What is a "vision"? Sandy, if I understood correctly, it is an impression about a topic or subject that you reveal/express of it, at a certain preconceived situ ation, time & place, so as to portray your thoughts about it. Robert Adam's work would fall into this class, right? And you would have a point to make about cho osing the subject matter. If this is the case, I was wrong saying that we cannot have a vision in photography.

What I want to ask here is whether "vision" is necessary (or possible) in every aspect of photographic work? Take for instance, the work of Stieglitz. His work is broad. While he may have a preconceived idea about "The Steerage" just before the exposure, he probably did not conceive the subject of rich and poor, before hand. He was "moved" at that instance there and then. He was out there all the t ime doing "sensitive" pictures he could find in the streets. My point to the gro up is, "Would his photographs be less "sensitive" had he appointed a project (vi sion) for himself? Or was he out there just shooting? What about his "clouds" pi ctures? Your thoughts please?

As for Atget, I think now that he was "free" in his seeing because he saw his wo rk as documents and not art.

Aaron