Originally Posted by
pdmoylan
One tries to connect the dots when personal nostalgia/experience intervenes when presented with a straight forward image of a road overpass.
Not slighting Richard here, but there is nothing intrinsic to the overpass image that conveys a human connection, let alone the plight of homeless associated with the site.
Now if one were to show in an image or series with the human element, perhaps providing the despair, a sense of hope (or hopelessness), in the context of the physical structure, I as an outside observer might react with emotion. Why do I have to bring any history to an image to find context?
As to politics, IMHO, any depiction of human difficulties has political content. Having said that, if one wants to take a "position" on politics as an artist, I can see limiting that as potentially inflammatory/biased in what is an "open" forum here.
For the creator, emotion may not be an impetus. It fact, it may be an expressive "need" to show light, color, form etc in a way which is intellectually based, or simply visually based.
Art does not have to be viewed to exist, as it is a medium for those attempting to make sense of a complex world with their own signature. It's nice if one can communicate with it, but we are inundated with so many "images" without context in many cases, those that stand out for the most part depict the human dilemma.
When I consider Salgado's images of the Sahel and Rawanda, or Dorothea Lange's of immigrant families, I don't have to be in a rage at the way people have been treated and local communities have neglected the needy, to have an emotional reaction. That comes not from any history, but from the intrinsic nature of the image.
I don't think we should be promulgating politically slanted pictorials to young photographers, as the extreme political and social biases from many factions in societies may cause them undue physical and emotional harm - unless they are willing to take on those risks.
When populations increase beyond an ability to meet the needs of the many, the center falls apart, and "objectivity" loses it value. The photographer's job becomes that much more difficult to depict objectively.
Art is Emotion is simply BS except for those who are emotive to begin with. For most art is a visual medium that causes one to stop, look and find context from that output.
As I may have stated before (apologies for redundancy), the closest that photography comes to art is depiction of the challenges humans (and animals) face.
As much as I seek to capture the beauty of color and light with a camera (mostly in the landscapes), the severe limitations imposed by the medium as compared to painting, collage or multimedia (as examples), tell me that I am an illustrator, perhaps with a good eye/technique, while those with true vision will express command over every millimeter of their output.
Certainly there are innumerable photographers who produce wonderful images. I am not slighting their output (some of whom I envy, and many admire), but as much as I may enjoy a photo, I will take William Chase's landscapes of Long Island (example) over any photos of the same location.