Hi Walter,

The few responces to the "Does a photo need to say something?" thread left me confused and perplexed.

Based on the responces either most art I like isn't, or I'm just not seeing any special inherent meaning except I like it. Obviousely, saracasticly speaking, Klee and Polack can't be artists. Munch must be because a lot of his painting are dark? Picasso, who btw, was a sevant draftsman, said he chose his style because it sells. So he's not an artist. The renesance painters only have meaning to those who are deeply religious. So it's only art to those people.

On the other hand, I suppose all art has meaning to someone. I see a painting I like. Therefore, it has meaning to me; I like it! I may just like it on face value. Thus, the meaning of it isn't any sort of deep emotion. I just enjoy looking at it. Just like I never seem to get board of sitting on a rock in the foothills watching the sunset. In this sense anything can be art and have meaning. Albeit, just you enjoy looking at it.

For some reason a lot of photographers seem to think that images must be dark or wierd or something off the wall before its art and has meaning. Which I don't get. Just like I don't get the phenomena of voyeurism in photography. Put two identical photos up, one of plain jane and the other of Pamela Anderson. The person who took the pamela shot is the better photographer.

I'm not sure I'm answering your questions. However, I do believe people have preconcieved notions of what art is.