Lydia rambles

what is it exactly that i disagree with when it comes to other people's philosophies of photography? those already written, those we are assigned, those we are "supposed" to know - Sontag, Barthes, Benjamin, etc - while i find their philosophies important, while i can relate to them, though i agree that they are relevant... i simply do not agree with any in their entirety. rather, they inspire me to disagree, to look more closely at the things they discuss and also the things they ignore. many of my peers find that their disappointments can be explained by the fact that many of these people are writers, not photographers. however, having read the writings of some photographers as well, i still find myself dissatisfied. and i, being both a writer and a photographer, am now forcing myself to organize my thoughts into something meaningful.

key points/areas of discussion i wish to address:

- photography is neither reality nor the photographer's reality. it is something else entirely, it is always a fabrication, and its meaning is incredibly dependent upon the individual viewer's perception.

- the "is photography art?" argument will always be unanswerable because the definition of "art" is not static. some really mean "craft," others "decoration," "talent," "thought," "meaning" - i myself will say that all things can be art, but not all art can be things, not all art is art and without precise definition you are arguing a moot point (then again, is anything able to be precisely defined?)

-photography has entered a new place that we are all refusing to acknowledge. people are caught up in the idea that things are changing for specific reasons - digital, mass media - whereas i see it as basic growth of the medium. as we learn and use photography more, the archaic ideas of the past are not necessarily irrelevant, but cannot be applied to the place photography currently resides...

to be continued.