intimate

<blockquote>

<p>So. . . if intimacy is a psychological state (and please note that huge word "if"), how can we ever capture it with a<em >photo</em> ? Consider also the epistemological question: How would we <em >know</em> that we had captured even the <em >external</em>manifestations of a private, psychological state of one person, much less of two--much less of something special passing between them, intimacy itself?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> What you are describing, is captured, alluded to, in a painting ( I know not a photo, but it is visual ), and it's precisely the reason, regarding this specific question, why I've linked to it a couple of posts back : <a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/klimt/kiss/klimt.kiss.jpg">The Kiss by Gustav Klimt</a>. It's not simply about a kiss, this painting, that's for sure.</p>

<p><strong>Fred, thanks for helping this remain to some degree a photo thread.</strong></p>

<p>Anyone experiencing zen-like approaches to existence and photography will probably recognize that hard-reality, conventional sweaty reality, is a higher order than the vapouring of romantics, cosmic everything-is-everything, "I'm nature", kumbayah, and magic realists.</p>

<p>You asked "... are there photographic aspects you are now aware of that either do or could have expressed intimacy, specifically relating to the<strong> details, aspects, and technique</strong> involved in the photo of the sisters?"</p>

<p><strong>Yes. I've identified haste and technology as intimacy factors, neither positives nor negatives.</strong> Using a rangefinder film camera, even a manually focused SLR, I'm instantly certain of focus and exposure because it's <strong>me at the helm.</strong> I experience the autofocus and auto exposure "machine thought process" as obstacles to intimacy...creating in me a sense of haste.. doesn't feel good, but does allow a dozen automated (DSLR or Hexar AF) shots where I might have created only a few mis-timed non-automated film exposures. <strong>Nothing's perfect.</strong> I sold my rangefinders but am reluctant to abandon Hexar AF and primative Canon F1s.</p>

<p>However, some DSLR offers incredibly high detail resolution (in my case 15mp APS) . leading to an interestingly intimate exploratory medium..my impression is that a half-body or H&S image with my specific 15mp is more critical..may actually <strong>share</strong> more in a print...than MF.</p>

<p>In other words, I think the chosen technology actually does play a role in the sense of intimacy in the print/s that I ultimately decide to produce (my decisions,not subject's).</p>

<p>Most importantly, the intimacy of the image entails a selection decision, the potential for which may be reduced with MF / LF equipment.... as we see IMO with most, but not all, of Arnold Newman's work...but maybe not Edward Weston's (some of his most intimate were 8X10, others 4X5 Graphic reflex).</p>

<p>So... presently I think DSLR/RAW/Photoshop can in fact allow greater intimacy, but the tech brings with it a risk that involves (for me) a sense of haste and disconnection from part of the process with which I've been intimately involved for over 50 years of my life (age 8 to age 65 so far).</p>

<p>The fact that Lightroom/Photoshop seems especially fluent with low contrast lighting situations currently encourages me to photograph in open shade, rather than pursuing Rembrandt-like light. This, I think, allows more attention to "intimacy" and less preoccupation with light.</p>

<p>Does this relate to your question?</p>

<p> </p>

<p> The effects of focal length are not universal. When intimate, people tend to be closer physically each other. We allow each other inside our so-called defense perimeter.</p>

<p>Perspective has to do with subject-camera distance, not focal length. One can easily achieve a 'big-nose', light-bulb head portrait with a 50mm. The quality of the space in a photograph is an integral part of the visual lexicon. I see Don E. puts that 50/3.5 Elmar on his Leica to very good use, and is intimately aware of what it can do.</p>

<p> When doing environmental portraits (as Don mentioned), a wide, or even an ultra-wide can be used effectively -- and not necessarily in big-nosed mode.</p>

<p> There's a world of difference between a torso-length portrait (same size on neg) at 35mm or 50mm. Neither is a big-noser. The change in perspective changes the visual quality of the portrait. Whether that is of any consequence depends on the photographer and the viewer, of course.</p>

<p>Like Don E., I have several older, single coated, old formula lenses that I like because of their individual qualities (or as they call it in most of PN, flaws). And, coincidentally, some of the same camera/lens combos he favors.</p>

<p> I notice Don E. handled this big-nosed portrait of a lady sitting across from the cafe table reading the Cartier-Bresson book/catalog really well. Had he used the Elmar, it would have been a completely different portrait, and I have a feeling he knows that perfectly well.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/8507938</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Does this relate to your question?"</p>

<p>John, yes, absolutely. Thanks. I am not often as tuned into the emotional effects of equipment and media choices, so your answer is extremely helpful. </p>

<p>I can also relate to what you say about quickness. I was encouraged early on not ever to use auto modes and, though I initially resisted, was convinced to start shooting RAW as soon as I could. Those things certainly affect the intimacy of photographs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact that Lightroom/Photoshop seems especially fluent with low contrast lighting situations currently encourages me to photograph in open shade, rather than pursuing Rembrandt-like light. This, I think, allows more attention to "intimacy" and less preoccupation with light. --John Kelly</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I was following you up to this point. I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying that LR or PS seems "more fluent" in low contrast lighting situations, since low-light shooting was always an option. I do agree that shooting RAW gives one a lot of creative options, but those are post-processing choices. I shall have to think about the implications for the shooting phase itself.</p>

<p>As for implications for "intimacy," I think that the most that I could say is that more creative control, whether in shooting or in post-processing, gives one more creative options as well--but that is so obvious as to be almost tautological. Intimacy is simply one of those options. That sense of intimacy is very subjective, however, and I still resist the notion that it inheres in the photo. At the same time, however, I do not deny that some photos are more capable than others of evoking that sense of intimacy--and we do well to try to analyze why they do. I thus do not deny the value of this thread, simply the conclusion that capturing "intimacy" is largely a technical problem.</p>

<p>Capturing intimacy itself is still up there with shooting unicorns for me--not to say that it is necessarily a meaningless quest, simply that I think that a sense of intimacy is more likely to come through as a result of subconscious or unconscious factors--again, perhaps attributes of one's own mental state (or personality) that one brings to the photographic opportunity.</p>

<p>I also think that Luis was on target in saying that "There is nothing generic when I photograph. Everything is specific." There is no formula, that is, not in equipment, not in software. What comes out of the photo is perhaps often a product of what we bring to the photo, in terms of our own mental states--intimacy perhaps being manifested as an expression of ourselves, our own cares and passions, even our own tranquility. (Nature often brings me that tranquility. I am sorry that you insist upon comparing an appreciation of it to Zen or other obscurantist doctrines. Romanticism's idealization of nature might indeed be a projection of a man-made ideal onto nature, but wild nature lends itself--at times--to a sense of harmony, even if that harmony is arguably not really there, as Don says.)</p>

<p>I do believe that our own <em>intensity</em> --though not our haste--lends itself to a sense of intimacy, at least in the sense of revealing more about ourselves through our photos, though again not necessarily being something that inheres in the photos themselves.</p>

<p>I am not sure, that is, that we can escape the ontological question without taking the philosophy out of "the philosophy of photography." It is not, however, philosophy but reality itself that keeps shoving the ontological question back into our faces, in this case as the necessity for trying to define "intimacy" or "intimate" in the first place in a photographic rather than emotional context.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie, I'm not suggesting elimination of "philosophy" from photography. </p>

<p>I do advocate moderator action when philosophic vapourizers reduce photo-related talk to mere talk about talk about talk...forgetting the machine that is inherently involved . </p>

<p>Photography has more substance and is less intentionally circular than is talk about purported cosmic truths. We have always had more gods among us than cosmic truths. See the Magnum website for proof, or consider the LA Lakers.</p>

<p>"Reality" doesn't "shove ontological questions back into our faces." That concern infects some of us, but photographers usually have bigger fish to fry. Intimacy, for example.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What is the ontological status of a sense of "intimacy," John? It is, I suppose, an emotion. <strong> Is it in the photos <em>themselves</em> ?</strong> (I have asked several times now.) If so, how does one recognize it?</p>

<p>Surely these questions must be answered before one can set about <em>capturing</em> a sense of "intimacy."</p>

<p>These are real questions, John, not trolls or off-topic drivel requiring moderator intervention--unless the moderators want to answer the questions I have raised.</p>

<p>In other words, your basic query at the outset raises even more fundamental questions. Surely I may be forgiven for delving into them, just as you have the right to ignore them. Whether you choose to or not, however, the questions are for me "out there," but only in the sense that they are actual questions that have been voiced. They are not "far out" questions, rather simple, down-to-earth questions that would help me to clarify exactly what you are asking--so that I might answer it.</p>

<p>In other words, please define your terms.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>John, another way of understanding my comments (which apparently seem at best tangential to you) is to realize that I think that capturing intimacy requires first of all having the capacity to <em>feel</em> intimacy, in whatever photographic context.</p>

<p>In trying to examine the question of the Ultimate Source of our sense of intimacy, I have not meant to steer the topic away from what you have asked, but to ask <em>myself</em> precisely where that sense of intimacy comes from, to ask, that is, how it is that we can have a sense of intimacy in the first place. <strong>I have asked THAT with regard to nature photography, which for you is apparently out of bounds. You want my metaphysics of intimacy to be yours: to presume that intimacy is something that can only occur between human beings. </strong> My own intellectual honesty precludes my responding on those terms alone.</p>

<p>I have gotten the sense that you would have us avoid all metaphysical inquiry into the philosophy of photography, surely in the best post-modern tradition--not a tradition of which I am particularly enamored. Thus do we have your strongly censorial tendencies on this thread, as if, in phrasing the question, you seem to think that the question and the thread now belong to you. For me, philosophical questions are <em>always </em> subject to being reformulated. <strong>In philosophy we do well to get the questions right.</strong> Getting the answers right? Well, I am not too optimistic there, but I would certainly like to know what the real question is before I am willing to venture very far toward trying to answer it.</p>

<p>I suppose that on this one we shall simply have to agree to disagree--and let it go. I frankly thought that the differences between our worldviews were an important part of the creative tension that kept this thread going for so long.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> John tells us what is art, and what is not. That it is "less than a velvet Elvis". He tells us who is a photographer, and who is not. What is photography, and what isn't. Who is thinking correctly and incorrectly (like him or not like him).</p>

<p>This age-inappropriate version of 'Simon says' is a lightly veiled attempt to BS and censor Photo.net members from speaking their minds freely.</p>

<p>One thing I agree with John on, is that it is high time a moderator come in and clarify a few things: Are Photo.net members free to speak their minds here, as long as they respect Mr. Greenspun's vision, meet standards of civility and the mission statement?</p>

<p>Or is Mr. John Kelly empowered to make ad hominem attacks with impunity and dictate what can and cannot be said here? Please clarify.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"...to ask <em>myself</em> precisely where that sense of intimacy comes from, to ask, that is, how it is that we can have a sense of intimacy in the first place."</p>

<p>Mom.</p>

 

<p>"In other words, your basic query at the outset raises even more fundamental questions." Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie, those seem questions that you find <em>personally</em> inescapable ("more fundamental")...by contrast, I have been asking about a matter that concerns me more. Bigger questions are easier because we know we can't answer them...smaller questions ("intimacy" perhaps) are tougher because they have to do with our fellows... discussing them may be awkward.</p>

<p>The nature of "reality" or cosmic truths or Mr. Jehovah's putative existence are not even issues for me, may not be for most photographers..I suspect.</p>

<p>Drifting a PHOTO FORUM (see the formally stated definition/purpose of this Forum) mostly toward the "philosophic" seems designed to avoid any photographic dimension. </p>

<p>"Define terms" is a word game: It's impossible to do that with most of the topics about which we blather...Webster didn't do it to our standards... the more "important" the topic the more useless the definition...we spin out into psychedelia, dada, doggerel, and non-photographic analogies... we take certain words as given, like gravity, as if whatever it is, it's sacrosanct.</p>

<p>You think "intimate" may be an emotional response... and you wonder if intimacy can spring from a photograph. You're probably right about emotional response, as far as that goes....</p>

<p>... but I think photographs are uniquely capable, sometimes, of projecting intimacy. One reason I think this applies mostly to photos of people rather than of "nature" and my own "expression" is that people have expressive faces...literal subtle and fluent media of expression. It's telling, IMO, that this hasn't been mentioned here previously...we'd rather space out.</p>

<p>I respect your point of view, John. Thank you for stating it clearly and succinctly.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>"Define terms" is a word game"</p>

<p>Well, yes, but the alternative is incomprehension and the usual dust-up in, and closing of, a thread. In another thread here, 'self-consciousness' is discussed. Some respondents take it to mean awareness of something subjective, perhaps using it as a synonym for 'egotistical'. I take it to mean awareness of things objective -- which is to say I am attuned to the visual (and social) expression of 'subjectivity' rather than the fact of being self-consciousness (which is, of course, the human condition and not remarkable). If no one defines their use, and only use 'self-conscious', not aware their are other valid perspectives, eventually it will lead to a fight, or worse, disengagement due to incomprehension.</p>

 

<p>Don, I think of "intimate" as part of a sentence, typically followed by "with..." As in "intimate with something/somebody." It seems to me that if turns the sentence back onto itself, one is twisting a concept, perhaps turning it into a joke: "The philosopher is intimate with himself."</p>

<p>You mentioned "valid perspectives." Validity is not a subjective matter, IMO. Validity doesn't exist in the abstract or in one person's free opinion, it is accomplished by agreement. In science "validity" is a measurement that depends upon multiple agreements. Nothing is valid for me alone, or for you. IMO.</p>

<p>Have I missed your point?</p>

<p>There is also "an intimate knowledge of", but I understand the intention of your op. My only issue is with the reification of abstractions, such as 'nature' and the claim of being intimate with it. But I am not arguing that one can't validly claim an intimate relation with something that is not human or even animal. Not with 'nature', but with this tree, with this mountiain, specifically. Even inanimate objects, 'artificial' things -- a vase, for instance -- may be intimate. A woman's "intimate things" -- our language makes a way to express those relations. After all, we are a polymorphous perverse species.</p>

<p>Such things, whether 'natural' or 'artificial' can only share their existence with us, which is enough, I think. It can mean we have a history together.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Don, while you seem (above) to think a tree or mountain should be satisfied with our "history together",<em> </em>I don't think they <strong>"share their existence with us" ...</strong> because your use of "share" clearly implies volition<strong>.</strong> I doubt my favorite tree is volitional, but I wouldn't presume to speak for yours :-) </p>

<p>I still have my teddy, by my bed. My Children hug him, his nose is shiny from all the kisses he had and has from my children. He may be inanimate, but he was their when I needed him.</p>

<p>"I doubt my favorite tree is volitional, but I wouldn't presume to speak for yours :-)"</p>

<p>Ask your friends on the res. I'll let them referee.</p>

 

<p>Don, my more traditionally-inclined, intellectually inclined rez acquaintances have said they work (use volition) to remain "in balance." Or the opposite...they volitionally rebel. I don't think they consider trees to have volition, as trees don't need it...same, maybe, with some Navajo, who may never have had individual volition ...their dominant identity is tribal (non-individual), and that evidently comes naturally..similar to trees in that sense. I've actually touched some of this with a few, related to individuality vs tribal identity...they're aware that it's a profound matter.. Intimacy occasionally feels easier, if more perious, with them than with folks in the wider society...perhaps they selectively and briefly extend tribal identity to non-tribal friends.</p>

<p>I understood the defining restriction in your op, "Fantasies aside, I don't think one has "intimate" relations with inanimate objects (buildings, rocks, moon-rises), or with objectified people." Above, I wrote "Mom" and it is "Moms" all the way down, iow that human relation -- those first few weeks and months -- has the precedence and influences for good or bad our intimacies. But to restrict the study to human relations doesn't shed light on the meanings and uses of 'intimate' (and therefore us humans) by labeling them "fantasies" so as to dismiss them from consideration -- not to mention that intimate relations as you mean it can be described as "fantasy" in many instances, beginning with ourselves in our infancy. Early on in this thread you wrote that you don't fully understand the idea yourself. Foregoing examining the ways we use 'intimate' seems to limit the possibilities of understanding.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"Early on in this thread you wrote that you don't fully understand the idea yourself. Foregoing examining the ways we use 'intimate' seems to limit the possibilities of understanding."</em> Don E</p>

<p>Yes. That's true. I'm increasingly comfortable saying that I don't fully understand things.</p>

<p>I did clearly frame my <strong>question</strong> around <strong>human</strong> intimacy, emphasing that angle. I think most responses dodged that point due to the very personal fears I also experience...<strong>which is partially why I asked the question.</strong></p>

<p>As to "limit the possibilities" ...That someone proposes intimacy with trees or nature or underwear (as above), or imagines that a telephoto shot of a homeless person can be intimate is OK....but it seems a dodge. </p>

<p>... looking at portfolios on P.N I find an interesting absence of sensitive direct contact with people (other than their kids, perhaps). <strong>Why have they</strong><strong> excluded human intimacy from their photographic possibilities?</strong>...I think they (and I) fear human intimacy.</p>

<p>This is a photo forum ... visual evidence, personal webpages and P.N portolios, says what we intend to say. We make the images, we edit what we share. If we do other types of photography, fine. But on balance<strong> I think we see something about human intimacy in photography when we compare words with images.</strong></p>

<p>My interest here has been in photography rather than the myriad possible definitions of a word.</p>

 

<p>It is not about definitions,but about how we use "intimate". You wanted to discuss one way, which is okay, but limiting. This is a photography forum, but it is a philosophy forum, too.</p>

<p><strong>"Why have they</strong> <strong> excluded human intimacy from their photographic possibilities?</strong> ...I think they (and I) fear human intimacy."</p>

<p>'Risk' is the most common word used in association with "intimate" or "intimacy" in this thread appearing about a dozen times. As you like to say "that is telling". But a thought, if you "fear" intimacy, consider it "risky", perhaps you can't recognize it in photographs. Perhaps you shy away from it or interpret it as being something else. What is risked and why does it induce fear? These are more questions for psychology rather than philosophy. My time is short now, so I'll leave it at that.</p>

<p>From Latin intimus meaning inmost, deepest, profound. </p>

 

<p>Don, look at the stated purpose of this Forum... it involves more disciplines than philosophy and is focused on photography... not intended as a non-photo debating society (mouse over it P.N home page) </p>

<p>Insisting upon definition of "intimacy" in a multitude of ways despite the thread's directly stated <strong>human intimacy</strong> question, and then constricting "philosophy" to something more narrow than commonly recognized, seems conflicted.</p>

<p>"Psychology" and "philosophy" are not mutually independent. In fact,<strong> "philosophy" seems usually to be centered on psychological issues</strong> (belief or non-belief in "deities" , notions about "identity," senses of "life purpose," "life vs death," "truth," and "reality."). A few assume "philosophy" is nothing more than semantic exercise, but IMO most understand it more broadly... especially significant when photography is at the heart of a Forum. </p>

<p>"Insisting upon definition of "intimacy" in a multitude of ways despite the thread's directly stated human intimacy"</p>

<p>You are replying to: "It is not about definitions,but about how we use "intimate"."</p>

<p>I was resonding to [emphasis in original]<strong> "</strong> This is a photo forum ... visual evidence, personal webpages and P.N portolios, says what we intend to say. We make the images, we edit what we share. If we do other types of photography, fine. But on balance<strong> I think we see something about human intimacy in photography when we compare words with images.</strong> "</p>

<p>and: "<strong>"Why have they</strong> <strong> excluded human intimacy from their photographic possibilities?</strong> ...I think they (and I) fear human intimacy.""</p>

<p>I understand this to mean not actual intimate human relations but the appearance of it or not in photographs. You write above as a photographer viewing photos. You believe human intimacy has been "excluded...from their photographic possiblities". That is distinctly different than actual human relations. You are referring to the appearance of it or evidence of it in photos, and you say you think it is exluded. And that, John, is a "use" of intimate, and not intimacy itself. How does that differ from Lannies use of intimacy in regards to "nature"?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In your op you wrote: "Weston's peppers are powerful, but not intimate. His nudes don't seem intimate, but many of his portraits, even his most formal (eg of Bender, his patron) do."</p>

<p>For you "many of his portraits" are intimate objects. There is no intimate human relation there -- except the humanity you bring to the viewing. "The photograph is not the photographed". You do not have intimate "human relations" with either Weston or his subjects, but with pieces of paper.</p>

<p>I see by the clock on the wall this is my last post.</p>

<p> </p>