Maybe – I guess I’m learning to see art more as a process than a product – and it’s a process of creating. I read a really cool essay recently that suggested literally any creation stands as art, if it’s done with love – it’s a love for what we do that constitutes what we call ‘art’ – whether it’s painting, writing, dancing, cabinet making, whatever. When we engage that process without a real love and respect for what we do, for the tools we use to do it with, the materials we work with, etc, then it’s not art, but something else. I don’t disagree that the product of our work can communicate many things to other people – I just question that it must – I think we can make great photographs without worrying about communicating – we probably make greater photographs when we focus on making photographs. Works for me.

Cheers

Carl
Carl

Thanks for the kind words. And sure, a photograph may communicate – but it may sit in a dust jacket, too. As I said above, art can communicate, but it does so by itself. I know that when I was taking those photos, I was trying to take photos, not communicate. Any communication that may have came about is a byproduct – and not a requisite one at that.

Cheers

Carl

I’ve thought about this some more. I think the line about being an effective communicator is a little bit of the ole ‘artsy speak’ thing. I think being a good photographer is about being a good photographer. Art is about making art, I don’t think it’s about communication so much. A good artist makes good art – anything else is nice, but I don’t think art necessarily involves being a good communicator. If communication is the focus, then I’d suggest good art, particularly REALLY good art communicates by itself. But Artists make art, which is, by definition, more about creating, or creation, than communication. Wanna be a good photographer? Make good photographs – everything else is apple pie.

Cheers

Carl

@Diane, you wrote “I do think that there are universal aspects to all images that everyone responds to. ”

That is what I was thinking also, and therein lies some interesting decisions – first of all do we know the universal aspects (some obvious, maybe others not so much), and do we place any conscious thought about them when incorporating them into a composition?

@Jim: re: identifying your audience – that is one I struggle with. It is hard to pick a certain group or aesthetic perhaps that you want to focus your work on, or perhaps that just comes naturally over time.

@Anita: I don’t think I have any answers, only seem to generate more questions unfortunately!

@John/Carl – I will have to check both of those suggestions out. I am not familiar with that writer.

Getting back to Mark’s thought-provoking article, I have been trying to do the “keep it simple” thing in my photography. But the “keep it meaningful” part is what’s so hard to grab hold of or articulate. What is “meaningfulness”?

Nice post man – great images, and a good essay. I’ve been thinking about this issue a bit lately — I’ll write a bit more soon.

Hey John Wall – that’s interesting; I can’t imagine Gary Snyder writing ANYTHING monotonous, or flat, or superficial. He’s a beautiful writer; “Practice of the Wild” is a must read. I’ve got that issue of the New Yorker upstairs – I’ll have to check it out, thanks.

Cheers

Carl