jtk Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 <p><strong>In another thread, Fred G used the concept of intimacy</strong> (not just the word) to depict something rare, that's typical in his photography.</p> <p>Fred referred, I think, to multiple relationships: photographer with subject, image with multiple viewers. Intimacy is risky, not theoretic, analytic, solopsistic or internal. I wonder if there's agreement on that?</p> <p>I hadn't thought to use the concept of "intimacy" as a goal (or result) in the photography that currently most concerns me, but now I will. Intimacy isn't easy: it seems, by definition, a rarity and a high value. Photography does sometimes work at that level (I thought about this today, looking again at Max Waldman's dance photographs, noticing his idea that success might be like capturing a fleeting bit of life in amber).</p> <p>Fantasies aside, I don't think one has "intimate" relations with inanimate objects (buildings, rocks, moon-rises), or with objectified people.</p> <p>Weston's peppers are powerful, but not intimate. His nudes don't seem intimate, but many of his portraits, even his most formal (eg of Bender, his patron) do. Or...some photographers make real contact with people they notice on the street, meet them and recognize a moment of intimacy, then photograph...others hide, "observe," avoid intimacy at all costs.</p> <p><strong>Is intimacy a value in your photography? Do we see it in your P.N portfolio?</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>.</strong></p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now