So here are my thoughts on the first reading:
- The author is basically saying that every photograph taken has a basic meaning that just describes what’s really there in nature. It’s not connected to culture or any other way anyone else might interpret it.
- There are different ways to interpret the “quality” of a photo. What we like/dislike depends on what things are depicted in the photo, how they are arranged, and how they could possibly make a narrative.
- “Meaning” in a photo can vary widely depending on who is viewing it and what contexts and opinions they draw from.
- I was interested in how the photo book was called “Camera Work” and that it depicted each photo that it contained like a piece of artwork that took a lot of time and craftsmanship to prepare. Just the way it’s presented gives off a different feeling to the photos without even seeing what they actually look like.
- I really like the quote by Benjamin de Casseres, “Imagination is the dream of the Unconscious. It is the realm of the gorgeous, monstrous hallucinations of the Unconscious”. Something about it really sticks with me. It is like it is saying that everything that we create has a conscious and unconscious aspect to it, whether we like it or not and that it will always show itself, regardless if it is beautiful or monstrous.
- One question I have been thinking about is “In the eyes of the author, it seems that we always have to have a deeper meaning to a photo we take. Does that always have to be the case? For example, if I take a picture of a fox out in the forest, can’t it just simply be about a fox in a forest?”