Photographs come in all shapes and sizes. So do humans but we tend to accept the differences and look deeper into the character of the individual; or, at least, we are encouraged to do so.
When I say, 'shapes and sizes' I'm implying that we take photographs for different reason.
There seems to be some distinction in the 'real' world, whatever that is, that there are 'fine art' photographs (ie; those that are to be appreciated at a higher level, and purchased at a higher price I might suggest), and there are the rest.
Such a distinction is arbitrary to say the least, bigoted to say more than I should.
As with the spoken language or a piece of prose, the depth of interpretation can depend on two things; the intent of the 'artist' and the depth to which the viewer might seek to understand what they see.
Now, don't get me started on defining "artist'. Let's just take it literally to mean 'he who produces or makes'. It's a broad definition but it will include everybody. People don't react lightly to being left out.
I'm often the sort of person that shoots first and thinks later. I do that with most things. Reaction is an important ingredient in the creative process. its about connecting with emotions, which are in turn connected with thought processes. Recognition and intuition are almost instantaneous processes; at least we hope they are. Thought processes come later, the amount of time depending on such factors as intellect, age and the consumption of drugs, of which only one of these factors falls into my regime.
Leter, I can contemplate what I have shot and ponder the possibilities. This is a pleasure I enjoy emensely. I can allow myself to re-examine what I have captured, consider the reasons why. And contemplate what the next shot will look looked.
Interpretation might be everything. It certainly is a doorway to perception.
I take photos, therefore I am.
I look at photos therefore I am able to perceive.
I think therefore I can interpret.
The cycle is complete
I live for the next image.
