I wonder if we're in danger, (me included) of the worst type of philosophy, i.e. parsing language, because of its inadequacies, without discussing real "meat."
If none of the photographers feelings should pass into his / her work, but that work should evoke feelings in a viewer then there must be a non-sequiter here. If there are no feelings in the piece, which can only come from the artist, then how can a viewer derive feelings from it if there are none there to start with?
I'm still convinced that the artist's emotions, or feelings, toward a subject are what prompts him to take the photograph in the first place. This can be despite other feelings such as mood. For example, I can be in a bad mood, (mad at the weather, at the government, at the missus, at the kids etc) but I can come across an interesting, perhaps beautiful scene or subject to which I respond - despite being mad at the world - and take a good, (possibly!) photograph. I can still be mad at the world afterwards but whatever it was in that subject that caused me to stop and take the picture remains in the photograph to be "enjoyed" by, or perhaps passed on to, the viewer.
Emotions or feelings or whatever you want to call them are instinctive rather than consciously developed. They are a human response to external circumstances and situations. We spend much of our time controlling, or perhaps smothering those emotions; mainly because oftentimes actions based upon them are neither socially acceptable nor responsible. Perhaps then when we allow our personal feelings to come out when photographing this is a work of art. Certainly some of the best literature contains autobiographical overtones as does some of the best music. And perhaps too, a work of art is considered "great" when the feelings it engenders in the viewer are somewhat universally felt.
When a man takes a picture of his kids, he does so because of the emotions he has for them. When he shows them to his wife, friend, family etc. that same emotion is felt by those viewers. Even though they may be just "snapshots" they are works of art - but only to the limited number of people who know that family - because they can appreciate the feelings the father had when he took the snapshot. Those snapshots are a representation of the father's feelings. To people outside that circle the snapshots can at best be cute.
When it comes to photography the technique we aspire to and work hard to attain, is nothing more than a set of tools to which enable us to better convey what we felt when we pressed the shutter. And what we are conveying is really abstract - it's feelings, emotions or whatever we want to call them.
I need a drink - and it's only 8:30
Bob H
If none of the photographers feelings should pass into his / her work, but that work should evoke feelings in a viewer then there must be a non-sequiter here. If there are no feelings in the piece, which can only come from the artist, then how can a viewer derive feelings from it if there are none there to start with?
I'm still convinced that the artist's emotions, or feelings, toward a subject are what prompts him to take the photograph in the first place. This can be despite other feelings such as mood. For example, I can be in a bad mood, (mad at the weather, at the government, at the missus, at the kids etc) but I can come across an interesting, perhaps beautiful scene or subject to which I respond - despite being mad at the world - and take a good, (possibly!) photograph. I can still be mad at the world afterwards but whatever it was in that subject that caused me to stop and take the picture remains in the photograph to be "enjoyed" by, or perhaps passed on to, the viewer.
Emotions or feelings or whatever you want to call them are instinctive rather than consciously developed. They are a human response to external circumstances and situations. We spend much of our time controlling, or perhaps smothering those emotions; mainly because oftentimes actions based upon them are neither socially acceptable nor responsible. Perhaps then when we allow our personal feelings to come out when photographing this is a work of art. Certainly some of the best literature contains autobiographical overtones as does some of the best music. And perhaps too, a work of art is considered "great" when the feelings it engenders in the viewer are somewhat universally felt.
When a man takes a picture of his kids, he does so because of the emotions he has for them. When he shows them to his wife, friend, family etc. that same emotion is felt by those viewers. Even though they may be just "snapshots" they are works of art - but only to the limited number of people who know that family - because they can appreciate the feelings the father had when he took the snapshot. Those snapshots are a representation of the father's feelings. To people outside that circle the snapshots can at best be cute.
When it comes to photography the technique we aspire to and work hard to attain, is nothing more than a set of tools to which enable us to better convey what we felt when we pressed the shutter. And what we are conveying is really abstract - it's feelings, emotions or whatever we want to call them.
I need a drink - and it's only 8:30
Bob H