Quote:
Originally Posted by
tomdinning
What if they weren't meant to hang on a wall? What if they were taken so that they looked flat? What if this was the purpose of the photographer? The photo is just a photo. If there is nothing there for you it may be that you don't have enough information, skills, knowledge or insight to 'read' the photo as it should be read. If someone else looks at the photo and sees something different, does that change the photo? Of cause not. Does it change the value of the photo? Maybe.
I can see where you're coming from Tom as this is very much the stance taken with 'art appreciation'.
Some would consider photography to be art which is fair enough. Whilst I agree with what you've written, it just becomes a disclaimer for either opinion or criticism on the basis that the viewer does not know or understand what (if anything) is trying to be conveyed through a given image. You could in some respects interpret the choice of title 'behind closed doors' as being just that.
If there is a meaning, purpose, intention, objective etc but the artist / photographer has chosen not to provide that information - then I'd be inclined to evaluate based on how successfully this is transmitted to the viewer.
If on the other hand there is simply no meaning, purpose, intention, objective to a image whatsoever then it's the viewer's right to interpret for themselves and therefore decide whether it works for them or not.
For many it's a case of artists 'having their cake and eating it' in that they can only ever be appreciated or misunderstood whilst for others it's only the viewer's interpretation that matters, eye of the beholder and all that.