It took me a while to find the time to read the article and this thread.

I almost always find articles and opinions like the one expressed in that article to be, if you'll excuse the expression, intellectual masturbation. Who is he, or anyone else, to tell the artist what is or is not inspired? If Joyce Tennesson, Howard Schatz or Lois Greenfield [when we talked about world class photography, these are the people I think of and hold my work up to ... and fail to reach the level of still] walked up and said they didn't think a certain shot was inspired or had any thought behind it I'd look them in the eye and tell them to kiss my shiny black butt. If they told me that technically I had a problem with it, I would listen and absorb every single word they had to say and beg for more.

We are all learning here, 'chelle (and I hope to be learning for the rest of my life). Part of that is learning to see and understand what we are photographing, why we are photographing it and how we are going to photograph it. Wolf's posting above is a perfect example. He took the shot because something drew him. Eventually, he understood what that something was. That's part of the learning experience.

I once had a professor who said something that I found to be true. "You didn't come here to create great work. You came here to learn how to create great work." He was talking about electronics, but it has held true for everything else.

You now have the nice shiny tools, but you are still learning how to use and understand them. That self doubt is part of that. Use it to your advantage. Unless you're walking around randomly shooting things without looking through the lens or even in the direction of where the camera was focused you had a reason for shooting what you did. I'd look again at the shots you are disappointed in and try to focus in on what drew you. What made you hit that shutter button. Not through the eyes of your teacher or this guy or anyone else. Throw the intellectual crap out the window and simply look at it. And in the end, if something was just pretty I ask, "What is wrong with that?" Does everything need some deep meaning? Can nothing be pretty for prettiness' sake?

When you go to watch a sunset, what is the meaning behind it? Do you not simply go and marvel at the colors and the majesty of nature? Why should a photograph of a landscape have more meaning than the act of actually watching that same sunset?

If I were to sum it up in one phrase, it would probably be something like: "It is not that our work at times is not inspired or does not have meaning ... it is that sometimes our vision is not clear or our skillset not yet fully developed." And that is why I think we all come together here and continue to work on and expand our photography every single day.

steps off the soapbox :)

-=>Donald

Message edited on: 07/15/2004 11:49