Sandy may be right that, if you make no effort to publish your work (in any sense of the word "publish"), then it is just therapy. But I'm not sure that's a problem. What if it is "just" therapy? D.H. Lawrence wrote a characteristically irritating but valid essay called "Art for My Sake." Pretty easy to run down. Anyway, I suppose that art which amuses, amazes or educates others is better than just-therapy but I'm not sure. I guess I'd be a little more sure if I was a little more sure just what it is that art does for us "others." But that's a difficult subject. Northrup Frye, easily the dominant literary theorist of the Twentieth Century, tackled this matter in his key work, THE ANATOMY OF CRITICISM. Basically, he threw up his hands in the end and concluded that, well, the experience of great literature "deepens the reader's sensibility" (or something like that).... I'm pretty sure that when viewing a good picture I experience "enjoyment." I do like that. So, in conclusion, perhaps photographers have a social duty to show me their pictures so that I might experience more, rather than less, enjoyment. I would have the same duty, of course. -jeff buckels
Bookmarks