Value

Norma Desmond · October 28, 2010

Dennis, I understood your point about intent not being enough. I don't think it is either. Execution has to follow intent. A lot is up to me. And a lot isn't. If I know my tools and use them craftily and with some amount of expertise and experience, I can affect response.* Most viewers take it a step beyond immediate response, over which I have little control. Viewers will have their own associations, values, experiences, which they will bring to a photo. Usually interpretations, especially detailed ones, are a step or three removed from an immediate perceptual and even emotional response. But if I know something about light, about focus, about perspective, about juxtapositions, content, subject matter, I make choices which have effects. And I can anticipate certain types of responses (if not with absolute specificity at least within the ballpark**). I think there's a kind of first-order response followed by something else, let's call it what the viewer makes of his response or does with his response. I do effect the first response, much less so what the viewer feels about that response or makes of it. ________________________________________ *How much I care about the viewer response is another matter and varies depending on the photo. I value sharing. But I also value what I'm doing for myself, the process and the product. **Speaking of ballparks, congratulations Giants on winning the first game of the World Series!

________________________________________ I like the distinction you make between seeing the things I value in my work and seeing what values I may be trying to express. Exactly. Often I am not trying to express values. But values are there and they often can be seen. I may find expressions in my own work after the fact, when I have spent some time with a photo: stuff I never even considered when taking the shot. But it's in there.

AJHingel · October 28, 2010

"If you differ from me, brother, far from insulting me, you enrich me"

(Saint-Exupery)

</blockquote>

Julie H · October 28, 2010

Fred, I would recommend the book The Civil Contract of Photography by Ariella Azoulay (2008). Here is a tiny snip:

"Over there, within the photo, someone addresses me; she claims my civil gaze, struggles for her citizenship in the world of photography, and puts my own citizenship in the state into question. A photograph is an énoncé within the pragmatics of obligation."

</blockquote>

For more Azoulay, you can Google her or see an old blog post of mine, <a href="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/friction/">here</a>.

AJHingel · October 28, 2010

If Julie start speaking French to us, then I jump on the wagon and offer you another quotation from Saint-Eupery for you to chew on.

"Connaitre, c'est n'est point démontrer ni d'expliquer. C'est accéder à la vision"

</blockquote>

(To know, is neither to show nor to explain. It is accessing the vision. (my bad translation!)

aplumpton · October 28, 2010

Anders, thanks for mentioning Saint-Exupéry (although the French passage needs a few orthographic corrections) and his very pertinent quote for photographers.

Fred, I think you quite missed my point about subjectivity and values, and that very few objective values exist.

In my own case, my values are quite akin in part to those expressed by Lannie, in terms of authenticity and honesty, but those are also more generally applicable to living and not just to photography.

The value of photography for me, and the practice of it, can best be summed up in another quote from the remarkable Saint-Exupéry.

"A single event can awaken within us a stranger totally unknown to us. To live is to be slowly born."

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

or another of his quote's:

"I know but one freedom, and that is the freedom of the mind."

I am not familiar with all his writings, but I can recommend the reading of "The Little Prince" as a source of ideas applicable to life and to photography.

AJHingel · October 28, 2010

Yes Arthur sorry for the typos. Here it is

“Connaître, ce n'est point démontrer, ni expliquer. C'est accéder à la vision.”

luis_g · October 28, 2010

From Rene Magritte: Les Valeurs personnelles (Personal Values)

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sfmoma.org/images/artwork/large/98.562_01_l02.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sfmoma.org/artwork/27665&h=475&w=593&sz=61&tbnid=xC4JsR8rie5aWM:&tbnh=108&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRene%2BMagritte%2BLes%2BValeurs%2Bpersonnelles&zoom=1&q=Rene+Magritte+Les+Valeurs+personnelles&hl=en&usg=__mjIMvxoPlw49MU1fYQrSDROGOC0=&sa=X&ei=eJ_JTMGQKIO8lQf4zO2PAQ&ved=0CBcQ9QEwAA

inoneeye · October 28, 2010

my first response to Fred's question was NO. When I read that an ice cube floating in a pool is insignificant it hit me between the eyes. I wish I had a pool right now. It could conceivably make a better 'conceptual' (or a just clever advert if polished) photo than <a href="../photo/10385404">this one</a> ever was (a common conceptual failure imo).. If it is different it has value independent of my taste. I like it or not matters not - you like or not does not impact value just the accessibility for some. Different than what? Different than the usual photographic banality. Originality is an elusive scale. but I have one I use as I know others here allude to having their own. And 'connoisseurs' come well supplied I'm sure. I agree with wishing for photographers to find their own way. the most likely path to what? a voice that differs from others imo. your own voice - a value. (cultural or personal choice or politics aside) a fairly universal value in the creative world.

I thought Eggleston was refreshing- original at my first viewings. It was a new flavor of photography for me then. His work was not to my taste as I moved on but it still holds a special place for me and i think for photography. In the world photography of the banal he is a benchmark and very deserving of recognition.and so many mimics. But photography of his lean to the banal is what i moved away from. Taste. Still he is a standout in a crowded genre.

Then there is photographic banality. The <a href="../photo/8162273">bikini on the beach</a>... As a viewer it is easier to find personal value before being exposed to all that any 'connoisseur' brings to the experience. If it is not the same old it is likely to inspire more interest or sometimes awe. Fresh, more interesting, more universal value ...? Individuality breeds originality for the good artist. When the elements are combined in a new way and the stars are aligned in your favor an insightful marketer well we have a standout. perhaps in time a label a master...?It is not hard to imagine the harsh critiques that most 'masters' would receive by todays expectations. Originality is high on the list for many (perhaps most...?) photographers, connoisseurs, speculators, know it alls ... and because we climb on the backs of those before us originality can be sought with some high degree of awareness. Firsts to arrive are held in high regard. Inspiration. it's high on my list. but elusive. and has allowed me to go deeper and deeper as a viewer when the little voices whisper hey what is that?

Fred submitted an interesting challenge with his question. "Do you have [other] photographic (or aesthetic) values that go beyond the personal, ones you don't think of as subjective?" my bold. Yes I do afterall. All with one or more qualification(s). absolute is a scary and stifling idea. I don't consider this list of photographic/ aesthetic values as only non subjective or as only personal but I find I can choose the hat I wear when I browse and encounter new and old work. and that the list clearly goes beyond the personal. and I can use a comparison scale to weigh the value. MY list, individuality/originality(& timeliness)...... commitment... transcendence ... presence . . . craft (at both ends) ... vision/imagination ... revelation ... honesty... humanity ... the ability to connect emotionally... and yes taste - often an obstacle to be sure . But taste is part of the creation process and worthy of deep consideration as a value. The photographer freely dispenses their blend of spices. It is the photographers taste that I experience when I am open to a work, even more than my own taste as the viewer. The universal value of my taste and your taste? nil. but i'll keep mine handy because a lot of work has gone into developing it. and how it changes! with time practice exposure & exploration. It is important as an individual isn't it? But as photographer i don't care about your taste not until i view your images then it is significant. Taste evolves and devolves universally, a bumpy pendulum. Individuals tend to just move on or stagnate. and the building blocks have/are value(s) beyond the personal imo. A color a shape a shadow a shaft of light or a contrast, texture, etc can elicit emotion. I tend to think of these elements as defined values but capable of unlimited nuance and shifting results. Like flavors, spices that you can learn with instinct and practice to skillfully combine and capture and communicate. Like a painter or a chef there are values they can gently assign to the ingredients. I find that rigid adherence to what you think you know more often holds you back. Unless you are looking for the recipe that produces a predictable product. personal or not, Values for me are inherently loose but it does help to sit back and throw a dart at them.

"such discussions should not be scorned, for they lead us closer to the picture's habitat. But the issue of the picture itself must finally be met without words." John Szarkowski, taken from 'Hubert's Freaks'

Norma Desmond · October 28, 2010

Josh, that you value commitment is not hard to gauge, since you unhesitatingly state a bunch of your values, sans absolutism, self-protective context, back pedaling, or second-guessing yourself. These are direct assertions about what's important to you.

I probably leaned to undervaluing taste in this thread and your post allows me / encourages me to revisit that. It is, indeed, part of the creative (and receptive) process. Taste is individual but not to be underestimated, even though it is open to be changed. My tastes have changed along the way and I've even forced myself, sometimes against my own will, to do so. Opera. Never listened to it much, even though I'm schooled in classical music. Twenty years ago, when a serious piano teacher played Callas singing <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZrao_GX4nk&feature=related">Casta Diva</a> from Norma, a spark was lit. He said I had to listen to more opera to help learn phrasing, breathing, legato, rubato, the rising and falling of melody, to experience the life of a musical line and the sound of acting. I forced myself. I no longer have to. I've grown to love it. It's better at the opera house than on recordings. Breath. Volume.

What fascinates me is that you consider photographic qualities, tools we've spoken of (contrast, texture, etc.) to be values. Why not? Perhaps they are the very core photographic values. When I looked up value in the dictionary, one of the specific definitions was musical. Value in music is the relative duration of a tone, how long it is held, the value of a note. Very nuts and bolts. Not very ethical!

Thanks for the Szarkowski quote. As usual with quotes, just the second half absent the first would give a very different impression of what Szarkowski was actually saying. It's appropriate that the matter of words and art for Szarkowski, it seems, is not monotone. It has shades of color.

AJHingel · October 28, 2010

Josh wrote:

individuality/originality(& timeliness)...... commitment... transcendence ... presence . . . craft (at both ends) ... vision/imagination ... revelation ... honesty... humanity ... the ability to connect emotionally... and yes taste

</blockquote>

I very much agree on these bits and pieces of a "list" although the first three to a certain degree seem to encompass what follows. However, I do not get how these various blocks go beyond the individual and subjective functioning of feelings when viewing a work of art or any photo. We get nearer to that problematic, which after all is the main questioning of Fred when Josh writes about taste

The universal value of my taste and your taste? nil.

Taste evolves and devolves universally

</blockquote>

However, how these two formulations in the same paragraph function together, escapes me.

I understand and accept that any belief that my tastes are better or worse than yours, is a non-starter. No possible intention of imposing my testes on someone else. It happens and is maybe necessary in marriages but not on the agenda among random viewers of photos like us.

On the other hand, both my taste and yours are probably influenced by the universally evolving tastes that Josh mentions. I my eyes this is where we actually can advance if we are able to identify current tastes (some would write esthetics although it has been announced as "universally devolved") that marks our appreciation and if we are able to acknowledge that we share at least some of them - or not.

I would despite warning signals hanging over my head rather use the term "aesthetics" (read "taste" if it hurts your eyes) and suggest to consider how it has evolved the last years together with postmodernism and how current societal change is redefining what is "timely", "honest", "relegation", "original", "humane", "visionary" - just to use some of the blocks mentioned by Josh in his long but very interesting contribution above.

Norma Desmond · October 28, 2010

Anders, as I said, I'm glad my piano teacher imposed his valuing of opera (and his taste for Callas) on me and I'm glad I was open to his suggestions. It can happen among a group of photo viewers in a forum as well, such suggesting, even imposition, and openness to new tastes. This is, in part, a learning site.

I've been influenced, and my own tastes have been expanded, because of (for example) Phylo's connection to Zen, Julie's taste for constructions, John's appreciation of Minor White. Some of it honestly did feel imposed. I got over that and benefitted.

Norma Desmond · October 28, 2010

Rereading Josh's post, something I get out of it is this. Is it possible that every photo we make and show to others is, in a sense, an imposition of our taste on viewers? I think it might very well be the case.

luis_g · October 28, 2010

Josh -"When I read that an ice cube floating in a pool is insignificant it hit me between the eyes. I wish I had a pool right now."

I have access to several, but conversely have no interest in shooting it. I'm flattered you liked my visualization of that idea enough to consider appropriating it. :-)

JDW - "I agree with wishing for photographers to find their own way. the most likely path to what? a voice that differs from others imo. your own voice - a value. (cultural or personal choice or politics aside) a fairly universal value in the creative world."

In a sense, like the sages say, I agree that everything we need is already within us, but one's voice may be so commonplace or literal, or bland, or... that it gets lost in the background radiation. This is one of the very hard realities of the art world (and many others).

Commitment? Anyone who's put in their 10,000 (or much more) hrs knows a thing or two about that. Lots of people have put in a lifetime. But it still does not guarantee the work will be salient.

Probably the rarest elements in photography (and one could (mis)construe this as a small portion of my list, though I don't have a list and abhor the Oprah format here) are: Visual intelligence (as opposed to cleverness), playfulness, neoteny, fluidity, patience & impatience (timing is not everything, but it matters), insight, courage, unbridled love sans sentimentality, and wit. Some people seem to be born with some or all of these, others learn it, or have to get lost to find it, some plow for decades and emerge as late bloomers -- or not.

Most never taste the flame, which is why anyone undertaking a thing like this should be prepared for the very real, ultra-high probability that there never will be much recognition, fame or money at the end of that long journey. Do it because doing it is its own reward. Push yourself to the limit and beyond, and if you break out, all the better, but if it doesn't happen (and if one knows the history of the medium you know that several of the greatest people in the medium died broke and without any of their own work, as Annie L. is close to doing) getting wherever you get to was well worth it.

I agree on the looseness of this, the dart-throwing, and not only at the detection and creation aspects of this, but at the judgment end as well. As I said in a recent post, "The Fat Lady never sings at these things..." If I don't consider a judgment fixed & absolute, then the values are for me likewise freed from those fetters (as we are from the original question as stated). This is why I railed against 'significance' as an objective judgment.

Any image floating in the world is in a relational position. The background shifts moment-to-moment. There is no Arcturus or discrete constellations to guide us, only waves of other pictures and they shift and jiggle depending on the tectonics with their neighbors, like Brownian motion.

Good to hear from you, JDW.

_____________________________

As to the imposition of taste, some artists (and posters here) try to do that all the time. Many openly admit to it. A number of them do so in a very hamfisted way, that feels like a mugging. A few are more subtle, cajoling, convivial. A very, very few truly trust the work do what it will at the interface with the viewer (and beyond). Some of those seduce and intrigue instead of impose. It's a very different thing between dragging the viewer off and motivating them to come to the work on their own. No, not everyone imposes, though many do it all the time. Let's not forget that the viewer is always free to reject the work. It may be significantly sententious.

___________________________

jtk · October 28, 2010

This is a Photo Forum. The OT has to do with Values in that context. We may or may not be great photographers, but the photographers among us do back up their ideas with their own images.

Without one's own photos one cannot pretend to have photo-"salient" values: clicking on names of posters here depicts the truth about whatever values may be involved. Go ahead, click on the names, visit the Portfolios. They are our measures more than are our words.

Norma Desmond · October 28, 2010

When I talk of commitment to my photographs, I'm not talking about putting in a certain amount of hours or years. I'm thinking along the same lines of one of Webster's definitions: the state of being emotionally impelled. A couple of years ago, I was working on a portrait and something I couldn't put my finger on was bugging me about it. A critique I got said it didn't look committed to at that stage, like it wasn't sure if it wanted to be a polished, Hollywood glamour look or a rougher, more contemporary edgy thing. I realized it was plagued by my own hesitation and even some lack of consideration. I hadn't really seen it through. Once I committed to a vision for it, I came up with <a href="../photo/7674229">a photo I continue to value</a>.

Right, commitment is not a guarantee of anything. Values are not guarantees.

luis_g · October 28, 2010

Josh - "Taste evolves and devolves universally"

Sort of. It would if the world was uniform, but it is not. Although within a short radius it is more likely to be homogeneous. A list like this seems like a small locale, but we are spread out across thousands of miles and in or from different cultures.

Anders - I wonder what would you (or others here) do if handed a list of current aesthetic trends? How it has affected the meanings of words we could begin with by comparing what they mean to us.

I've been influenced by Julie's pictures, not so much in a literal way, but more abstractly, in their comfortable strangeness & the way they make me question my ways of seeing and thinking.

Fred, in all this time I had no idea that you meant emotional commitment, more a general kind. What a difference a word makes! Much clearer.

fate_faith_change_chains · October 28, 2010

because of (for example) Phylo's connection to Zen, Julie's taste for constructions, John's appreciation of Minor White. Some of it honestly did feel imposed. I got over that and benefitted.-Fred

</blockquote>

I don't think I ever mentioned Zen here before, as it's also such a 'pop-culture label', but you're right, maybe reading between my lines, that I am *devoted* ( creatively, which = spirit ) to Taoism, perhaps something akin to Zen. But it need not be named for the Tao that can be named is not the true Tao... Photographically, I think that 'Zen' appreciation has come to light whenever I mentioned Miksang here before, a photographic approach which I highly respect and which basics are basically nothing new in regard to the history of photography, from Atget to Walker Evans,...( Minor White ) I value looking at such works / photographs that were made with a seemingly straightforward objective gaze, but cannot seem to make them myself ( at least not from my perspective ) even though I want to, like making pictures with the "indifference of an archaeologist" ( Walker Evans & Company ), "where the presence of the photographer is nowhere to be seen but everywhere felt."

It seems that in my own photography I still value needing a hook, something that rips - more subtle, baits - something apart viscerally besides connecting it visually. -----

Rereading Josh's post, something I get out of it is this. Is it possible that every photo we make and show to others is, in a sense, an imposition of our taste on viewers? I think it might very well be the case. - Fred

</blockquote>

I think it is, which is also what I meant when I said before, that, "photographically, my values are my photographs, not something outside of them for me to dictate non-visually ". Although, this doesn't mean that these are my only values photographically as there are others - through the history and present of photography - still worth striving for, to make our own.

Without one's own photos one cannot pretend to have photo-"salient" values: clicking on names of posters here depicts the truth about whatever values may be involved. Go ahead, click on the names, visit the Portfolios.They are our measures more than are our words. - John

</blockquote>

I agree, but at the same time I don't consider my images here to be fully representative for my value(s) as a photographer and besides, maybe they're my B-sides, : ) You only got some ten images yourself posted here. Josh, for example, hasn't got any images here anymore last time I checked in on his portfolio, but I know he had, and good ones for that, which were valuable in underlining his comments and vice versa, and in their absence, they still are.

inoneeye · October 28, 2010

reactive Luis, hours equate to dedication for me . synonyms? probably but I leave that to others. just My sloppy use of the written word. hours = valuable and measurable but less of a universal value in my experience. Too many exceptions for it to be on my list. Had i even considered guarantees I would not have been able to get past a one liner or make a photo that I was committed to.

Anders, I understand how my writing was verbose, and sloppy but you seemed to pick up the gist quite well. In fact you reworded succinctly into your own take "..... both my taste and yours are probably influenced by the universally evolving tastes that Josh mentions." "...the first three to a certain degree seem to encompass what follows." encompass? I would get lost trying to navigate any single value in an expression without bumping into others along the way. Like the spices within the 'magic' happens in the interactions. "However, I do not get how these various blocks go beyond the individual and subjective functioning of feelings when viewing a work of art or any photo." How they go beyond the individual, in this case me is by stepping aside from my strictly personal values and tastes (first recognizing them as such). Can this be achieved? I think to a large degree yes for some. I am not suggesting shutting values/tastes off as if they never existed. Instead learning acknowledgement and using that there is a difference in what is my taste and what is beyond my taste and what I have learned to be historical context, academia, trend, commercially viable, taboo, etc. I'll stop myself here before I can't.

on photography Fred, "Is it possible that every photo we make and show to others is, in a sense, an imposition of our taste on viewers? I think it might very well be the case." at its best touching A chord for my goals. Now with some added clarity after the dart throwing you inspired me to. The kind of food for content I enjoy finding. Photos OF my taste. Polished, one of my favorite topics, hurdles, challenges and personal considerations for what I now value... not for here (this forum) tho eh.

Hi Phylo. The folders are hidden now - photos still there but I am relinquishing my PN membership so prepping for getting down to non member quota. Good to see your newer stuff btw.

aplumpton · October 28, 2010

Imposing your taste on a viewer is not fully what it is all about. It is complete when it also involves your values. I could never be ashamed or guilty of imposing (I prefer the word communicating) my taste and my values on a viewer. As a photographer wishing to visually communicate with others, and this can be as simple as maintaining a portfolio on Photo.Net, or as involved as undertaking longer term projects and exhibitions where more is at stake, it is a natural part of the process for me to communicate or impose my perceptions and creations on viewers. If not, I would be simply creating images for my own unpublished use and unwitnessed creative feedback. We cannot know or control the reaction of the viewer, but that is independent of the means we get the viewer involved in what we have created.

What Luis says about the chance or not for recognition is of course a fact. To worry about such recognition simply saps precious energy from creation. We can only give our all, make mistakes and occasionally achieve breakthroughs, and allow ourselves to do the most we are capable of. Whether that is ever blessed with a large diffusion of our work or not is not the most important, we will then at least know that we have been stretched fully and have achieved the rewards of considered commitment, purpose, some feedback from viewers, and perhaps artistic achievement.

fate_faith_change_chains · October 28, 2010

Hi Phylo. The folders are hidden now - photos still there but I am relinquishing my PN membership so prepping for getting down to non member quota.

</blockquote>

You can check in anytime but you can never leave, : )

Rereading Josh's post, something I get out of it is this. Is it possible that every photo we make and show to others is, in a sense, an imposition of our taste on viewers? I think it might very well be the case.

</blockquote>

Fred, I see now that you were talking about taste, when I was talking about value in my response before, to this post of yours. You made the distinction between the two in the OP, but I find it hard distinguishing between value and taste, as photographically, both applied mostly end up in photographs ( the making or looking at ).

luis_g · October 29, 2010

Arthur, I don't think it is a matter of guilt, simply that the idea of forcing taste on others implies 1) Successful communications 2) That the artwork overpowers the viewer 3) That your values and taste are injected into the viewer's consciousness against their will. A feminist could have a field day with this.

I think that is a cliche', power-centered, Darwinist male fantasy. Considering most viewers basically pause for a few seconds per print, if they break stride at all, while looking at world-class work, let alone average local-joe work, and few can tell you what the work was about in terms reflecting the artist's taste or values, and most will not remember 90% of what they saw a day later, I really don't think the artist is inflicting much of anything upon the viewer except the slightest of pauses.

The real balance of power here is that there is a scarcity of viewers and venues, in relation to the number of photographers, not a surplus.

We do not enjoin the viewer's gaze and attention: We ask, offer, intrigue, engage and play. There is quite a difference between the work as a vehicle for imposition/domination by its maker and as one for contemplation by the viewer.

We are always saying through our work to passers-by, peers, viewers, reviewers, critics, gallerists, historians, venues and buyers:

See me. Choose me, please, and if not, at least pay attention to & remember me.

That doesn't seem like an imposition to me.

Disclaimer: I am not attempting to convince or educate anyone, merely stating the way I see this.

Norma Desmond · October 29, 2010

Impose. The first Webster definition: to establish or apply by authority. The author of the photo establishes his taste in the photo he creates and shows to the viewer.

Whether it's as a demand, an invitation, a meeting of the minds, whether it's as aggressive as a New York cab driver or as laid back as a California flower child, part of the relationship between a photographer and a viewer (one who's not in a vegetative state on life support in the hospital) is a show of taste. Most viewers have not asked me to take a photograph (some of my subjects have). So every time I show someone a photograph, I am imposing myself, or at least my photo, on them.

Phylo, the difference to me between taste and value is like the difference between personality and character. One can have a likable personality and a very flawed character. I like a lot of things that I don't think have a whole lot of value. Value suggests to me a good for the world, going beyond just me. Taste seems more about my own likes and dislikes. I can appreciate photos I don't like because I can set aside my taste. I like soda pop but don't think it has much value. Same with a few TV sitcoms: mindless throwaways, yet some are to my taste and others aren't. None seem of much value. My taste in men tends to lean toward blond and smooth, but I value empathy and sincerity.

Is it possible that taste is more about senses? After all, it is one of. Is value more holistic and more to the core?

AJHingel · October 29, 2010

Go ahead, click on the names, visit the Portfolios.They are our measures more than are our words

</blockquote>

John, you often come back to this as if we have not heard you yet. I hope you are sincerely dead wrong and it is not by repetition that it can be corrected. It would be an existential problem for most that find themselves having "arrived" in life with what ever they endeavor. It is the road to ends and dreams that make life worthwhile. Being there and we are half somewhere else where we would rather not be prematurely. Therefor, I sincerely hope that you do not yet see in our photos, mine included, whatever you interpret in anyones writing. All a question of how you live your life and fulfill your ambitions in life. A question of quality of life. It is the road to somewhere that makes life worthwhile. I'm somewhat sure that if you look at yourself in the mirror you would agree - and I ensure you that you do not have to tell me ! I could quote Saint Exupéry again, but I will resist. For me what you might see in my own photos if you have the eye and I have succeeded, which is far from sure, is a progress towards something, not the end destination. Showing photos to others is therefore in some way an invitation to share the travel and not to contemplate the end destination or to impose a destination to others.

As concerns influencing each other. As open hearted reflecting individuals how can we pretend that we are not influenced. I am at least around to challenge my certainties and intellectual and visual comforts and I can assure you that this is happening all the time although I cannot put the changes in small boxes to be exhibited. My experience is however that it is from somewhere else that I currently find the greatest provocations forcing me to reconsider whatever I do in the field of photography. I have, with little success, I admit (my fault surely), tried to hint at the multifaceted world of contemporary art. Reference to music has been made here by several. Reference to opera and ballet and theatre has also been made. We, or I rather, have made reference to performance art. The role of play, ludic works, is one of many trends, (values?) that are present in many works being produced these days. I believe that we all have as artist or just photographers desperately trying to express ourselves, an obligation to experiment with whatever we do in photography. Reading all of you, not just some, is part of that. Being active in numerous other artistic milieus is surely another.

A last reference to the mentioning of zen. I can see the relevance when the question is how I shoot (physically gesture) but for me it is much more through <a href="http://www.chineseartnet.com/Nigensha/p104a.jpg">Taoism</a> that I find the intellectual and esthetic inspiration. All a question of lifestyle I guess. It is also in these ancient artistic tradition we find the answer to the relationship between writing and images. Another thread I would believe...

felixg · October 29, 2010

I've come late to this, but I agree with an early take on it: "value" can no more be absolute than "like".

I freely admit that I make some values absolute ... but the key words there are "I make": they are not absolute except in my framework.

In relation to so called "female circumcision", for example, or slavery, or torture, I draw a line in the sand and say "this is an absolute value; I refuse to acknowledge the validity of contrary valuations". In photography, I do not ... I say, instead, "this is my own definition of value". BUT ... philosophically, in neither case is there an absolute value beyond the framework of my beliefs. My values on which I choose to stand, to say "Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders" (note the double recurrence in that iconic statement of the word "ich") are based in my cherished notion (inherited from the world in which I live, but deeply valued by me) of "human rights" ... but over most of history there has been no such notion. Human rights exist only if humans decide to recognise them; and looking back over the evolution of those which we now acknowledge it is quite possible that, in a future time, human rights will be recognised which we as yet do not.

In relation to human rights, I have to pretend to myself that my own values are universal; in art, and specifically in photography, I have no such imperative. I can afford the luxury of being more truthful with myself: my values, value systems, things or ideas I value, are all relative.

With great hesitation (for I profoundly value your thoughts) but nevertheless with unavoidable certainty (for i believe it important to freedom of self, of expression and of creativity) I have to dissent when you say "To deny that is to beg for common blandness." On the contrary ... for me, to deny that (in absolute terms) is to beg for the full marvellous expression of human difference and variety.

Although it may well be that "Some are better photographers than others" and "Some have a more compelling or more distinctive or more individual vision than others", I don't see how any of us can possibly know that this is in any absolute sense true, let alone specify (again in any absolute sense) which ones are better, nor which are more compelling or distinctive or individual in their vision – the judgement can only ever be either in relation to my (or your, or her/his) own personal value system or in relation to some consensually arrived at value system. Of the two, in this particular context, I prefer personal and endlessly plural to consensual.

luis_g · October 29, 2010

Fred, you are being astutely selective, apparently to impose your point of view. At Webster's, this is under the first definition, and I think it makes a difference:

Transitive verb

1 a: to establish by authority <impose a tax> <impose new restrictions> <impose penalties>

b: to establish or bring about as if by force.

This is well removed from "a show of taste", which seems a lot more like an 'exposition' (which is, in fact, a word often used for the boundary layer where a lot of art meets viewers) than an 'imposition'.

I loved Anders testes comment on this, BTW. Abd if we take Josh's "Taste evolves and devolves universally", then it could not be imposed, since both parties already share it.

Sign In

Value

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in