Searching for the validity in validation.

Often I am forced to write before giving my subjects enough proper thought and maturation time. Other times I wait too long and end up rambling through a twisted and often incoherent maze of ideas that bears little resemblance to the original thought. Such is the way my mind works. Part of my goal with blogging is get better with this kind of thing. Just don't expect it to happen right away.

Today's topic was prompted, in a roundabout kind of way, by two photographers in cyberspace whom I have never met but whose works I nevertheless admire, Ted Byrne and Andreas Manessinger (well, ok. I have kinda met Ted through email and such. A cyberspace intro, if you will). I believe Ted provided the seed of the idea, and somehow, reading through a couple of posts on Andeas' blog watered it and set it free. The idea revolves a central question for me, which is to say, simply, Why do I do this?

I'm not out for profit, and if not to profit, then why? Fair enough question, and for myself, at least, I will attempt to answer it. (Eventually, of course, you will have to bear with me.)

Now, you could argue that profit comes in many different coats and colors and that it need not revolve around the dollar. And you would be correct to say just that. It's certainly true. Or, it could be as simple as "I like taking pitcher's," as another of my online acquaintances, John Setzler, has been known to say. I also know of those who feel so strongly about photography that they would be lost without it. For them this form of creation has become so overwhelming that it could be likened to the needs of an addict, with shutter clicks, photoshop, printmaking and what not providing the regular fix. I believe we can all be just as serious about the work we produce, and we all seem to desire some form of validation. Something to let us know when (if?) our efforts have connected with someone else.

So we seek validation. Through online forums, blogs and art shows and in sharing prints with friends and relatives, we all seek to validate our work. If not, and these photographers may well exist, we would simply take our photos and keep them to ourselves, never letting them beyond our own light boxes or computer screens.

In my case, part of the pleasure of re-discovering photography through the digital realm was the ability to share them so readily. A print or slideshow was no longer required and the audience, though not as intimate, was much broader. Often, the validation was not of a high-quality (hey man, nice shot!) but it was validation and in that respect it was all good. Like so many others, I participated for time in the free for all of photosig, once the ultimate "you pat my back I'll pat yours" forum for sharing. I also participated in a few daily photo contest sites and a much more interesting weekly challenge site. All were good, at least for a time, at providing me with the needed validation and for keeping me busy with working photos, exploring photoshop, and equally importantly, with learning to hone my skills at commenting and in understanding the validation process. What makes a comment a good comment?

As I learn more and more my thoughts on this have changed considerably. Comments I once perceived as insightful, were, in fact, often not applicable to what I was after. These are the comments I learned to handle with care. Both with acceptance and delivery. Not every blurry photo was meant to be sharp, after all. The problem is that, in a technical sense, we often can't know what the artist meant. But as long as the image has some meaning for us in its final vision, whatever insights or thoughts on the image we may have need not be what the artist intended to be valid. For as far as I'm concerned we should always be free to describe our impressions to whatever end works for us. I know I like that kind of thing, and I'm sure others do as well.

So when I comment these days I try to do so in a manner that benefits both me and the artist, and my criteria is pretty simple. 1) If I comment at all I like it. 2) If I try to explain why I like it then I like it a lot. I try to stay away from technical issues unless they have some real bearing on what I like.

So, yes, I comment only on those pieces that I like, those that move me in some way. I don't see the need for attempting to hand out "constructive criticism" where I may be off the mark in my interpretation of the work. You may consider this playing it safe, I consider it giving the benefit of doubt to the artist. Does this make my commentary less useful or constructive than it could be? In certain forums I'm sure it does, but in others I'd like to think that it makes for better validation overall.

I comment in this way because they are kinds of validations I most like to receive. It helps to remind me of why I picked up the camera in the first place--to communicate my vision to others. And only when I feel that I have succeeded on some level do I feel comfortable moving on to the next. Whatever the heck that may be.