I partially agree with the section of PDM's post which I quoted above. As human beings, I believe our emotional responses to other human beings, in person or in image, differ from our emotional responses to nature, objects, etc. All images may be beautiful, even awe-inspiring, but I still think those emotions are of a different type than our responses to photographs of people. Images of people are a direct comment on the human condition, while other images are at best indirect comments.
However, while I think our purely emotional responses may be greater to images of people, I don't believe that translates into saying that only images of people are viable and lasting. Trite as some of us may find them now, photographs like Ansel Adams' "Moonrise" or Weston's "Pepper" will last as icons just as long as Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother" from the Depression, to think of an iconic portrait. And since PDM was quoting a collector of art, I suspect Pollack's drip paintings, or Picasso's abstract portraits are just as long-lasting and iconic as the Dutch "Old Masters."
In sum, nature and portraits evoke different emotional responses, but both responses are equally valid and important.
Bookmarks