civilized ku # 495 ~ eye see it

Save a Lot ~ Cumberland County, TN. • click to embiggenLately, I've been hammering away quite a bit on the notion of "seeing" or, as Elliott Erwitt states, "noticing things". As I have also mentioned a few times, this is due mainly to the fact that I am developing a "curriculum" (of sorts) for my proposed Picture Making Chautauqua.

At this point, there is no doubt that "seeing" / "noticing things" is at the top of the list, curriculum-wise, and that recognizing, fostering, and refining that "talent" is what the Picture Making Chautauqua will be all about.

That said, both John H. (no link) and Don were of the same mind yesterday on the topic of "seeing". In Don's words ....

I want to know, who says "who sees it" and who doesn't?

Like I said before 6 guys standing side by side will see something different, yes or no?

Who says which shmuck got the "right" picture?

Good question.

Ultimately (and independent of client directed picture making), the only schmuck who can say whether a picture is "right" or not, is the schmuck who made the picture. Unless a picture maker is driven in their picture making endeavors solely by the desire to please others and gain their approval, only the picture maker can know if a picture is "right" or not.

It should go without saying that the rightfulness of a picture is judged by the picture maker according to his/her success in meeting his/her own personal intentions. Or, again as Elliott Erwitt states, that rightfulness is "... a quality that has something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is ... [I]t's got to do with intention."

Relative to "intention" and "what his/her mind is" - and coming from me this might come as big surprise to many - the medium of photography covers a lot of intentions and virtually of all them are "legitimate" forms of expression, which is not to say that all of them are "equal" when it comes to the art/talent of "seeing".

So, as Don / John, want to know, "who says who sees it and who doesn't?"

Simply stated, once a picture maker exhibits a print on wall, there is no one single arbiter. In fact, there will be as many arbiters as there are viewers. And, each and every one of those arbiters will have an opinion. Some of those opinions will be informed by a wealth of picture viewing experience as well as a wealth of knowledge about the medium, its history, and its possibilities. Most will not be so informed.

It should be obvious that informed arbiters have a more informed "say" as to "who sees it and who doesn't". Of course, this doesn't mean that informed arbiters will agree on every picture or every picture maker, but, here's the important thing about informed opinions of any kind - when a picture maker makes a picture or body of work that engenders informed opinions, pro or con, it is most likely that that picture maker "sees it".

Which is to say, the arbiters see something in the picture(s) worth having an informed opinion about, worth pondering, worth thinking about, worth reacting to in a manner that demands respect, attention, and thoughtful consideration.