Value

[jtk]

<p>I prefer to express my own values and only struggle to understand bad writers out of misplaced kindness. After all, bad writing (as in lack of clarity) equals bad values, so don't deserve attention. I work hard to appreciate good writers because I gain from them, whether or not we agree.</p>

<p>My photographic values prioritize reasonable technical quality (as seen in prints...nobody sees my files but me). They entail reluctance to risk humiliation of subjects (if I want to ridicule I'll write about it). They entail the continuing and over-riding <em>intention</em> to share something specific and unique with viewers. I avoid generic images. My values require stretching out occasionally, a willingness to fail.</p>

<p>I italicized <em>intention</em> because unintentional work isn't one's own, so has little to do with values.</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Anders</strong>, I think we're generally on the same page. Good. We seem to differ about the role of interpretation, which I find similar to formal wine tastings (as with score cards, verbal descriptions etc)<strong> </strong>. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>While digging through this thread, another idea came up:<br>

I <em>value</em> this thread, but it's not to my <em>taste</em>.<br>

Content. Presentation.</p>

<p>Julie, I think I agree with what you say in your last post, but those are a few lines that take time!! So maybe I don't because I don't quite get it (yet?)....</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>John, I have always felt that when it comes to "interpretation" we mostly just talk about different things and agree to disagree. It would be worthwhile to have a disciplined (good grief what a horror!) discussion about interpretation in due time that do not stay at the simplistic level of for or against. I have no idea why you argue against "formal wine tasting". You have had bad experiences ?</p>

[jtk]

<p>Anders, I've enjoyed formal wine tastings, but the point I was trying to make is that I prefer informal enjoyment.<br>

I don't think I've seen your understanding of interpretation. I cited Susan Sontag's view, which happens to be mine as well. I'd rather enjoy or otherwise appreciate a photograph without ascribing meanings to it. I don't think photos are useful ways to convey ideas, but they can illuminate them. That's similar to my appreciation of wine.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>I often choose to not apply my taste/values when considering A value - not the value of it to me<br /><br />Julie "Perhaps by trying to conceive of hating something that you love rather than the inverse?" a good insight to a 'more' than casual use of setting aside a taste that could be easily considered a value that most of us subscribe to. Also an Extreme but very solid example of the weave that inhabits taste and value. But not an impossible task (to separate) imo. For me it is accomplished by first recognizing that my personal 'values' are in line with taste, subjective but not necessarily with any universal value.<br />With Julies example I think I can consider and wrap my head around disliking and even hating something that appeals to me or I love. .Often I have encountered people who are not shy about their strong dislike, lack of trust even hatred of me the person. That is not challenging to understand. For me it is an applied taste not objective. They are being reactive to personal values/taste... <br /><br />What about A value. Not a reactive personal scale - more for me as an ideal. Example; honesty. Can the person who distrusts me step aside from there taste and consider it without prejudice of taste? Perhaps I set off triggers from personal experience or style dislikes that cloud their ability to be Objective. Can they learn to recognize that it may be a response, reaction and not an unbiased assessment. Of course we pass judgements out freely and often but can't we recognize it for what it is - taste/bias.<br /><br />In photography or beyond one can consciously or (like Felix sometimes on auto) unconsciously push aside bias and preconception of what is of value. Assess A value handled in disagreement to our taste. why not. Convoluted by being human, certainly. With practice and the help of characteristics/nature one may possess it is possible to segregate taste (to lesser or greater degrees ) from value when a value considered is not of the personal nature.</p>

<p>With my own photography I most often encounter a negative response. I have a taste and strongly value a push/pull characteristic. And it is often successful in pushing people away. It is a taste i have nurtured and apply to much of my work... can the viewer who is repelled take the time to recognize and access and assess the power or energy of the particular photo to create an emotional response (A value) be it good or bad to their taste/values...? most can't. </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>John</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think I've seen your understanding of interpretation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Escapes me, then how you can declare to disagree with me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think photos are useful ways to convey ideas, but they can illuminate them. That's similar to my appreciation of wine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And yet John, photos are used for conveying ideas all around us, not all of course but a substantial part of them. You can chose not to care, but if photos are your subject and not you, you need to take it into account I would believe. When it comes to wine they sometimes convey ideas too, by the label or posters at least. See below.</p><div></div>

[Julie H]

<p><strong>Josh</strong>,</p>

<p>I don't believe you can do it ("segregate taste (to lesser or greater degrees ) from value"). Take a value, say, "honesty" and the three people needed to make a photograph that portrays that value (two if you use a self-portrait, but still the "parts" will behave as three). The photographer will, out of the infinite number of possible ways that "honesty" can be expressed (embodied), choose (make or find) one because of his taste (why he prefers that one and not another). The person in the picture, the actor, will either by nature or by intent (acting) similarly choose a particular means of expressing (embodying) "honesty" -- out of the infinite variety of ways, acts, postures, behaviors available -- because of his taste. The viewer of the subsequent photograph, when looking at it, will either find the picture to be expressive of "honesty" or not, depending on his (the viewer's) taste in how "honesty" is effectively expressed. All three parties are looking at embodied representations of a disembodied "value" and, according to their taste, either finding the value or not.</p>

<p>What is value without taste? What is taste without value? If we're talking about pictures, we're talking about embodiment and therefore we're talking about taste all the way down. Throw out taste, you throw out embodiment and you throw out pictures and we're no longer in a photography discussion.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I can do it ("segregate taste from value") because I can choose how to express something like honesty <em>despite</em> and not because of my taste. That's how I grow. The value I place on evolving as a photographer allows me (demands of me?) to reject and question even my own taste sometimes. That's why I sometimes make pictures that are important to me and that I value even though I don't really like them. I will often purposely and willfully choose a way to express myself that I don't "prefer."</p>

[Julie H]

<p>"The value I place on evolving as a photographer allows me (demands of me?) to reject and question even my own taste sometimes." -- <strong>Fred</strong></p>

<p>That *is* your (overriding) value. That *is* what is embodied according to your taste in your pictures.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>As a viewer, I can appreciate the values embodied in what I'm looking at without finding the painting or photo to my taste. I often don't like those old religious paintings. I don't generally choose to spend a lot of time with them in museums, though I do on occasion. Even when I am flitting by them on my way to other locales in the museum, I can certainly recognize the values that are being expressed. Such recognition has very little to do with my taste.<br>

___________________________________________<br>

I don't think all pictures are embodiments. I think some are revelations. Revelations don't have to embody (picture) what they're about. Pictures may not embody but instead may suggest, lead, strive, or imply. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, sorry, but I consider that kind of response a sophistry. The argument that says I can't override my own taste because overriding my taste IS my taste is the same argument that says I can't really ever make a sacrifice because I'm really doing it for my own benefit. I live in a simpler world than that, where I am able not to value something I do (do something I think is bad) or not like something I value (broccoli). I can't continually wrap myself up in the kinds of circles you allege. It may be my own philosophical shortcoming but it helps me with photographs, both making and looking. </p>

[felixg]

<p>Josh, Julie, Fred (in chronological order) ... it seems to me that taste and value are inextricably linked <em>in part</em> but not coextensive.<br>

A lot of your respective discussions hinge on different meanings of "value" ... possibly of "taste" also.<br>

For example ... it seems to me (at the moment, anyway ... in ten minutes time, or after reading another post from one or other of you, I may see it differently) that if we are considering the values and taste of the artefact producer, there is no way to wholly disentangle the two. If we are talking about those of the viewer, they may well be entirely separate.<br>

I can produce an image which I find distasteful, but which I value ... but its seems difficult to argue that the value is divorced from taste, because taste is not only positive. If I felt no positive or negative taste in relation to something, I don't immediately see how I could impute a positive or negative value to it (though I'm quite willing to discover that I'm misthinking this). In viewing something else, done by someone else, however, I can certainly see the values of the producer (or what s/he valued) whilst having no taste reaction to it (though often this will not be so ... it just <em>can</em> be so).<br>

Defining taste is difficult. Anybody want to have a stab? A quick poke about the web throws up "preference; strong liking; delicate discrimination". The first two are much more easily separated from value than the third.</p>

[felixg]

<p>On Julie's raising of "honesty" ... that is, to return to Fred's initial question, one of my primary values in my own photographic practice. But ask me to define honesty in this context, and I'd have a difficult task.<br /> Julie's and Fred's photographs both seem to me to strongly exhibit honesty; but how far is that just my perception, not shared by others?<br /> Taking Julie's suggestion that I try to hate something I love (which, I think, I now better understand) ... I love her <a href="http://www.unrealnature.com/Equilateral_thumbs.htm"><em>Equilaterals</em></a> compositions, which seem to me to embody many aspects of my own taste but also the quality of honesty. I can, however, easily imagine another viewer seeing them as dishonest, therefore on the same value hating them, despite sharing my tastes, because that hypothetical person sees a dichotomy between honesty of vision and synthesis of imaginary from multiple realities.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Value for me represents a deeply held principle of life or behaviour, whereas taste may not have anything to do with such values. Taste can vary with time, but a value tends to be more constant.</p>

<p>About two decades ago I could say I had only limited taste for abstract art. Knowledge of, analysis of and seeing such work has changed my taste. But my core values related to my thoughts about art, for example, have not changed. </p>

[luis_g]

 

 

<p>"The value I place on evolving as a photographer allows me (demands of me?) to reject and question even my own taste sometimes." -- <strong>Fred</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

That *is* your (overriding) value. That *is* what is embodied according to your taste in your pictures. -- <strong>Julie</strong></p>

 

<p > </p>

<p >Astute observation, Julie. That does come across in Fred's pictures.</p>

<p>"Revelations don't have to embody (picture) what they're about. Pictures may not embody but instead may suggest, lead, strive, or imply." -- <strong>Fred</strong></p>

<p>Revelations, suggestions, implications, leadings, and strivings, however, are encoded and thus in the corpus of the picture, even if negatively so. If not, where are they? <strong><br /></strong></p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I wonder if taste implies the senses -- taste being one of the five senses -- or is that just a coincidence of language? Value seems to utilize different capacities.</p>

<p>Anyway . . . getting back to photography . . .</p>

<p>I am trying to come to grips with aging. I value a lot of things that come with age while questioning a lot of my culture's taste for youth. That translates to visualizations for me which I photograph. I walk various fine lines in my photographs which both create and express tensions I feel. There's that tension between the innocence and physical allure of youth and the experience and "wisdom" that comes with age. There's my wondering whether all that is lost in the aging process is something gained. Are there absolute losses? Furthermore, it is a core value and drive of mine to show middle aged gay men in all their humanity and diversity (that sounds a little over-the-top and a little too politically correct but I can't think of a better way to verbally describe it right now, which is probably why I photograph it instead) even addressing what we might consider physical or visible flaws. I also address photographic tensions. Currently, I'm straddling that line of gesture and pose, wanting to force with purpose but without going far enough that it becomes a joke. (Caricature is fine, and even joke is OK, but I gotta watch it.)</p>

<p>And you?</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Thanks Fred. I will not hesitate to consider a value or the value of a photo that is not to my taste. I will create and post photos that are not to my taste. The reason/motivation for going there is of great value to me a taste for learning via exploration. I want to know where I haven't been equally (give or take) to where i have. I learn by setting aside my bias created by my existing taste by using a core value I have nurtured.</p>

[michaellinder]

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

<p>John K: Your point does have some merit. One's photographs do indeed reveal a number of things about the photographer. But . . . so do one's poetry, one's choice of a vocation, one's lifestyle, etc. </p>

<p>I vehemently disagree with your point one's about not being able to have "photo-salient values" without others being able to view one's photographs. Some "photo-salient values" are values, in general. To name some that have been mentioned throughout this thread - authenticity, commitment, growth. BTW, your coinage of the phrase "photo-salient" is quite inventive.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Michael, values are exhibited and best displayed in action and behavior. A congressman can talk a good game about having family values and about the grave sins of homosexuality. But then he gets caught in the airport restroom with his pants down around his knees trolling for sex with the guy in the next stall and those supposed values are seriously called into question. I pay much more attention to his actions than to his words.</p>

<p>A photographer might claim that it is a value not to exploit homeless people. His portfolio may show just the opposite. He may have the best of intentions, and yet his photos may still appear to be exploitive, and in photography, appearances account for a lot. So, a photographer, like a congressperson, might talk about his values but the information will be worth much more to me when I can see them in action in the photos.</p>

<p>I should have asked my original question differently. What I really had in mind was hearing not just whether we think there are photographic values and what those photographic values are but whether we try to make those values evident visually in our photos or, even if we don't try, whether the values become visually evident in our photos in some way.</p>

<p>______________________________________________</p>

<p>You're right to point out that some photographic values are values in general, human values. There's another side, though, too. It seems to me that light itself is a core photographic value. Basically, we can't make a photo without it. Expressionists tend to use light in dramatic and melodramatic ways, others use light much more delicately. All would seem to, almost by necessity, value light photographically. But tastes vary in the way light will be used or applied.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>What I really had in mind was...<snip>...whether we try to make those values evident visually in our photos or, even if we don't try, whether the values become visually evident in our photos in some way."</p>

<p>I answered that back on Oct 29th @ 11:04 AM. While Fred was busy deflecting an imaginary "gotcha", had he read the rest of it, he would have seen:</p>

<p>"I do not consciously compartmentalize, fragment and propagandize my values per se, but see them as an integrated part of my being that manifests itself in everything I do. "</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p><br />" <em>One's photographs do indeed reveal a number of things about the photographer. But . . . so do one's poetry, one's choice of a vocation, one's lifestyle, etc." ...Michael L</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Michael, You're right...I hope I didn't suggest otherwise. All those things reveal things about a photographer...IF..IF...if those things are REVEALED or SHARED with OTHERS .</p>

<p>But...if s/he isn't willing to share the allegedly expressive stuff with others s/he is fooling himself/herself and certainly trying to fool others the moment s/he claims to be a poet or whatever. In other words, that person seems likely to be engaged in deception, "faking it." Nothing wrong with a little fakery...some great actors have claimed that's precisely what they are about (Michael Caine, perhaps?)</p>

<p>I'm not nearly as productive photographically as I'd like, so I think of myself as maybe-fooling-myself, and maybe others. However I'd be even more of a fraud if I didn't share images and all I had to show was work from a year ago.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Anders, I'm not sure we "disagree"...may be a language issue.</p>

<p><em>"And yet John, photos are used for conveying ideas all around us, </em><br>

<em>not all of course but a substantial part of them." </em> -- Anders H</p>

<p>I evidently didn't make my point well enough: Photographs aren't the best ways to convey ideas, but they can support the best ways (which are usually verbal..though photos and music can sometimes augment each other (or take away from each other if done wrong). OR ...Photos aren't very good at conveying ideas, but they can help.</p>

<p>since you asked: My worst wine tasting experiences have involved sommelier/expert-types pouring from bottles hidden by bags, asking us to rate/rank and compare them on a score card (like P.N's rating system). It's an evil, wannabe-terrorist practice. I lived for a while in California's Napa Valley and it wasn't uncommon among the upper class twits, while the actual enologists and the hangers-on like myself were more inclined simply to relax and enjoy.</p>