Extinguished Forumeros, Grating Minds, et al ---
Joseph made a plea for literality in looking at his pictures:
>>>Joseph brought up an interesting point when he said, "Stella's 'What you see is what you get' applies here; no need to look for hidden
meanings/motivations."<<<<
Rand (The Florid) then queried:
>>>Is this really possible?
What I mean is that we all bring different backgrounds into this art/craft/discipline known as photography. What we like and dislike stems from an amalgamation of all we have been taught and experienced in life. Our perceptions of beauty and even reality are not all the same. What we choose to photograph, what we choose to include and to exclude, and how we choose to post-process an image all relate to our developed sense of harmony.
So . . . can we ever really produce a work that is devoid of hidden meaning, either conscious or subconscious?<<<
Yes, I believe we can produce works without hidden meanings. This, because "hidden" implies a conscious, deliberate act. It is possible that Joseph (aka Rosemarie) did not hide anything in his image.
Rand's point applies, IMO, if we change from "hidden" to "personal"/"occult"/ "symbolic"/ "subconscious" etc. It would be very difficult, if not impossible to escape from one's own being (while alive) and depersonalize one's work. Even artists like Philip Llorca-DiCorcia, who automate the process considerably, still have a distinctive signature.
OTOH, many self-conscious amateurs and egomaniacs do seem to manage to produce very generic-looking work.
-- Luis
