Photographic Statement and Purpose

[jtk]

<p>Dan South sees things from a photographer's perspective. That's different than a writer's perspective. The twain may meet, or they may not. </p>

<p><em>Statements can become the tail that wags the dog.</em> The word array can overpower comprehension, as with the neurotic habit of thinking in words.</p>

<p><strong>"A guy gets a new dog</strong>, a nice Jewish dog. He names the dog Einstein and trains Einstein to do a couple of tricks. He can't wait to show Einstein off to his neighbor. The neighbor visits, the guy calls Einstein into the house, bragging about how smart he is.<br>

<br />The dog comes running and stands looking up at his master, tail wagging excitedly, mouth open, tongue hanging out, eyes bright with anticipation.</p>

<p>The guy points to the newspaper on the couch and commands “Fetch!”Immediately, the dog climbs onto the couch and sits, his tail wagging furiously. Then all of a sudden, he stops. His doggie smile disappears. He starts to frown and puts on a sour face. Looking up at his master, he whines, “You think this is easy, wagging my tail all the time? Oy vey ... And you think it's easy eating that junk that you call designer dog food? Forget it ... it's too salty and it gives me gas!”<br>

<br /><br />The neighbor is amazed. “I can't believe it. Einstein actually talks. You asked him to fetch the newspaper and he is sitting on the sofa talking to us.”<br>

<br /><br />“I know, I know,” says the dog owner. “He's not yet fully trained. He thought I said kvetch.”</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Dan, I used to think a lot like what you describe in the last part of your entry (I agree with the first part about individual or technical descriptions), that photos should speak for themselves. But then I started to learn a lot more about art and photography and the concerns people explore and I realized that I just wasn't probably as smart as I had thought I was all those years. Photography and art isn't always about just what someone makes visible. Maybe, with the right background, one can elicit what the person is doing just from having seen a lot of the work, but then most of us don't have the specific background for all the work we see. Many times, even if we see a piece in person, that is all we see is one piece and don't get a sense of what the person is concerned with in their work--and discount it because it doesn't entertain us on its own--out of context. Also, seeing work on-line or in books isn't the same as seeing work in person. I had someone remark regarding a photographer's work that as soon as he saw it, it just looked like a snapshot. I asked if he saw it in person as I don't think that snapshot would have been my first reaction to a photograph that was 6x8 feet.</p>

<p>My point really is that for work to be truly understood and appreciated one needs to have context. That context means seeing the work of a person, not just one image; seeing the work in person so that size and presentation can be appreciated, a Thomas Struth portrait at 5x7 feet is going to read different than on screen at 4x5 inches and then having some idea of the concerns that were behind the image making. Having this type of context allows us to grow our visual understanding of things and the work become more appreciated visually. Without this, sometimes things might just look like a snapshot, our shame not the artists.</p>

<p>This all isn't to say that people can't use words to polish a turd, but many times that isn't what they are doing and it is our own lack of understanding--or ability/willingness to at the time-- that precludes us from seeing or understanding what has been done (I just have gotten more used to allowing that I have my limitations and can grow and it isn't always easy)--and then sometimes it is just our lack of interest in what they are doing.</p>

<p>With the proliferation of photography and the ability to see what others are doing, I appreciate it when there is a statement provided that allows me an insight into what they were exploring. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't, sometimes I find it interesting and sometimes I don't. I prefer to have something to orient me--althought there is certainly a lot of work that doesn't need such introductions but I find it generally a bit less interesting overall.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p><em>"Chris, thanks for talking about discovery. (cont ...) Do you have a sense that that sum, that emergence you discover in your photos after the fact, then gets put back into your future work, whether deliberately or more casually (not so consciously)? So is there any kind of back and forth motion to the process?"</em><br />Fred,<br />Thanks for developing that thought. And yes, indeed, what emerges from consideration of a photograph, or photographs, informs future work, sometimes consciously but perhaps more often unconsciously as the idea is assimilated into my general approach to photography. It is indeed a reciprocal relationship, albeit one which I would describe as asymptotic - always approaching but never reaching. The English painter, Robert Lenckiewicz, spoke of his work as 'an exploration' and I am very much in accord with that idea. One always seeks the definitive photograph, the Platonic Ideal, while accepting the inevitable ultimate dissatisfaction.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Yes, an evolution and exploration, but always in the present...as that's all there ever is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The different styles I have been using in my art must not be seen as an evolution, or as steps towards an unknown ideal of painting. Everything I have ever made was made for the present and with the hope that it would always remain in the present - Picasso</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Remaining in the present</em>, that's an ideal too of course.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"This all isn't to say that people can't use words to polish a turd, but many times that isn't what they are doing and it is our own lack of understanding--or ability/willingness to at the time-- that precludes us from seeing or understanding what has been done"</p>

<p>Hmm, but a great photograph has always stood on its own,and always will. Perhaps the lesser works need the the polishing to help us understand a "something" about them.</p>

[jtk]

<p>I think the yearning for "context" is better provided by series or body of work than by written material. </p>

<p>And if the "artist" is confident in her work she will provide it rather than explaining it. If she's not confident she has the option to take the risk of generous sharing (let others evaluate) or of hiding out and not sharing. IMO the reward is in the risk.</p>

<p>Granted, dumbing down of difficult ideas is ever-popular (that's why theologians natter away, trying to revison the Bible et al. But since when was it important to think of individual photographs as worthy, outside of the context of the photographer's body of work or series? </p>

<p>Quoting Picasso is always fun, but he didn't do his great work in writing. He was a painter, sculptor, genius and con man. The written stuff was for the rubes.</p>

 

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>I <em>just knew</em> John was going to sniff at the Picasso quote.<br>

Yes yes yes, we all know he was a painter, but it would have taken me rather long to make a painting about what he was saying and how he was saying it and how I thought that related to the context of this thread, than to write something and provide a quote . You see, here in this forum we're using words to communicate on all things photography and beyond.<br>

Maybe the context of a <em>No Words</em> forum serves you better John.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Chris, I, too, experience that sort of <em>striving</em> you refer to, though I'm not big on Platonic Ideals. Rather than see this as laced with dissatisfaction, I just kind of experience it for what it is. However, I understand the role of doubt and questioning and maybe that's what you mean by dissatisfaction.</p>

<p>I was just talking to a friend yesterday about how some music is more of an era and maybe doesn't need or strive to translate beyond the moment. Other music tends to be more universal. The examples we came up with were the Grateful Dead (more localized in terms of the 60s and the following couple of decades, steeped in the times, dependent on the particular mood) and the Beatles (more timeless, universal, certainly steeped in the times but also going well beyond just that . . . in touch with history, past and future). Simple things like clothes in photographs can make a big difference as to whether they seem timeless or not.</p>

<p>I often find myself thinking small: what I'm directly in contact with. There are things I can do photographically to make those photographs more universal in their reach, but they often start off more directly, perhaps intimately. For me, too much desire for universality would likely lead to a kind of dissatisfaction and missed opportunity. When I get too grand, I tend to miss what's right in front of me. And what's right in front of me may be so human (finite and imperfect, not Ideal) that if I'm really in touch with it, the photo that results can transcend that particular experience and make a more universal statement.</p>

<p>I try to be in touch with my work as a whole and, though I put a lot into each photograph and value them each individually, I'm very mindful of trajectories and arcs that occur over time. </p>

[john_a5]

<p>What is a great photograph? Is it a <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/jeffwall/image/work/morning_cleaning.jpg&imgrefurl=http://geargab.kingwho.com/%3Fp%3D260&usg=__bY-LU96o5dqxdN8ECrF6tBj7T_o=&h=370&w=678&sz=69&hl=en&start=27&sig2=SeWZddk2TIu09lK8GzPgTQ&zoom=1&tbnid=39JYUI1Uy4rAXM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=196&ei=lh3cTYOADdKUtwfUksGxDw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Djeff%2BWall%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DXMK%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1608%26bih%3D855%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Divnso0%2C988&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=499&vpy=422&dur=577&hovh=119&hovw=218&tx=126&ty=75&sqi=2&page=2&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:21,s:27&biw=1608&bih=855">Jeff Wall</a>, a <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://lh5.ggpht.com/_APKOvTNZmuI/RtkmQJGPZRI/AAAAAAAACMU/oceOmJlVcU8/cindy%2520sherman%2520%2846%29.jpg&imgrefurl=http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/tKQJFlJJo5XTnZ-NpvJTlg&usg=__hX1yydiS11YGU0HD2108XswodBI=&h=869&w=1600&sz=288&hl=en&start=36&sig2=LtceN571hVH3GHcSG_PdYw&zoom=1&tbnid=LGmG7EZtlqF7SM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=189&ei=KB3cTfDYNM-ftgfM9o3FDw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcindy%2Bsherman%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DNfz%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1608%26bih%3D855%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Divnso0%2C553&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=713&vpy=503&dur=23&hovh=165&hovw=305&tx=193&ty=72&sqi=2&page=2&ndsp=34&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:36&biw=1608&bih=855">Cindy Sherman</a>, or maybe a <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2001/gursky/images/99cent_pop.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2001/gursky/99cent_pop.html&h=351&w=650&sz=236&tbnid=pRTY93cJihWB_M:&tbnh=74&tbnw=137&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dandreas%2Bgursky%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=andreas+gursky&usg=__ZTEKkwaMl6Wne5l93r-ZB9NoCGI=&sa=X&ei=0h3cTevtAcq9tgf33c3ODw&ved=0CCkQ9QEwAw&biw=1608&bih=855">Gursky</a>? Or is it Adams or Weston? Or maybe they all are?</p>

<p>There is a sense I get sometimes on these photosharing sites that people tend to think that being able to see is all there is to appreciating art, especially photographs. With most of the work that is posted that is certainly the case and I guess that conditions one to think that that is all there is to it. We can sometimes get lulled into believe art is only referential and an entertainment. In reality, art isn't that simple or that easy--thankfully. What we see is many times the expression of an investigation of a concept or idea. Without either personal synchronicity to those ideas or some external insight into the ideas being explored, one can only guess and likely misread what the image is, or images are, about. At times, we might get it, or we might kind of get it and at other times we might think we get it--or certainly many times not get it at all. Fred's description of his work way up above adds to how one might look at the work without his words. No, that wasn't his point, but writing those words gives more insight into the work than just guessing at what might be intended. The words add to the images, not detract.</p>

<p>Certainly, in the end the image might need to "stand on its own", but that might be the product of learning what an image is about. What an image is about could be outside our current awareness and we might need to allow for that when we first see a work.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, nice points. I do think that accompanying statements can add greatly. In the case of what I said above, frankly, I don't know how much it would add to the viewers' experience of my photos. If it did add some texture for you, I would certainly understand and appreciate that, just as many statements I hear add something of value. I imagine many people wouldn't be interested in what I had to say but would still get a lot out of the photos. I'm not sure how easily "misread" my photos could be. I'm pretty accepting of a wide range of readings, and love hearing the variety of ways people see my work. Nevertheless, I do know that my articulating the things I said, to myself, and thinking about ways to communicate, convey, and show these things help make my work coherent and helps me to keep exploring what I want and may help the work have an impact, regardless of what that impact is for each person. This thoughtful articulation, for me, seems to go hand in hand with a kind of physical (of the senses) presence as well. And, whatever I articulate to myself is, hopefully, joined by some amount of spontaneity and surprise.</p>

<p>I also remember that there are different types of photos. Documentary work can be different from work intended to tell fictions (or part fiction) which can be different from photos of flowers and insects. Photos of flowers, for example, don't often seem to have much "statement" associated with them, however I have certainly run across some that do. I think the statement made by various kinds of photographs are very different, and some are likely much more able to be verbalized than others.</p>

<p>Again, I know a lot of fine photographers who haven't really made coherent photographic statements. Their photos are more like bursts of impulse and thought, but less connected to each other narratively, though some are very connected visually and in terms of the kind of emotional effect they have on me.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Phylo, I don't think you understand the difference between words and images. It's certainly possible to talk about images and to write parallel pieces related to them, but the confusion of ideas with words results in circumlocution, as around "statement." <br>

"Statement" is only a word. Used in a sentence it can help approximate an idea. Try it, you might like it. </p>

<p>I "sniffed at" your alleged Picasso translation because you used it rather than personally coming to grips with an idea, and because Picasso was well known for invention of comments that gave the answers his fanboys and fangirls wanted. IMO it'd be better if you expressed your own ideas, rather than larding sentences up with dubious quotations.</p>

 

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you have a photographic statement to make? Have you done so in your work overall or in some specific photo or photos? How has that come together for you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, Fred, I'll take a crack as summarizing my "photographic purpose," i.e. the "mission statement" that I've never bothered to commit to paper.</p>

<p>My photographic mission is -</p>

<p>- To make images that please my own eyes.</p>

<p>- To enjoy the process of making photographs.</p>

<p>- To be competent at making images in a variety of settings and genres.</p>

<p>- To be skilled enough to make competent photographs regardless of my surroundings or the quality of the available light.</p>

<p>- To create images that stir some emotion, memory, or sensibility in others: a recollection, a sense of wonder or surprise, pride in a well-crafted portrait or "action shot," a sense of place, etc.</p>

<p>- To be able to convey through a photograph what it was like to be in a particular place at a particular time, or the essence of what it was like to have a particular experience.</p>

<p>- To improve my skills and my understanding of the medium a little bit every year.</p>

<p>- To get a chuckle out of the viewer once in a while.</p>

<p>These objectives above apply to my photographs in general, not just selected images or collections. I would like to have a more voluminous catalog of images, but so far, so good on reaching the listed objectives.</p>

 

[inoneeye]

<p>Fred ... "Many photographers aren't message oriented and can't, won't, or don't want to translate their work into a coherent and specific statement or can't, won't, or don't want to state a particular purpose. Many do. I do. One photographer told me today that he wishes he had gone in a photographic direction of "giving something back" in addition to creating photographs for their own sake."</p>

<p>giving something <em>back</em> strikes a chord for me. Until recently I have not presented or pursued a message or question beyond a single image maybe a video or sometimes a loosely wrapped short series... but not an extended series or body of work that was bound by A message(s). I have admired those who do. But it was not a fit for me for my character as a person and a photographer. I have always been driven to look around the next corner and found it stifling to focus on a statement goal.<br /> Me. self reflection (that comes easy for me) ... no statement or message for others but just for me. selfish, i think so. I think i confused being true to myself with a even greater goal - 'give something back'. As i look back through 36 years of photography I fail to find a 'noble' bound statement... with regret.<br /> Taking a stand and remaining focused is admirable imo. but it's not me. There was a time when I photographed homelessness from the perspective/ experience of having been homeless. I couldn't stay focused long enough to create a statement. I spurt out my work and move on. Often i revisit familiar subjects but often with a different take or message even a different style. I am a reactive photographer and person. But i greatly admire well conceived & presented proactive works. I wish had found a way to be more proactive in my photography.</p>

<p>I admire your current (and timely) photographic statement Fred. It has been a pleasure to watch it develop. And Phylo you are one hell of an editor in the making. The significance of good editing is enormous to making statements.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Josh, knowing your work as well as I do (and I know you've withdrawn it from PN), I get what you're saying but at the same time think you are giving something back. No, it's not the same as the kind of documentary work or educational work or political activism or social encouragement that others are doing . . . and there is something to be said for that. But you are giving of yourself to this world, honestly and genuinely. That's not something often done by folks. Art (and I do consider your photos unabashedly to be art) gives back by its very nature. It enriches our lives. I figure we each do what we can . . . though we can change . . . at any age. So you may be heading for a change. Who knows? You've certainly given a lot to me over the years with your vision through your photos and your encouragement of my own work. Your photos don't necessarily provide the kind of "comfort" or pleasantry that the general public seems to want, but it does provide a reality check and a gut check. That's something that can have a profound effect on people . . . even if they'd prefer to avoid it a lot of the time.</p>

<p>Your photos don't seem to be made for the sake of skill or even for the sake of making good photos. I ran up against that recently. I had a shoot a week or so ago where I got some shots with a lot of potential but all of them looked like attempts at making a certain type of photo. I wasn't strictly in tune with my subject and they look like I was more concerned with photography than expression. Maybe I just didn't let go enough. (?) I rarely get the sense you allow yourself that position. That may be your very statement.* I don't get the sense that photography is so much your goal as it is your means. That actually shows in your work.</p>

<p>________________________</p>

<p>*Though I did mean, and I think you do understand, that I was asking about the more specific kinds of photographic statements (thread-like) that you allude to in your post and that I've been talking about throughout.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>. " In reality, art isn't that simple or that easy--thankfully. What we see is many times the expression of an investigation of a concept or idea. Without either personal synchronicity to those ideas or some external insight into the ideas being explored, one can only guess and likely misread what the image is, or images are, about"</p>

<p>Photography is a visual statement where the viewer uses their own imagination, perceptions. To replace that with anothers vision and concepts takes away their own imagination and replaces it with something else. A bit like showing someone how to view by painting with numbers.</p>

<p>A good photograph stands alone and is more than capable of exciting an individuals thinking and imagination. </p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Allen, while a good photograph ( who's to define ? ) can stand alone, the question is why should a good photograph <em>have</em> to stand alone ? A rather archaic rule. And I think the viewer never uses their own imagination. That would reduce the photographer to "photograph". And a provided context by the photographer or critic ( read John Szarkowski's accompanying text with Atget photographs in <em>Atget </em>for example ) can be seen as not a replacement but as a great addition to the viewer's understanding and imagination and to the photographic fact or image in the photograph.<br>

Many photographers also view the photobook as the endpoint, or highest point of their ' statement', rather than the single framed image hanging on a wall, grouped or alone.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Josh, remembering many of your photographs here, I too think - like Fred - that you did present a message within them, an undercurrent. And afterall, we all photograph / present / contextualise and view from out of our own reality tunnels.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Sometimes I make statements, sometimes not.</p>

<p>I definitely have a purpose. And this purpose has definitely become more focused over time.</p>

<p>I have always photographed people, in the beginning for the purpose to record, now for the purpose to document.</p>

<p>Having a purpose I think is one of my great achievements of the last years, even if I have been photographing since I was 14 years old. Within my purposes there might be making a statement.</p>

<p>Two conditions need to come true:</p>

<ul>

<li> I have to pre-visualise the statement</li>

<li>I need to be sufficiently capable to make that statement.</li>

</ul>

<p>As it stands now, the statements I aim at and are mostly bound to edited series of images. My capability of making statements is very much dependent on my "planning" ability. I need to have a statement upfront and then seek for images which are capable of making the statement I have in mind.</p>

<p>Apparently, I'm developing this awareness now, I need to conceive the statement for myself upfront - well before I start to photograph - and then look for the situations, scenes, compositions and colours which make this statement real.</p>

<p>As an example, at a certain point in time I started to observe elderly people, to consider them in their essence. This was just about after the death of my parents. I started considering their "evolution" over time, thinking of their past and their future.</p>

<p>Until then I had considered them "instantly" and not in "evolutionary" terms.</p>

<p>Upon these reflections I considered the elderly people in a different way. Thinking of how they established relationships with their surroundings and fellow humans. And I started to photograph them.</p>

<p>This just to say that my eventual photographic statements on elderly people where the outcome of a different view and feeling of what was happening around me and that these statements were conceived outside image making.</p>

<p>This in respect to making statements.</p>

<p>Then there is the issue about how my statements are received, provided that they are received at all.</p>

<p>Of course this is an extremely nuanced question, but in the end it is related to the actual correspondence with my feelings and statements in making the statement and the feeling and receptiveness of the viewer.</p>

<p>I know how to strike the right emotional "chords" of people in my close circle, as John A had once named it. There are some strong, nearly universal, messages which strike the sensorial and emotional chords of the majority of viewers.</p>

<p>But it is not always easy to conceive these messages.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luca, thanks. You arrived late but added such a nice personal and real touch. The statement you are setting out to make with your photographs is very nicely articulated (and I'm so grateful for your specificity) and I think it will help you to establish the kind of coherent photos you want to make. Yes, I agree that thinking about it can be an important part of the planning. Planning can be vital for some kinds of photos. Realizing something often requires a plan from which to realize. Of course, it doesn't have to.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There are some strong, nearly universal, messages which strike the sensorial and emotional chords of the majority of viewers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I very much agree with this. As you recognize, that's not to say that all viewers will react exactly the same and won't bring their own "stuff" to bear on your photos, but communication does take place and that's because of many shared understandings . . . which can be visual.</p>

<p>Your Elderly People folder shows your willingness to see these folks as engaged and a part of something . . . rather than isolating them in order to gawk at them, which I see as the down side to a lot of photographs of both older and homeless people. It is respectful and seems to show moments of life, their life, not your simply observing them, for example, as curiosities. Your honesty with this work is genuine and not self conscious. From champagne and smiles to a mere drop in the letter box to the criss-crossing of hand gestures and walks on the street, it is textured, not just passively observed.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Fred</strong>,</p>

<p>thank you for your words on my Elderly People folder.</p>

<p>I have a basic difficulty when I pursue my photography, and my statements: I am certain that without asking I take something away of the people I photograph, even if they are not aware of it. Because in a certain way I take control of a certain "slice" of their being. I put my subjects into a certain framework and I definitely manipulate them. And this is outside their control. In the case of elderly people it's even stronger, because many are weak.</p>

<p>When I photograph somebody, in a way I oblige them, whether they are conscious or not, to entrust me their image without knowing me or what I am going to do with my capture.</p>

<p>And a person's image is important.</p>

<p>That's why I need to be engaged in the scenes I photograph, I need to be inside them, it's some sort of moral obligation I feel. And this is often a struggle with myself to frame and press the shutter. I now use mainly wide-angles, which force me to enter the scene and to engage myself directly.</p>

<p>Coping with my feeling to "steal".</p>

<p>The only things I can do is to get over myself and - differently from you, who establishes relationships before starting to photograph - try to establish some sort of reassuring relationship after I pressed the shutter.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luca, considering the ethics and effects of what you're doing has the potential to increase its depth. Some would caution you to just shoot and not second-guess yourself, or that you might be getting in your own way by over-thinking. I'm not one of them. What can happen with the kind of thoughtfulness we might put into this pursuit is that, if we are uncomfortable with something, first we can be aware of it and perhaps use it in deepening our photographs. Second, we might actually evolve and change as we assess what we're doing and we will still be on a search and a journey, but we will seek considered paths and solutions.</p>

<p>Like you, I also feel a responsibility in terms of how I portray someone. It does get in my way sometime. That's OK. I then learn something and usually work through it. I don't feel as though I am taking something away from anyone, honestly, unless I do exploit them. (I do respect that you feel that way and think, over time, you will work that out.) Often, I find myself giving to someone I photograph. Even though they are right there with me when I shoot them, they're often surprised by what I see and come up with. I've had several of my subjects express wonderment and enlightenment about that. It seems I can provide them with glimpses into themselves that they hadn't quite considered before. Also, on a much more simple level, people like to see themselves as the star in a good photo, even if it is no great revelation to them. Nothing wrong with that!</p>

<p>I think your idea of establishing a relationship after the shutter is pressed is a great one to pursue, whether that means ever talking to your subjects or not. How you view your subjects when you view your photos, <em>the relationship you build to your own work</em> (and that's very much part of the kind of "statement" some of us are talking about here) will have a profound effect on your future work, and therefore on the photographic statement you are making.</p>

[john_a5]

<blockquote>

<p>Photography is a visual statement where the viewer uses their own imagination, perceptions. To replace that with anothers vision and concepts takes away their own imagination and replaces it with something else.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If we approach any art this way, then we are only getting a piece of what can be appreciated--or maybe miss it altogether. Japanese is a written language yet I doubt that most of us could look at a poem written in it and appreciate if what we saw was good or bad. We would need to learn the language or have it translated. Why do we think we can relate to a visual just because we see it. Certainly, we can appreciate many things on such a superficial basis and as such it might even strike us deeply--a Japanese scroll might be aesthetically pleasing as well even though we don't understand it--but be glorious once we understand it. </p>

<p>Everyone has their way of approaching work, I just think it is more rewarding to sometimes discover a better way of looking at something than just what I understand today. If I don't get an artists work by just looking, then I want to investigate it and get a more educated appreciation of what they are doing. I may decide I love it or that it still doesn't ring my bell, but at least I know that by looking deeper, I have grown in the process. Some work that I haven't responded to initially, or even over time, has become more special to me because I kept learning more about it as I grew. There are also times I think I do get the work on my own and yet when I find out more about it, its context, I find that my own appreciation grows--sometimes I even learn that my own thoughts were not on target with the reason it was made and thus find there were two ways to enjoy it, which makes it all the more special.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Yes, yes, incredibly late to join the party. I read through the thread with interest, and must say that the personal approaches of people are the most interesting to read. The words do add to their photos (as far as I can see them here), in the sense that it helps seeing the outlines of a 'body of work' (to paraphrase a much older thread).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you make statements and have a purpose with regard to your photographs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I think I don't, for both questions. If there is a purpose, it's a journey inwards for myself. I like being behind the viewfinder, observing and being alone there with the piece of world I am framing. It's between me and me, and what comes out of it seems to have the purpose to isolate that piece of world as it struck my attention. In this isolation, I notice I am/become much more receptive.<br>

Statements, hmmmm.... maybe what I share here? I do try, however, to let my photos just be what they are to whoever views them. On my p.net photos I do use titles, but I actually do not like that already too much. See in them what you want to see. If people find a deeper meaning, a protest statement, an outcry or whatever in my photos, great. I doubt whether I put it in there, but I do not feel a need to dictate the value to others. And vice versa (which happens far more often), people see nothing on photos I do value myself.<br>

Arguably, the lack of statement and purpose shining through to a viewer is my shortcoming, but well, still plenty to learn.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Allen, while a good photograph ( who's to define ? ) can stand alone, the question is why should a good photograph <em>have</em> to stand alone ? A rather archaic rule."</p>

<p>I think we can all define what a good photograph is just by looking at it.. Why should it stand alone,why not? if you like to window dress is,why not. Better to window dress it, a bit of spit and polish, rather than being thought of as Archaic...perish the thought;)</p>

<p>"And I think the viewer never uses their own imagination"</p>

<p>We are an imaginative species we cannot help but use our imagination.</p>

<p>One point i would concede is that a body of work with some discourse analysis could be helpful particulary for the Arty type of photography.</p>

<p>"photobook as the endpoint, or highest point of their ' statement', rather than the single framed image hanging on a wall, grouped or alone."</p>

<p>Most photographers are known for a small number of great photographs the rest follow along..with some polishing. The statement is always going to be the photograph no matter how many words you wrap around it.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>"And I think the viewer never uses their own imagination"<br /> <br /> We are an imaginative species we cannot help but use our imagination.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I meant was that the viewer never uses their own imagination only, but also that of the photograph, the photographer who made it, and the context the photograph is placed and/or viewed in.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most photographers are known for a small number of great photographs the rest follow along..with some polishing. The statement is always going to be the photograph no matter how many words you wrap around it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps. There are also artists who "simply" use photography to make a statement with. I'm not talking about whether or not photographers ( or photography ) are or can be artists, but artists in the most straightforward meaning of the word, who use photography to make their statements with, rather than making photographs as single statement(s).<br /> And then there are photographers who are some sort of blend between those two.</p>