a luxury. The majority of people at my country does not care about the direct and essential message of a great and original photo. I wanted to know the differences about different societies regarding the moral and ethic message of the photography.

 

Sorry if I was a little vague and I do again thank you all for your kind contributions to my post.

[beeman458]

Good Morning Eyad. :)

 

"All I wanted to know was only the impact and limits of photography on people. For me, I am living in a very poor society which has no interest about photography. People think about other essential issues and consider the photography as a luxury. The majority of people at my country does not care about the direct and essential message of a great and original photo. I wanted to know the differences about different societies regarding the moral and ethic message of the photography."

 

Your response above, is your answer.

 

When you have a starving person at your table, you don't talk about what really isn't important, cultural norms or how to hold a fork, you're concern is for the starving person and making sure their needs are "properly" taken care of. You start feeding a starved person, liquids and broth as their system can't take anything else without them becoming sick.

 

To me, the same in regard to art and photography; my opinion. If you have an impoverished society, then one needs to take care of their soul, to help them meet life, one day at a time. In your case, give them hope of a better day. Give them images they can relate to, not images of no meaning. If you're targeting the wealth, give them what they want. If you're targeting the poor, give them what they need.

 

Where I live, I'm not going show a mechanic images of fashion, or a fashion model shots of a mechanic's garage. Why? Because they're not going to be able to relate to the subject matter. Not calling anyone right or wrong or drawing assumptions as we humans, we go with what we know and feel comfortable with. So to me, your question revolves around not so much about "....moral and ethic message of the photography," as to me, it has to do with, "What is the responsibility of the photographer?"

 

"For me, I am living in a very poor society which has no interest about photography."

 

Give your public what they need then. The poor need support. The poor need a positive message. Give them what they need. Photograph obtainable success such as a successful business man and his market stall. Photograph a smiling child next to a cart with lot's of farm produce. A happy man with his wife and children in abundance. In short, sell them a lie, give them something to believe in and be encouraged by. You can decry the falseness of this type of image making but these images will give hope to replace despair and this hope will be embraced and success will be the reward or you can make images reflecting their poverty and beat them with the truth.

 

"The majority of people at my country does not care about the direct and essential message of a great and original photo."

 

It's always hard to worry about the pseudo message of art when you're up to your butt in alligators. But if you give them a lifeline by giving them images they can relate to, they'll be very appreciative of your efforts.

 

"I wanted to know the differences about different societies regarding the moral and ethic message of the photography."

 

You can make great art, but if it's not a great art audience, then it's not great art because great is in the mind of the museum curator or the public willing to use their money to buy into the commercial hype. To me, it's wasted effort with the singular exception, that you've made the art for yourself if nobody agrees with your assessment of your efforts. Recognition after you die, doesn't pay a single bill. You think Van Goth knows how much his paintings are selling for today? You have to decide who and what you're about as a photographer.

 

Today, my opinion, not my values, Western ideology, the United States, it's all about commercialism. Can it sell? What's in it for me? No soul. No religious values. God's not dead cause God doesn't exist. So you need to decide who's your audience. What are you about, as a person? Are you creating for the curator in a New York City/Paris/San Francisco gallery/museum? Are you photographing for a Tokyo or Bombay audience, or are you creating for the folks whom you described above in Sana'a, Yemen? Are you creating for yourself.

 

You decide.

 

Hope the above helps.

 

Sincerely,

Thomas :)