I am currently going through a period where I tend to get in my head about the role of photography in my life. I have used this tool, this medium, as a means to inhabit the life I live, as a means of paying attention. I believe that giving our attention (to good things, of course) can be a true gift, and given the rate at which our attention spans have dwindled over the years, I believe attention is becoming a rare but revolutionary act. Even just a few months ago, I was feeling more optimistic about how the camera was situating itself in my life, or at least how I was responding to it.

But does photography (can it?) actually inhibit our ability to give our attention to something, to be closer to the reality that we are photographing? And by simply photographing it, are we to assume that we even got a small measure of that particular moment that could adequately describe to a viewer the truthfulness of that moment? And where can truth be found in an image? Is it the content itself, or is the truth only dispelled by the one taking the photo, since it's a forced frame of reality chosen by the photographer?

Told you I was getting in my head.

I now believe more and more that a camera, when using it, will always (maybe not always, I don't know) keep you one step away from reality. That's the best way I've come up with so far to describe it. Because as soon as you bring your eye up against the glass, you are now an observer, not a participator, looking from the window of a camera.

Maybe it's like...you're watching the rain from the window of your house. You can see the rain, how it's coming down, and the way it hits the glass. But you're not IN the rain, experiencing it. You can't describe how it feels, the way it has drenched your clothes, and whether the rain is cold or hot.

I realize you can pick apart this metaphor. No metaphor is perfect.

But I suppose we (I am, at least) are simply talking about the difference between observation and participation. Can we have both?

Maybe there's somewhere in there where these lines blur, and it's not necessarily either/or. I'm not trying to present a case that one is better than the other, but I suppose I am making a case that perhaps the camera can get in the way of the actual participation part.

Perhaps another metaphor: You're driving through an incredible mountain vista, and the landscape is absolutely stunning. You have a friend driving, and they are from the area, so they know it well. They want you to really experience the place. But as they're driving, you have a topography map out, giving you all the details of the land, and you're totally absorbed in the map, but you're missing out on the real thing.

Again, the map isn't completely obsolete or meaningless. It has its place. But it certainly can get in the way.

I suppose, in the end, you face the consequence of your choice. How I'm understanding it now is that the consequence is coming up against glass. Against in a literal sense, when putting the viewfinder to my eye, but also metaphorical.

The only way I can move back into participation is to remove the glass.