Nescio,
I think it's fashionable nowadays to deny the referent - to deny that there's any deeper meaning to a photograph, or to art, etc... I see many artists do this almost as a kind of reflexive response to inquiries from people who ask them about what they do. I would attribute this to a defense mechanism mostly - an artist protecting his muse or daemon whether consciously or in an unconscious attempt to avoid criticism.
Now as to whether or not there's a deeper meaning or pattern to our artistic expressions (ie. photography), I believe that there is NO DOUBT. However, being able to address this as a topic is very delicate because what I see in a photograph may be different from what you see or from what the photographer saw. AND YET, the photograph can also be seen as a expression of a collective and cultural pattern. The well known English photographer Jo Spence wrote many essays on photography from a Marxist class perspective, which is but one way to look at the cultural patterns. I myself would not choose this "lens" but there are a number of others as well. My point however, is that there may not be a single referent. For you that referent may be something quite personal (what Barthes called the "punctum") but collectively the referent will exist as well.
The problem in post-modernism is that the professional standard bearers for the art (high profile photographers, art museum curators, art historians, gallery owners, organizers of major art show such as the Art Basel exhibition which is coming soon to Miami, etc...) are themselves either denying the referent or ignoring it, or pointing to the shocking and ironic as a kind of inside joke on the viewer - the archetype of the iconoclast.
We can no longer rely on the professionals to tell us what things mean collectively. Each professional organization is doing their data mining of the collective meaning space and spinning it to further their own agendas. Advertisers data mine the collective meaning space in order to come up with more profitable ad campaigns, etc... Look at what Facebook is doing in this regard as well. BUT in our highly fragmented modern and post-modern world we are beginning to see through this.
So that was my main point. The meaning of an image or photograph is in each individual's response AND in the collective cultural unconscious. This is a matter of contexts and perspectives. As the democratization of image making proceeds, there will be a greater need to be able to data mine this collective space ourselves to see the chain of causation between sign-signified-referent both individually and collectively. This is learning how to communicate - how to navigate the collective meaning space in order to be more effective in whatever you're trying to accomplish with your images.
One does not need any of this if all they're trying to do is make a pretty picture for themselves, but the current trend in photography is sharing images via social media. But this is also how the owners of these channels obtain free content so that they can make money. If you want to follow the meaning, the referent, follow the money. What's happening is that the collective space is being carved up through corporate balkanization where we are allowed and encouraged to cluster into self-selected groups according to shared meaning and then advertised to accordingly. The fragmentation of the referent has given rise to niche marketing.
I don't know if we'll ever get back to a universally shared sense of meaning in our society. It would require the emergence of a higher order of complexity - a new paradigm in understanding and using images would have to emerge.
Dear RedLion,
Again, terminology is confusing. Referent in linguistics is nothing more than the object an expression refers to, right? Thus an artist denying there's no other object than what he just created negates the importance of any cultural or artistical expression made before. That's not just plain stupid, but what's even worse, it's a throwback towards 19th century romanticism in which the artist is the sole and exclusive genius behind his creation.
On the other hand, though, I sort of UNDERSTAND any artist's reaction towards contemporary (to him) criticism. I totally agree with you that there's always a "deeper meaning or pattern to (any) artistic expression", but I don't think this meaning can be found INMEDIATELY, at least as a definite (sic) judgement. I'm 100% sure that you agree on this and that we both consider the contemporary art critic as no more than another player in a field where "opinions" or "values" are as volatile and empty as a prostitute's kiss. The (apparent?) opposition you mentioned between the opinion of the individual (be it the artist itself or a mere observer) and the collective appreciation is as old as a bad joke. Stressing the point that we feel some sort of a need to understand the world around us and explain it to ourselves is a favorite hobby of mine (and why some even get paid to explain it to others...).
Obviously, post modernism recognized this, but it didn't resolve the basic dilemma, as it was just a negation of the possibility of the above affirmation.
But let's go back to the artist. Put yourself in one of these archetypical schemes:
A) young or unknown artist doing something "nice" that somehow falls into the great contemporary scheme of things.
B) famous or renowned artist tired of his "untitled nr. 101" series starts a "new line of investigation".
A. will have his first solo exhibition in - preferably - not his hometown. Then some curator or gallerist will send him to a few respected, but still 2nd rate art biennales like the ones held in Korea or Turkey. He or she will have a great time, perhaps get laid, meet future FB-friends etc. Some minor gallery will make a deal with his own for future's sake and with a bit of luck he'll be invited to another more important art fair.
B. has made a statement, and statements in the art world are more important than concepts, as long as you can afford them, that is. He'll be sent all over the world, but of course that is no guarantee his "statement" will be picked up as such. While on the trip, he or she will get laid with someone the age of his/her son, try the best of local gastronomy and, if lucky, some famous gallery, collector or museum will buy him a piece.
You see what I mean? Of course these examples are plain vulgar clichés, though not without some sense of truth (yes, I have friends who did the A route). I'm not confident of making my point clear, but what I'm hinting at is that "meaning" is much more complex than what critics, whether in- or outside the art world, would prefer it to be. "We" can only wait how art is justified. For some it only needs a second, others need 24 hours, but time is a very funny thing to judge man's behavior. So there's my reluctance to go with your discourse on meaning et al, without taking reality, or real life, or whatever you'd like it to call into account. As you stated before, meaning can be both individual and general, but collective in the sense that everyone, or at least a large interested group of individuals takes part into it, to me is not like an A-B thing, but something that opens up to the entire alphabet...
RedLion, I really do hope you're not offended with my down to earth tone of saying things. It' just that I'm afraid that things many a time need to be put with its feet on the ground.
Oh, before I forget, I think there never ever existed something like an "universally shared meaning in our society". That can't be anything else than one of two things: nostalgia for a more comprehensible world, or just elitist bull****.
Nescio
PS: never heard of Jo Spence before, but when I looked her up in Wikipedia, I saw she helped John Healy to publish "The grass Arena", which I have in my library.
