But, though I hate to echo the French Structuralists (or is it the
Deconstructionists?) if my own experience is a guide to anything beyond my
own experience, there is no such thing as "objectivity" as Jeffrey claims.
And I don't mean just details of personal style, but about the look of
He can perhaps recreate his *vision*, but what can be objective about
translating full-scale, 3-dimensional, full-color reality to a little
piece of paper? (As you pointed out subsequently). Sometimes the paper
looks much better, but.... objective? The next person could be equally
"objective" and entirely different.
All is change. I see students change their whole approach overnight in
pursuit of something glimpsed. Supposedly we're "mature," but all artists
change over a lifetime. Gives the scholars something to do -- study the
changes. (A propos of which, I myself like Weston's early soft focus
portraits much better than his later ones, tho not a scholar.)
> If the difference between a masterful photographic print and a useless
> one is mainly seen in its subtlety of interpretation, and it generally
> is, then what you are calling "fine tuning" is the interaction that
I was about to say the following when my server disconnected me, perhaps a
warning I disregard, but surely the choice between "masterful photographic
print and a useless one" is not cast in concrete for everyone for all
time. As I may have rashly mentioned, I've often found (in a familiar
print source) I prefer the latter to the former. But even without that, I
continue to revise judgements here at home...