For me, the precession of the resulting photograph through each segment of the chain is as inseparable from the very print in the hand: change something in the process and that photo at the end will change *for me* (emotionally, creatively) : e.g. if I shot digitally, or changed camera formats or sent the film to a lab instead of my own development; the photograph I received at the end would have a different value to me, though could appear identical to an alternative chain’s outcome. As it is, with my current process, I am happy with the entirety, but I am also looking to ‘add value’ . This is perhaps a never-ending, unsatisfied yearning for something more than my current lot – perhaps that is just to be human, to want to evolve and change, whilst always improving, opposing an entropic creative flatness.

The honesty is opposite the dishonest representation of the photograph as a disembodied colouring on computer screens, hiding the real existence of that photograph as an artefact, as you put it. I am reminded of Rene Magritte ‘Ceci n’est pas une pipe’; the scanned/reduced jpg screenshot from a print (the photograph) that is uploaded to a website is not that photograph. Without being in the room and holding the print in your hands, you cannot know it. My attempt at honesty is to show that photographic print itself, as a best proxy for what it is.

I’m sure the editing choices you make (convert to black and white, shallow DOF, high contrast) further abstract the photos from the original scene/person as someone present may have experienced it/them.

A printed photo is an artefact, distinct from the abstract and infinitely reproducible ‘photo’ itself, that’s a point well made. It’s something I want to explore more myself.

It’s not really true that your work culminates as a photo on paper. Most people will see your photos on screen, so the culmination is the rendering of your photos of photos on whatever screen that person happen to be using. Getting there via a print is a deliberate choice to further stylise the image you’re making.

What do you mean by ‘value chain’ and how is this an ‘experiment in honesty’? What would be the dishonest alternative?

This consciously influences me to do the opposite. To be as direct as I can.

“Can one actively cultivate a sense of awareness and fusion of Things Out There … that bears fruit in changing, whether by osmosis or direct cognition, the ideas and ways in which I create photos?”

I’ll answer your question for you. Yes.

The more you read, listen, watch, look, smell, taste, feel what’s in the world around you the more you know what’s been done, what hasn’t, what’s been proven to be possible and what your own likes and dislikes are and how (and who) you’d like to be.

This will come out in your work unconsciously, but you can also consciously study, try to understand and experiment.

Take as an example: “My problem is that I perceive my photos to lack energy and values that can be seen in others work”

Find five photos you like that have this energy and write a note for yourself saying:
- how they make you feel
- what specifically in the picture makes it energetic
- is there something in common between the pictures that is responsible for this energy
- technically how is that achieved.

Now make a series of photos yourself where you try to use the same technical methods to achieve the same feeling. If you fail then re-examine the five examples in light of your new experience and try again, or decide to change your goals.

There is no magic. Only things that seem to be magic until you understand them. And then another magically amazing thing will come along to chase.

all the best
andy