The Tenacity of the Formative Tendency

Trout's One Man Band. October, 2009.


Sam Kramer, nackt drinnen Küche im Organ-Haus. Oktober, 2009.

Yep, once you get good at doing something it's hard to stop. Do I consider this kind of thing "serious" photography? I don't know.
I know that the process of shooting and editing is one which I enjoy.
I also know that the method which allows me to make photographs like these is one that I am highly critical of. There is separation that still exists between the ethics that inform the imagery I am producing and the actual images themselves. This is probably because I still do not fully grasp the meanings within the texts I am looking to in creating my own ethical framework for making photographs.
Should my photographic practice fully and exclusively adhere to one ethical method? I am curious as to the effect that a full realization of the spectrum of objectivity will have on my persisting desire to create formative imagery.
At present I am concerned that my interest making formative images will persist and that the ethical model I desire to construct will end up assuming the function that many of Michel Foucaults theories do. Foucault viewed the breadth of his work as a toolbox that philosophers, academics, students, etc. could pick and choose from in service of future development of ideas.
I see the value in having an ethical or metaphysical set of prefabricated thoughts or ideology to run specific content through, but I am unsure if this is a cultural practice that I want to emulate in my own development of Ideas.
In theory, if the stipulations of an objective ethic is sound enough, it should satisfy my entire desire for creative output. Right?
Looking at artists who have already dealt with similar systems of rules and ethics that modulate and govern their creative process will undoubtedly benefit me in answering this question.
Specific examples that immediately come to mind:
1. Lars von Trier - the development of the Dogme95 film style/genre.
2. Ingmar Bergman - looking at history, technology, subjective reality, human interactions, etc.
3. Robert Mapplethorpe - Specifically the differential that exists between Mapplethorpe's different bodies of work. How is X Portfolio different from Black Book? How is Y Portfolio different from his "architectural" photographs of the human body? Why is this shit different? why does it matter?
4. News photography. Images taken by photojournalists that receive a sanction of objectivity by the Associated Press. What makes these images objective? What makes them powerful? Are they either of these things? How is the objectivity/power/meaning of an image subverted by pundits and commentators that work for "theatrical" news corporations - MSNBC, FOX News, CNN, etc.

The saga must continue.