The question of why did you take or
make this photograph, already announces a major shift
in how we have interpreted photography over it's rather
short history. As making a photograph, was in and of
itself not much of a paradigm in the vocabulary of photographers.
We still do not "make" the
photograph, as one would make a painting, or a ceramic
pot where the content is a total fabrication. The making
in this instance is more akin to how we compose images
in our brain, as in memory reconstructions. We create
layers of various origins and place these in the context
of what and how we perceive reality, but in essence
they were all photographic in their origin.
This image is a representation of what
would otherwise be a story, as told by ancestors who
recreate myths of events that allegedly occurred at
some moment in time.
As to my feelings when I made the photograph,
the closest I recall, is the freedom I then experienced
because I had the tools with which to represent with
photographic images situations which had eluded me before.
I have my serious doubts as to what
we call the "message" in a photograph. The
reason is that any viewer decodes the image according
to her or his culture or education, leaving any specific
content relegated to the heap of good intentions. As
long as the so called "message" becomes decoded
according to each his own, we can surely not talk of
specific messages with regard to a photograph, thus
placing the intentionality of a message within a photograph
very much as an open question. Maybe the charm of photography
is precisely this lack of possible specificity.