Artists like to state what their work is meant to express, what it's "about" or "dealing" with. Photographers tend to feel they shouldn't have to explain their purpose when their work is--almost by definition--rooted in reality, plain for all to see (and understand). Pressed to do so, however, I could write that every image I make has been created with an intent: pre- visualized and executed with a purpose of feeling or conveyance of allegory; a concentrated, mechanized effort to shape a visual poetry from out of the depths of imagination. I hope to transform the spark of interest that caught my eye into a fixed, singular illustration for all to admire. And although all that would technically be true, I maintain that my photography is only meant to be a simple exploration of the power of images to fashion an emotional response from the viewer--whether elicited from a connection with content or execution (contrast, color, line, form). Images--and in particular photographs--have come to shape our modern (or if you prefer post-modern/electronic-modern?) society in ways I couldn't have dreamt of when I chose to pursue the medium as a career more than 25 years ago. Then, cameras were highly technical, difficult mechanisms which required skill, training and practice to master. Today, devices to capture light in electronic form are truly accessible to all and have profoundly, exponentially saturated everyday life. The "decisive moment" is now every moment, "tapped" and shared instantly with the world. If my photographs (decisively momentous or not) can illicit a response amid that catastrophe of visual stimulation soaking western existence--then, artistic vindication aside, statements regarding purpose will have nothing to add to the viewer's experience. My statement ultimately only must be this: just go look. Pause long enough to see and perhaps feel what I did behind the lens.
The world is, after all, only what we perceive it to be.

Tags

See All Tags (3)