Quote Originally Posted by bjorke
Perhaps Michael it depends on the viewer.

Several years ago, the big perennial "Leica Manual" has a section on Ralph Gibson, in which he said that some photographs are highly-specific, while others show the human form in the role of a non-specific everyman -- and that the photos he prefered were those in the region between, the threshhold from the specific to the universal For my own photographs, I'm sometimes perplexed by comments from viewers who say they "agree" with the photo. Beats me what they see stated there.
I like what you have said here a great deal. Perhaps what the comments you mention may be interpreted as is "I relate to the photo." For a photographer that would seem to be a compliment of the highest magnitude.

It is interesting that Ralph Gibson has said what seems to be the same thing that I understood Paula Chamlee to say in her interview in B&W magazine. I quote from that publication.

" Although I view things on the ground glass as if they were abstractions, I'm always drawn first by something very recognizable and specific before I set up my camera," explains Chamlee. "My photographs are on a fine line between recognizable subject matter and total abstraction. Usually I am looking at and responding to the tonal arrangements of things. For me the photograph must reach beyond depicting reality of subject matter and touch a resonant chord through it's abstracted arrangement of space and form".

It is interesting that as I become more aware the same message consistantly seems to be delivered from many different sources.