Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ted Grant wrote: >....<snip>.... > Sure you have or you wouldn't be here. Actually you are saying you've never > taken a picture you liked. And I find that hard to believe.. Hell man you > are making a much to big of a thing out of this...just have some fun, shoot > some film. :) And for a change be a little "presumptuous," good for the ego > once in awhile. :) Ted, Oh, there are quite a few pictures I've done that I 'like', and a few that have been appreciated by others (i.e. published or hanging on another person's wall). That does not necessarily make them meaningful. And, yes, I shoot plenty of film, and have great fun doing that. And more fun using Leica than anything else. The process and the results have to my eyes great sentimental value. Still is not what I call 'meaningful'. The Salgado pics I have seen are meaningful, your web site describing your book has meaningful images (their context and your talent for putting the images in relation with that context make them meaningful), Willy Ronis has produced hundreds of meaningful images and I am confronted every day to great 'meaningful' images from anonymous or unidentifiable origin. I am also confronted every day with a much larger quantity of 'meaningless' disposable images, even if they are of very high technical quality. Disposable to my eyes anyway. My guess is that images become 'meaningful' when they interact efficiently with information needs, social values and/or aesthetical sensitivities relevant to individuals other than the photographer. To be 'efficient', they should take into account the historical experience of the viewer (in other words 'bring something new'). So, Ted, I'll go on PADding with pleasure, but with very little illusion as to the objective 'meaning' of it all. I'll try, though... Alan.