Identity of photographer defines identity of photo.

[jtk]

<p><strong>Antonio, visiting your portfolio several times in the past (for now I'll refrain), I never thought to categorize your images. </strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

I've not looked recently. I may remember something about them, not category but my responses</p>

<p>For one thing, they do seem to relate to the kinds of things you've said online, and although I appreciate both you may have noticed that my own words and work are not similar to yours. Those differences don't mean we're at odds about images or ideas. </p>

<p>I remember many of yours being colorful, not moody. They're well-executed , looking like dslr or digicam work. That's not to say you didn't do anything moody, or couldn't have worked with film...those are just my recollections Sure, I've just used "categories" of a sort, but they're descriptions, not boxes. "Street" or "Nature" are examples of boxes. I sometimes photograph in remote, back-woods situations and sometimes in modern spaces, but I don't think of the two as different categories. I think I'd approach studio work with a similar mindset if I still had a studio.</p>

<p>Some would categorize yours as "walking around" photos, even "street." demonstrating my point about the dumbing-down effect of categorizing. I think that if a viewer categorizes before s/he has appreciated and perhaps described the image with some subtlety to her/himself, the act of categorizing spoils (dumbs down) the experience. The same applies to "interpretation."</p>

<p> </p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p><strong>John</strong><br>

I'm glad. If you said the opposite, that would have made me question whether I'm on the right track or not. I would love if you took a peek because I am trying to go through a transition and I have some new stuff that should show that (I hope). The reasons why I organize them in different "compartments" are two: 1. I want the viewer to be able to see them better. 2. My use of organizing them is actually a way to answer questions and find answers. I understand you very well when you say</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I sometimes photograph in remote, back-woods situations and sometimes in modern spaces, but I don't think of the two as different categories</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I also photograph very different subjects and situations but the final intent is always the same. And when you say</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think that if a viewer categorizes before s/he has appreciated and perhaps described the image with some subtlety to her/himself, the act of categorizing spoils (dumbs down) the experience. The same applies to "interpretation."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's very difficult to gain the ability to do this and it takes a long time and thinking. It takes really freeing your mind of all the preconceptions and models imprinted in our mind.<br>

PS: I don't want to transform this thread into a commentary to my work... So, I'll try to go back on track.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I would be quite happy if anyone wishes to look at my Photo.Net current portfolio and consider whether the images are of a type that permits them to identify me, or not.</p>

<p>If you do, you will be aware of the thematic differences of the various sub-portfolios (in fact, the overall portfolio is itself a sub-portfolio, as I, like others, have posted only a part of my production on Photo.Net). One of the problems in determining an identity of a photographer who is interested in a variety of subject matter is that he or she may be more difficult to characterize than say a Yousuf Karsh, an Ed Burtynsky or Michael Kenna, each of who have specific and oft-utilised approaches in photography, which are part of their force. I have little trouble seeing Fred's voice in his work, as it is a signature of his way with human subjects and their environment. I think that is a quality and typical of someone who has found his specific photographic theme, in this case related to human activity. Of course, his approach will likely also follow over into other types of image creation, but it is well-rooted in his interest in the human subject.</p>

<p>When I use colour it is often by default, where I cannot use black and white, although sometimes I use it for the chromatic expressiveness of colour (as the difference between a soloist and an orchestra). This is the opposite of many who shoot primarily in colour and occasionally transfer that into black and white. I don't like at all to work in that manner, as I feel it really requires a pre capture approach and sensitivity to one or the other media. In black and white, I often have an interest in the use of strong contrasts as they suit my voice in regard to certain subjects in which I enjoy questioning or exploring their less obvious or apparently minor features, the uncommon in the commonplace. I often believe that the truth and power of an image is in the details, and not in the overall scene. We are what we photograph, and vice versa I think. However, I admit to be still experimenting with different approaches and seeking what best comes naturally to me and that may not be conducive to others seeing a specific signature.</p>

<p>It is also a question of familiarity with the work. The more you see a Kenna or Burtynsky image, the more likely you are to recognize their signature and their identify upon viewing other images. In the days a decade ago when I often submitted to judged competitions, my fellow photographers, their wives or friends would often proclaim, quietly (as the competition of a couple hundred prints was presented with no reference to the photographer who produced each print) "that is a Plumpton" print that was appearing before the room. Other photographers could also be identified in a similar way. That may be more due to familiarity with the themes and approaches of fellow photographers.</p>

<p>In any case, believing that Antonio's OP is a valuable subject of discussion, any insight you may have about one or the other, or all of my PNet sub-portfolios would be of value to hear.</p>

[jtk]

<p>I've encouraged clicking on names to visit portfolios and comparing what we see to posts...specifically because they may qualify each other. The key word is "may." If someone loudly advocates an idea, maybe their photos support or conflict with that...or seem unrelated. If they claim deep and subtle perceptions, do their images reflect that? \</p>

<p> I went too far in my response to Antonio...I didn't think I was discussing his portfolio so much as responding to his OT (identity, categories etc) . I did make a point of not looking at his photos because I wanted to distance my response from critique. A mistake, IMO.</p>

<p>Although he, like all photographers, wants responses to his work, and not just to his hot air, believe he meant to explore ideas independent of his work (identity, categories, definition etc). I'll respond further to him via email or by commenting AT his portfolio.</p>

<p>There are already far too many pleas for attention to our images on this Forum....but <strong>I think EVERY PAGE should have a line of boilerplate reminding us to click on names and visit portfolios to see just who it is that's writing.</strong> That "who it is" piece has directly to do with Antonio's "identity" question in some way. </p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>I've encouraged clicking on names to visit portfolios and comparing what we see to posts...specifically because they may qualify each other. The key word is "may." If someone loudly advocates an idea, maybe their photos support or conflict with that...or seem unrelated. If they claim deep and subtle perceptions, do their images reflect that? \</p>

<p> I went too far in my response to Antonio...I didn't think I was discussing his portfolio so much as responding to his OT (identity, categories etc) . I did make a point of not looking at his photos because I wanted to distance my response from critique. A mistake, IMO.</p>

<p>Although he, like all photographers, wants responses to his work, and not just to his hot air, believe he meant to explore ideas independent of his work (identity, categories, definition etc). I'll respond further to him via email or by commenting AT his portfolio.</p>

<p>There are already far too many pleas for attention to our images on this Forum....</p>

<p>...however I think <strong>EVERY PAGE should have a line of boilerplate reminding us to click on names and review portfolios to see just who it is that's writing.</strong> That "who it is" piece has directly to do with Antonio's "identity" question in some way. </p>

<p> </p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>If this photo had been taken by a street photographer, it would be without doubt a street shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that is where you're wrong. People have always felt the need to categorize and let's be honest, it has its uses, for instance on a site like this. In the end however for the most part it's just semantics. Is someone who shoots birds a bird photographer, a wildlife photographer? I think not.<br>

On this site I'm known as a street photographer and although that works for me it's a bit one-dimensional because in the end I'm merely a photographer, period, as are all of us. All the rest is, as I already said, just semantics, or in some cases even pretense.</p>

<p>Adjectives like "signature" and "identity" can only refer to someones consistent way of working and/ or presenting his/her work that may be recognisable, that's all.</p>

<p>What's important here that no one of us is without bagage, both cultural and otherwise. Let me give an example. If you look at the work a few wellknown contemporary photographers like for instance Pierre and Gilles or for our American friends Joel-Peter Witkin it's not a far stretch of the imagination to conclude that their work is recognisable based on a very distinct style.<br>

However, as an avid student of photographic history I'm pretty familiar with the work of a lot of photographers that lived and worked in the last century and from some I've seen most, if not all of their published work. Suppose now that a until know unknown photo of let's say Andre Kertesz or for you on the other side of the pond Helen Levitt for instance would surface. Would I, would you be able to determin that it was a genuine photo from said photographer? Frankly I'm not so sure. Nor am I sure that it matters. So how much are adjectives like signature or identity really worth?</p>

<p>Categorisation correlates with content, as in what field someone is predominantly working but even there are problems. I for instance shoot a lot out on the streets all over Europe amongst them many portraits while I shoot and/or present most of them in black & white, so does that make me a streetphotographer, a portraitphotographer, a travel photographer or a black & white photographer. Even better yet, is it important? Of course not.</p>

<p>What is mostly recognisable in someones work is a consistent way of working and/or presenting (something that some people would refer to as style) and for the most part doesn't deal with content or context (although it could be argued of course that there are some notable exceptions like the Becher school: Bernd and Hilla Becher and their followers for instance).<br>

And in the end, what's more important to any viewer? Style or content? I would suggest the latter.<br>

Like I said, no one of us is devoid of bagage and adjectives like signature or identity seem to me for the most part merely to deal with projection (if not even pretense).<br>

Phylo I think said it best, <em>perceived</em> identity.</p>

<p>So:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If this photo had been taken by a street photographer, it would be without doubt a street shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it would be another photo yes but not because of what you stated but because some other photographer would have another personality, style and what not.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There's a lot to what Ton says.</p>

<p>I do frame this thread a little differently in one particular aspect, though. Signature, voice, identity, to me, are not there for the guessing game value. (Is this one his? Who's photograph is this?) They are there as a body of work may influence how I view an individual photo. So, for the purposes of this thread, it is a given that I know the photographer and some of his/her other works, which will affect how I see an one of that photographer's individual photos.</p>

<p>I also think we have to consider the potential downside to a signature, which is that one becomes predictable and boxed in by their own tastes.</p>

<p>I think the balance or counterpoint one achieves between recognizable strands of individualism and an individualism which also evolves is crucial. The best statement about identity is still that ancient one about the river that never ceases to change yet is always the same. Identity is, indeed, something fluid and has inherent contradictions.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, for me the question is not whether your photographs allow me to identify you. The question is whether your identity (I prefer voice) as a photographer allows me to see an individual photo differently because it is one of yours and resides in your body of work.</p>

<p>As you've noted, your portfolio is divided into folders according to theme, which may actually work against allowing access to this voice. The concentration on subject matter and thematics in each folder makes me more aware of that subject matter itself (as <em>category</em> rather than <em>individual</em>) than of the photographs as photographs or the expressions. I wonder if there are more dynamic and photographic (visual, sensual) combinations to be realized above and beyond the themes that you've identified by your groupings. My sense is that there would be more brought out in some of the photographs were they not juxtaposed in all cases as they are.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>[This has nothing to do with the post above. Just a comment in general]</p>

<p>What a shame it is that this unusual thread, with its wide-ranging implications, has been focused on a blunt-instrument literal interpretation of categories as analogs of physical boxes. Categories, conceptually speaking, are not walled, exclusive, hermetic compartments (as in the Titanic), but gradients of density around the nucleus of an idea or definition. Most of us realize that the truth will not be enslaved, that we grasp and break things down into the quanta of language for the convenience of transmission, just as we further break it down into letters, but "l-i-g-h-t" is not light, it only enables us to talk about it without resorting to mime.</p>

<p>Perhaps a way to address this is by example, not Fred's, or any other PN member's work, so we can skip the tensions, attention-seeking, and egoes. Let's choose an example of a photographer, a familiar stranger, who really went across categories. Did his identity cross over?</p>

<p>Here is Robert Frank the nomadic poet/beat-seer on the streets of John McCarthy's America...</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Robert+Frank+%2BThe+Americans&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=c0vVTJT1CIKBlAfu_4H9CA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQsAQwAA&biw=792&bih=396</p>

<p>Here is Robert Frank, hermit, innerspace nomad, poet/seer in Mabou, Nova Scotia...</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tate.org.uk/images/cms/12910w_frank_2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue2/sixreflectionsfrank.htm&h=323&w=222&sz=25&tbnid=vGC3JanpbIjPJM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=81&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRobert%2BFrank%2BMabou%2BPhotographs&zoom=1&q=Robert+Frank+Mabou+Photographs&hl=en&usg=__fDL_OPMMx_c9JrpG0ET7fW3D0WA=&sa=X&ei=0U7VTNL4DsO78gb_3fCJDA&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQ9QEwAg</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://web.ncf.ca/ek867/frank.mabou.jpg&imgrefurl=http://web.ncf.ca/ek867/2009_11_01-15_archives.html&h=398&w=320&sz=24&tbnid=82WqAAnGBWVUxM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=100&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRobert%2BFrank%2BMabou%2BPhotographs&zoom=1&q=Robert+Frank+Mabou+Photographs&hl=en&usg=__yrFg30PcidCS0iM1JEBH3ivyFwM=&sa=X&ei=0U7VTNL4DsO78gb_3fCJDA&sqi=2&ved=0CB8Q9QEwBA</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://collections.mocp.org/media/Frank_R/1993_4_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://collections.mocp.org/detail.php%3Ft%3Dpeople%26type%3Dall%26f%3D%26s%3Dken%26record%3D35&usg=__ew_FHYHvXPUv3M_n_gUutRPzYQs=&h=334&w=576&sz=58&hl=en&start=40&zoom=0&tbnid=_6iMeFDD-vnY6M:&tbnh=78&tbnw=134&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRobert%2BFrank%2BMabou%2BPhotographs%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D792%26bih%3D396%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C1496&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=180&vpy=111&dur=1508&hovh=78&hovw=134&tx=84&ty=60&ei=Z0_VTMu9GYbGlQfLvrX9CA&oei=TE_VTPW-LYP-8Ab85K2SCA&esq=4&page=6&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:40&biw=792&bih=396</p>

<p>http://www.pacemacgill.com/robertfrank.html</p>

[jtk]

<p>On reflection, I'll go ahead and respond to <strong>Arthur's suggestion</strong>. My earlier brief responses can be seen here <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2347092">http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2347092</a> but they now seem stranded, way off base, irrelevant... maybe he's shared a much more comprehensive body of work than back then (is that right Arthur?) . Certainly I was addressing his graphic design project, which related to a discussion we'd had about birch bark canoes (!). I think he'd also shared a few portraits. I don't recall. Maybe Arthur will help.</p>

<p><strong>It seems to me now </strong>that the images are the work of someone other than the person who posts here. They are concise, delicate, intentionally full of light (partially thanks to refined technique).</p>

<p>Categorization / labeling of Robert Frank's work "nomadic poet/beat-seer" "hermit, innerspace nomad" etc etc etc. demonstrates something that ought to be <strong>red-flagged</strong>: the secret goal of all "art" critics and scholars is to appropriate (steal) someone else's work (photographer's, musician's, painter's, or novelist's). Distortion is inevitable and even fully intentional. They want readers to see things the way they would, if they still saw. And, like Szarkowski, they typically hide any work of their own. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/arts/09szarkowski.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/arts/09szarkowski.html</a></p>

<p>The photographers among us have eyes and life-experience enough to form their own perceptions when viewing Frank's work . That's not to say biographical information and someone else's flights of ego are "wrong," it's just to say that they are someone else's.</p>

<p><strong>If there's a teen-age photographer here</strong>, she will see Frank's work from her own base of experience and that will be wildly different than the way an elder writer would insist upon. That teen won't be "wrong." Over the years she may come closer to the conventional academic (verbal) viewpoint, and that won't be more "correct". That earliest moment of her own less cluttered and very different insight is valuable enough to minimize photo scholarship. Better she should view the works by herself or with another real photographer, whether or not they have read McCarthy.</p>

<p>This, by either Martin Mull or Elvis Costello, regarding criticism: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."<br /><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/08/101108fa_fact_paumgarten">http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/08/101108fa_fact_paumgarten</a></p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Here's the New York McCarthy : <a href="http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/marymcc.htm">http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/marymcc.htm</a> <br>

Alternatively, there's the one from Minnesota, <a href="http://blog.timesunion.com/comics/we-have-met-the-enemy-and-he-is-us-pogo-possum-and-politics-in-the-funnies/94/">http://blog.timesunion.com/comics/we-have-met-the-enemy-and-he-is-us-pogo-possum-and-politics-in-the-funnies/94/</a></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, I want to add that I applaud you for being willing to experience the tension that goes along with showing and discussing your work. Your not shrinking from calling attention to yourself and your work and your ability to risk asserting your ego while also opening yourself up to having it bruised is admirable.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>JK-"</strong>And, like Szarkowski, they typically hide any work of their own. </p>

<p>Really? Mr. Szarkowski "typically hid" his work in four (4) published photo books, one of which made the NYT <em>bestseller list, no less.</em></p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Yes, "really." </strong> His fame (he was a promoter, everybody knew him) had to do with his NYC writing and non-photo employment, initially promoted on TV by Johnny Carson's predicessor. It didn't have to do with his photography, after his early big success. He avoided showing photography of his own and focused on people who could be made popular. His NY Times Best Seller was in 1958, a decade before he began to be popularly known as a critic. He reportedly continued as a photographer but his focus was promotion of other photographers, including some who were far inferior to him IMO (eg Mapplethorpe).<br>

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/arts/09szarkowski.html?pagewanted=2">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/arts/09szarkowski.html?pagewanted=2</a></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Thanks, John. Mr. Szarkowski was a man most of us would have given a lot to know as a person (and not because of his influence on careers). The comment he made that I find helpful in my own photography is:</p>

<p>"<em>it's not a matter of knowing what you mean and then thinking of a way to say it. It's a way of discovering in the process of trying to say something that you find what it is you mean." </em></p>

<p>I loved how he found it difficult to leave his Lake Superior home to go to NYC to accept his curatorial post. That sense of home is something I also feel very strongly about, even if it is a small island transcended by a much thinner body of water than his great lake. </p>

[jtk]

<p>I'd better apologize to the shade of Mr. Szarkowski...what the public mostly knew him for (NYC writer on photography etc) surely was not <strong>his own "identity"</strong> ...the inevitably shifting sense/s of identity he would have had for himself, as the clock ticked, years came and went, in sickness and in health, etc, amen. I'll bet he sometimes thought of himself as a photographer, reluctant or eager party-goer, in-need-of shave, teacher, anxious-guy-waiting-for a taxi etc.</p>

<p>We can have no idea who he thought he was, even if he made a claim: the whole idea of "identity" is bizarre: "identity" assumes a singular someone actually exists (like an image?). Your driver's license number is your identity? You're the same person when you were posting here this morning as when you were dreaming? Socializing last night? Talking to the traffic cop or grocer or taking a quiet walk in the woods?</p>

<p>I think that if we concern ourselves too much with our "identity" we may <strong>cut off avenues of exploration</strong>. Our values, sense of right and wrong, recollection of our lives, "hopes and fears"...maybe those are the relatively hard-wired essences of identity, rather than whatever we're doing photographically? Maybe we'd have more fun as bus drivers or homeless wanderers?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I don't see much difference between talking about Brad's commitment (the thread John started that was moved) or his photographic identity. The point Antonio was making was that he saw something in my work that affected how he saw a particular photograph. Had he called that "commitment" (which might very well have been a better word to use, I tend to agree with John on that) we might have saved a lot of time and energy being wasted (a value judgment on my part) on choice of words instead of actually looking at photographs and wondering if there was something to Antonio's point about a body of work changing a particular photograph. Honestly, I think doing what Antonio wanted to do is much more difficult and much more of a challenge than continuing on about identity. Whether or not identity is a valid concept is an abstract point, a definitional distraction. It is not photographic. The photographic questions are harder. To be approached, they require looking. Discussing identity does not.</p>

<p>Why does it seem so difficult to maintain or even begin a discussion on photography or on photographs?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Speaking of which, Arthur, did you have any thoughts on my observations about your portfolio and the presentation's effect on the individuals?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>Indeed, we seem to be communicating without the need to write. I was just thinking about that and your next to last post when you posted your most recent note. Thanks.</p>

<p>Rather than reformulate my note, here it is, in that respect and in regard to related questions (I am hurrying to get out to visit the "From El Greco to Dali" Spanish art exhibition at our local museum (and it also looks like a nice day for some town photography).</p>

<p>"We can only photograph who we are, and see what we're ready to see" (Luis, page 1 of this thread)</p>

<p>Fred, I think that this comment of Luis is appropriate to Antonio's OP, to the way we see each other's work, and also to your recent question regarding the difficulty of beginning and maintaining a discussion on photography and photographs.</p>

<p>Once we are familiar with the approach of someone that can help (through his or her body of work as well as individual images) seeing what is in the work. It also applies to our complicity or not with the views of others. A single post may prove refractory to our way of thinking or to our ability to understand the thoughts of the writer. Hence, the discussion is often non-linear in its progress of idea development (although it doesn't have to be linear in how the idea is discussed). What we're ready to see or hear is also related to how we are or express ourselves. I admit that, although I am visually sensitive to much which is going on in an image (for me), as for the orange in the background of one of your portraits or the double hand on the meter in the photo mentioned by Antonio, I am often unwilling to attempt to penetrate the subjective and unfamiliar writing styles of some contributors adept at philosophic discussions or the analysis of words. These are important, but I prefer the use of simpler and more concise communication. Less is often more.</p>

<p>One of the barriers to forming an opinion of or even simply being intuitively affected by an image or body of images of another is that evil of classification that the photographer places on the images regrouped in his body of work (as the titles of folders). You noted this in looking at some of my portfolio images and wondered if they might not have different regroupings? Possibly, but any grouping I find difficult in that it tends to impose an inescapable perceived value for the viewer, before he or she has even started to view specific images. I had a look at your portfolio and find a similar transmission of idea or statement, before I have looked at the folder images.</p>

<p>I believe (and should begin practicing) the advantage of not categorizing folders by name or the photos by title (other than some simple descriptor, such as place, or time. or simple physically evident title (such as "bridge")), although even these can present roadblocks (or perhaps "detours" is better) to perception by the viewer. As you said, by the nature of classification of my images, you are prevented to some degree from exploring further the nature of the photographs themselves and commenting on them. The classification has become a roadblock to personal perception of images and what they, rather than the folder or image, are communicating (which requires a deeper reflection, which in fact you have done previously with some of my images, and very perceptively so). It is difficult sometimes to go beyond those titles if we are too conscious of them and obviously it does prevent further viewing, in a sense analogous to the difficulty you have mentioned in regard to discussing photographs. I have no easy answer, except perhaps to prefer untitled images and folders when viewing (in the case of viewing, as opposed to the question of forum discussions on photography).</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, I'm thinking that any means of presentation (including grouping) imposes on the viewer -- or not -- to a similar extent that each photo imposes -- or not -- on the viewer. One must present. There are no vacuums in which photos can be seen. So we kind of have to choose (I suppose we could throw up our photos completely randomly), not necessarily with an eye toward influencing the viewer or even caring about the viewer but without fear of doing so if that has to be. You don't seem to hold back from making photographs for fear of influencing potential viewers, so I'm curious why the concern about influence when it comes to presentation? I also have a lot of hesitation when it comes to grouping my work and even ordering photos for slideshows or the positions within folders. For me, it doesn't seem to be the influence factor but rather that my eye for a bigger picture is still developing. I definitely was not referring to your titles, as I didn't even notice them and usually don't think to look at titles.</p>

<p>By the way, I often find myself having photographed what I wasn't yet ready to see . . . and get a nice surprise. And sometimes I think I actually become what I photograph rather than photograph what I am. My photographs can change me.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p><em>"My sense is that there would be more brought out in some of the photographs were they not juxtaposed in all cases as they are."</em> (Fred, Nov. 06 AM)</p>

<p>Fred, I agree, and that is why I talked about the "masking" or "obfuscation" effects of a chosen grouping, as opposed to the free viewing without an imposed classification (by a folder title). As you were talking about my thematic groupings themselves, rather than the photographs, which you didn't discuss specifically (in relation to the OP), I felt it important to question the idea of titled groupings, unless we choose very general titles. For instance, your theme of "idolatry" may not be the way that the viewer will see those images at all (I haven't, although I may need to look at them a bit more, or in the context of your overall work), but it can influence their perception by the viewer, I think sometimes unduly, and the personal reaction of the viewer.</p>

<p>It is the image or series of images that are important. In looking at the Spanish paintings today I avoided the printed text and audio commentaries until I had assimilated what I perceived in, or thought about, the images. This I found most useful, as it relates to my uninfluenced reaction. The audio or text then added to the appreciation of the image, or changed it. Some of the paintings and sculptures were categorized into pre-Raphaelite or Surrealist modes or blue period, amongst others, although these groupings I considered less of a roadblock to my interpretation or perception, as they are well-known and general art classifications.</p>

<p>I do enjoy looking at images and seeking some specific or common qualities among them, in the absence of any pre-conditioning. It is fruitful I think to approach a portfolio on that basis as well. We arrive more easily at our own ideas of the approach or quality of an image. If someone sees something in my images that I don’t, I take that as positive feedback, whether or not I agree or not with the assessment. Classification can come later, if at all.</p>

<p>I agree with your last sentence, which adds to my confidence in the observation (quote) of the former MOMA photography curator, mentioned in an earlier post.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>John K. - "</strong>I'd better apologize to the shade of Mr. Szarkowski.."</p>

<p>After calling him a McCarthy, you well should.</p>

<p><strong>JK- "</strong>the whole idea of "identity" is bizarre"</p>

<p>Why? How do we tell one person from another? Somehow we can tell. Ok, most of us can, maybe John K cannot. Can you tell your own car in a parking lot? Between two identical year and color ones? Saturn knew his own children, and not just by taste.</p>

<p>Why is the idea of "a condition of being a specified person or thing" so bizarre? or 2nd meaning: "Individuality. Personality". I doubt even Fred would disagree with that.</p>

<p>Those with associative disorders do have problems with these things.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Identity has to do with individuality and, as I said above, change and fluidity. The river thingy.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>In passing, and although not germane to this discussion, in the several dictionaries I checked, identity also extends to objects. Glad to see Fred in agreement, it's been a while. :-)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, when I title a photo or a folder, it is giving it a stamp of sorts and I consider it a loose suggestion. I generally choose titles that I find pretty open-ended. Idolatry, I think, especially considering the photos that are in there, can go off in many directions. Whether or not that's influence and whether or not it's undue is really not my concern. I think of it as another way of committing to the work. If I ever felt that I was using a title as a substitute or a running away from having made a commitment in the photo itself, I'd have to work that out. At present, I don't feel that way about my titles. I use them as larks. I'm much more thoughtful and intentional about my groupings and pairings (which I try to change with some frequency) than my titles.</p>