Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hmmm, I've got the reply in my LUG box before the original. Anyway guessing what is going on here... Relating the elements of a photograph sufficiently for it to attract your attention is an intellectual act. You can't avoid the intellect. The problem lies for me in photography where the 'concept' is more important than the photograph. As an eg I HATE Cindy Sherman's work - too much concept. There has to be a balance - guess I'm with JD here. > You mean primarily visual and not primarily intellectual? I agree. If not, I > don't. Visual and intellectual are different axes. I'd say a photograph > should be primarily visual, period. > > In other words, if a picture *only* makes > > sense after giving it considerable thought about the possible implications, > > then in my mind, it's failed Depends what you mean. The tests that you describe later rely on an amount of working out of the picture. You see something intriguing and work with it - everytime you look at it you see something new. Some of my friends can't understand why I spend a fortune on photo monographs 'yeah, but how many times can you look at a photo...' . Let me us a photo of mine as an example - it was what I was thinking about last night. It is the photo titled 'Picasso' here http://www.zing.com/album/?id=4293103905. As I explained last night it is interesting for me because of the juxtaposition of 'power' symbols - I'm using it as an example in an academic paper discussing this, in which context it works fine- but it is a boring photo. My cogitating last night was mainly trying to work out if a photo like that could work as a photo and then on a different level for someone who knew the politics of Catalunya for example. Anyway, back to work. Julian