I agree with the theory that art, at its true heart and regardless of medium, is an evoking of past emotions within each individual viewer. A drawing instructor of mine felt that the most powerful of these emotions come from early childhood experiences in their raw form unencumbered by theory and interpretation.
I can think of a couple of ways this theory might relate to photography and other visual art. One is that viewers of your work might actually be calling up emotions they formed while viewing other people’s photographs. They see yours, but are reminded of how much they liked or didn’t like some other photographer’s similar work. They’re barely seeing your work at all, even though that’s what they’re looking at.
Another issue is that as a photographer you must evoke your own emotional memories and bring them to bear on pictures while they’re being made. Once made and out there, it’s just a matter of hope that they will evoke emotions similar to the ones you had while taking them.
And this leads us back to the drawing instructor’s theory. The more you can evoke basic emotions that formed during childhood, the more universal appeal your art will have. Trying to evoke an emotional response to one of Heidegger’s theories on existentialism will appeal only to a select few--at best. And it will still be Heidegger’s theory in the end, not yours.
I’m no neuroscientist, but as I understand it, a small child is constantly experiencing things for the first time, which creates permanent connections in the young brain. Some of these connections will be unique to each individual, some will be universal, while others will be universal in a unique way.
Your style as a photographer comes from sharing universal emotions in a way that is unique to you, and therefore interesting while also understandable to others—emotions that are Universally Unique.
