In the end the appreciation of photography is completely subjective

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"photography is completely subjective"</p>

<p>Lets be a little bit practical. Simple.</p>

<p>Some photos are are generic they appeal to all and are not particulary subject to individual tastes.</p>

<p>The photo I posted is ( a posed street photo) is a photograph of a smiling young lady which to my mind is open to to any viewer... and not particulary subjective to individual tastes.</p>

<p>To claim all photos are completely subjective is nonsense.</p>

<p> </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I'm getting the strong vibe from the OP's statement here that being subjective means that despite that "there can be opinion leaders, trend-setters, who are recognised and capable, and who will bring forward their subjective judgment and give it a collective value" all photographs are "equal." I don't believe all photographs are equal because "it is all subjective." Perhaps the art market is subjective when it comes to pricing and sales, but humans are wired to respond to certain things that elicit emotions, everything from certain compositional forms, to subject matter. This is not entirely subjective, even though it may vary from person to person. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>"Equal"? You have a yardstick for subjectivity? Or maybe you want to borrow my Subjectivity Meter. I think you've pretty much totally missed Luca's point-- that one's responses to a visual event are NOT MEASUREABLE. They are precisely neither equal nor not equal because "subjective" does not deal in common units.</p>

<p>My subjective response to a photograph does not include an accountant's checklist, a robot's checklist, a totting up of facts and figures. It's not sex with Spock.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>I think Julie got me right.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Then why not say one's responses to photographs are not measurable? What does subjectivity have to do with it?</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Is being aware of having a headache subjective or objective? When we have a patient who reports being in pain, we can't get into their heads and feel it first hand, so we give them a qualitative scale (the PAT) in the form of the 1-10 tool with the faces. It gives a comparative idea of what they're feeling. If I look at two lengths of string side-by-side lying on a table, even if I can't bring a ruler, I can use one as a yardstick to compare against the other to tell if they're equal or unequal, and if so which is larger. Do you need measurements and numbers to gauge how long a traffic light has left to turn vs. the distance/speed you are traveling to negotiate traffic? Most normal people do not, and do so betting their and their loved one's lives on these judgments on a daily basis.</p>

<p>Of course, when it comes to art, all of those abilities are deemed not valid.<br>

__________________________________________________________</p>

<p>To someone without a mental database of art for comparison, or the structures of art history, knowledge of types of art, etc. Every feeling about art is apparently totally subjective, if not bewildering, to such a person. And in the Postmodern Age, subjectivity is the current dominant paradigm.<br>

_________________________________________________________</p>

<p>A few weeks ago, I saw a movie by Redford on TV about a guy named Buck who is a horse whisperer. He has the additional problem of dealing <em>with another species' psychology. </em>To many here, that might seem impossible, given the comments about art, yet man and horse interact effectively in the measurable world. If that can be done with another species...<br>

_________________________________________________________</p>

<p>It is at best an oversimplification (one that, as Fred pointed out was thoroughly addressed long ago) to think that objective and subjective are complete opposites or mutually exclusive. Or that there is no subjectivity in science, or articles of faith in mathematics, etc.<br>

_________________________________________________________</p>

<p>This takes us back to Szarkowski,Winogrand, and that seminal essay by Sontag which we discussed at length here. They leaned in the direction of objectivity in art via <em>description</em>.</p>

<p> </p>

[m_stephens]

<p>When I look at a photography, my response, my appreciation, and therefore my value of that photograph is <strong><em>subject to</em></strong> a host of internal and external variable conditions. Therefore, my response is <em>subjective</em>. That's how to arrive at the subjectivity claim.</p>

<p>What are the variables? You might be better to ask, what aren't the variables! To begin with something, I'd say my knowledge of the subject, understanding of the POV, sympathy with the perceived or real beliefs of the artist, interest in the subject, belief in the techniques used, and naturally time of day, and have I had my coffee yet.</p>

<p>I don't understand how it could be different than that?</p>

[luis_g]

<p>"It's not sex with Spock."</p>

<p>Um....how do you know that?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There are variables in the weather and in photosynthesis. That doesn't make either of these subjective.</p>

<p>I expected that subjective was being used to mean . . . well . . . subjective. So maybe some of the misunderstandings in this thread have to do with usage and meaning.</p>

<p>Here's an idea of what subjective has traditionally meant, and what I was imagining was what people still meant by it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Subjective</p>

<p>existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject ratherthan to the object of thought (opposed to objective).</p>

<p>pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal;individual: a subjective evaluation.</p>

<p>placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes,opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.</p>

<p>Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it isknown in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.</p>

<p>relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No mention of measurability or variability. So it seems maybe you guys haven't been talking about subjectivity at all, which makes a lot more sense to me. We've gone from completely suggestive to not completely subjective to, well, not really subjective at all in the span of a hundred or so posts. Not bad.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>The title of the thread was: <strong>In the end the appreciation of photography is completely subjective</strong></p>

<p>The subject then is the appreciation of photography. Appreciation can only be endowed by some consciousness. That appreciation is "subject to" all those variables of the conscious appreciator.</p>

<p>The mere existence of any photograph isn't I presume of any importance here, right? I mean, yes, photographs exist objectively, but to what purpose unless to be appreciated by some consciousness. I think everyone was using "subjective" exactly this way.</p>

<p>The objective value of any photograph is about two bucks in money terms, and probably substantially less in utility. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>The mere existence of any photograph isn't I presume of any importance here, right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not? And why is the existence of a photograph "mere"?</p>

<p>I think the existence of the photograph entails when it was made, how it was made, in what context and culture it was made, whether it is black and white or color, what kind of film it was made with, etc. And all of these will impact the consciousness that attends to it. As a matter of fact, unless we think consciousness IS a lonely and isolated vacuum cleaner bag -- which we seem not to want to -- then all these things are a part of this thing called consciousness.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Stop changing the subject. Stick to "<strong>appreciation of</strong>." That's what this thread is about.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>,</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>To someone without a mental database of art for comparison, or the structures of art history, knowledge of types of art, etc. Every feeling about art is apparently totally subjective, if not bewildering, to such a person.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am building, and I am using, my mental database of photographic comparison every day. It's my way and in my (subjective) opinion the only way to appreciate a photograph: your <em>informed subjectivity</em>.<br>

But is this database objective? Or is the process of database population first and of database query rather subjective?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>They leaned in the direction of objectivity in art via description</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fine. But who is describing? Are we sure that such description can be objective? That there is an objective choice of terms of reference and an objective choice of the elements of a photograph t be described? and an an objective selection of the words which describe?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, I will approach any subject any damn way I please. Is that clear enough for you?</p>

<p>One can't "appreciate" what's not there. Part of appreciating an object is the existence of that object and what the object brings to the table. Appreciation of something is not all about me. Much of my own sense of appreciation has to do with empathy. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>You feel (oops!); you *know* that empathy is not subjective? You've gone to Empathy School and have a certified degree in Empathy? Or you have an Empathy Meter? Or maybe there's an Empathy button that you push and get an Empathy reading on your Empathy display?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes, Julie, all of the above. You're faltering here, resorting over and over again to being facetious or what you may perceive to be ironic in the absence of any substance. </p>

<p>What you do is attack the ideas of others with no substance behind the attacks, just attitude. You present no coherent views of your own. But I'm glad you do. You provide a kind of style-only foil for the rest of the forum.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Why thank you! The feeling is mutual.</p>

<p>I always enjoy your responses to my posts.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

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

but is there "objective empathy"?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>is there "objective empathy"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luca, I can't seem to get the point across that I don't find "subjective" and "objective" useful terms. I may empathize with certain photos because of subject matter, presentational characteristics, how they look, how they make me feel. When I consider empathy in relation to photos I make, it's because I consider a sort of unspecific viewer who may well respond certain ways to certain things, whose eye may travel a certain way directed by the light or composition, whose emotion may be stirred by a certain use of visual language, including but not limited to symbols.</p>

<p>When I made one of my earliest portraits of a guy my age standing in front of his own baby picture hanging behind him on the wall I was aware that the sunlight and shadow connected them and sensed that such a connection would move me and move viewers. The picture almost seeming to look over his shoulder at me drew me as I was considering and setting up the shot. I think it helps connect the viewer. I knew not precisely where it would take each viewer and liked hearing from viewers where it did take them. But no viewer saw the person and his picture as disconnected. Someone might come along and see them as disconnected. They would be the exception. I was amazed, since it was early in my learning how to post process and what a vast difference some quite subtle shifts could make, how some small changes I could make in the lighting on his face could increase the intensity of my own response and likely the responses of others and how a shadow here or there or a lightening of a shadow here or there could make his expression seem alternatively agitated or placated. Now what I'm calling agitation might be referred to by another viewer as anger, upset, disappointment, depressed, what have you. And placated could be serene, harmonious, engaged, spiritual, etc. But expressions are communicative, not randomly interpreted. By working an expression, one can start to feel empathy with one's subject and one's photo simultaneously and I think that can be passed to a viewer.</p>

<p>Whether this empathy is labeled "subjective" or "objective" doesn't matter a hair to me. I'd rather talk about empathy and photos than continue to ramble in a very unspecific and vague manner about subjectivity and its relevance to photos.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Fred wrote, "Whether this empathy is labeled "subjective" or "objective" doesn't matter a hair to me."</p>

<p> I'm sensing a lack of empathy for Luca and his thread, the subject of which is, "In the end the appreciation of photography is completely subjective."</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Luca - </strong>"But is this database objective? "</p>

<p>Parts of it are. The dates, names, photographs, commentaries made by others, etc. Is it all <em>one or the other? </em>No, and I don't care very much either way, except in an operational way.</p>

<p>Now that I've answered your question, allow me to ask one of you: What difference does it make both to you personally, and in general to art, were it to be all subjective? That is what is important to me in order to understand you.</p>

<p><strong>Luca - </strong>"Fine. But who is describing? Are we sure that such description can be objective?"</p>

<p>Two more questions which I will willingly answer, hoping you will answer one of mine to three of yours.</p>

<p>Who's describing? Photographers and critics, and this is important because it escapes the realm of one person's head, and enters the world at large, where others can thus be informed, compare experiences, descriptions, and add their own commentaries or artistic dialogues.</p>

<p>Are we sure the description is objective? You can compare their description with your own. At least now it's out of one person's head. </p>

 

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>,<br>

:-)</p>

<p>Clearly: none. No difference whatsoever, because there will be no universal way to appreciate a photograph. I cannot convince anybody that my point of view is more objective than his/her. As I did not manage to explain what I mean with subjectivity in this thread.</p>

<p>It happens.</p>

<p>I roughly know my approach to photography, and roughly know my objectives. For the rest I am building "the database" of my informed subjectivity (<em>perfect term by the way, and perfect synthesis</em>).</p>

<p>By now I know that no obedience to a rule or a canon can make my photos any better, unless the application of said rule or canon is important to me when creating my image, and that makes it better "for me" at least. And I have to face the fact that a smaller or larger portion of the people I interact with might disagree.</p>

<p>And then there's the "fierce" subjective me, who most likely will consider the vast majority of the photos I make objectively not good.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sensing a lack of empathy for Luca and his thread, the subject of which is, "In the end the appreciation of photography is completely subjective."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Julie, I wouldn't be so sure. Does empathy require a reaction of agreement? I don't think so. Can one empathize and be critical? I sure hope so. If someone is about to head off the side of a bridge, does one empathize by joining him in going into the cold, cruel waters or does one try to redirect him? Luca has already rejected his own OP formulation, several times quite clearly and emphatically. So, I'm not sure what your point in quoting it verbatim is at this point.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Julie said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My subjective response to a photograph does not include an accountant's checklist, a robot's checklist, a totting up of facts and figures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I'm not so sure about that. When people find out how much a certain photograph goes for in the art market, I would bet that that has an impact on their subjective response to that photograph. Its human nature to be influenced by other people's responses towards something. That's basic sociology. </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Ok, thank you Julie and Luca for clearing up my feeling that the OP might be considering all photographs as “equal” if everything was subjective.. So, what about a continuum? On the more objective side we have medical photography and scientific photography where things are recorded as accurately as possible for the purpose of research and science. For example, in college I worked in a lab where we carefully measured the pupil size of infants (from photographic negatives) who were responding to various stimuli. We have photojournalism and news photography, which often are attempts at objectively recording things such as the damage of a tornado on a town, and that sort of thing. Then on the more subjective side we have the arts, where practically anything goes. I am seeing both an objective and subjective quality to photography. </p>