Jump to content

"Equivalence" / Minor White / about images


Recommended Posts

<p>I'd like to add one more quote that I think is about the same ideas but from a slightly different angle:</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>... in <em>The Lover's Discourse</em> when he [Roland Barthes] writes that, "in the fascinating image, <em>what impresses me (like a sensitized paper)</em> is not the accumulation of its details but this or that inflection. What suddenly manages to touch me (ravish me) in the other is the voice, the line of the shoulders, the slenderness of the silhouette, the warmth of the hand, the curve of a smile and so forth." Like the detail ... that pierces him, that wounds him, the details of his beloved's body enter him and transform him into the register, the imprint, of a series of impressions that, like the "sensitized paper that records the other's trace, confirm his photographic character, his inscription within a photographic process. The body he loves is not unlike the music he loves, since both enter his own body and, in entering it, prevent it from remaining just "his," even if, as he suggests, "he" and his body become a kind of musical organ that "plays" this music from somewhere else as if it were emerging from "him" ... "Schumann's music goes much farther than the ear," Barthes explains, "it goes into the body, into the muscles by the beats of its rhythm, and somehow into the viscera by the voluptuous pleasure of its melos; as if on each occasion the piece was written only for one person, the one who plays it." "The true Schumannian pianist," he adds, is him: <em>c'est moi</em>. Entering him and piercing hm like the <em>punctum</em> of a photograph, music transforms and animates him and, in the rhythm of this process, he becomes the only one who can experience and intrepret the music in a particular way, in a way that remains faithful to the madness of its movement. "Rhythmed" in this way, he is jostled back and forth until he appears to become a kind of light that, rebounding off the several surfaces it encounters, ensures that his "identity" remains nothing more than what he elsewhere calls a "fleeting index." As he puts it in his analysis of the lover's discourse. displacing his interest from a musical interest to a photographic one, "in the amorous encounter, I keep rebounding -- I am <em>light</em>."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is from an essay, <em>Notes on Love and Photography</em>, by Eduardo Cadava and Paola Cortés-Rocca.</p>

<p>After this, I promise, I will quote no more in this thread.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p> <strong>Fred - "</strong> Probably a very significant contribution of Minor White's is that he sought and found the words."</p>

<p> True. And those words are understandable, relatively clear and transmissible. From my workshop notes, sequenced expertly, sprinkled with recirculating logic, all simultaneously rigorous, demanding and nourishing. Also remarkably systematized for what is a difficult fusion of something fairly technical and the poetic.<br>

_________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Josh typed: "</strong> Do you have any practices you do that help? Or any suggestions?<br /> Is there anyone online who is teaching along these lines?<br /> In a way, it seems as much about personal transformation and non-conceptual seeing as photography."</p>

<p> I had already done some meditation before starting out, but was inspired to go deeper into it. I chose TM, and have practiced it to this day. It's been very helpful to me, but it should be said there are many other forms of meditation. Most work on similar principles (though theories vary), and would likely be helpful to many in their photography.</p>

<p> There is a very useful book that covers a variety of meditative techniques<em> and gives basic instructions for practicing each</em> <em>. </em> There is synergy to be had in<em> choosing a method that is compatible with one's own psychic energies. </em></p>

<p><em>http://www.amazon.com/Meditative-Mind-Daniel-Goleman/dp/0874778336</em></p>

<p> This book, like the other two I've recommended, are for <em>study</em> and <em>practice. </em> Speed-reading, or worse, skimming, no matter how eager or intelligent one may be, will net you less than if you slept with them unread underneath your bed. There is also a paper by Paul Klee I am trying to find online.</p>

<p> Josh is right. <em>Photography is about personal transformation, </em> and not just at an advanced level. It happens at the rank newbie level, too. We see that here (and elsewhere) all the time, accounts of consciousness newly expanded, epiphanies described, etc.</p>

<p> Josh, I don't know of anyone teaching MW's methods on-line. I mentioned and gave the URL for a UNM class that sounded tantalizing, and cheap, save for the motel stay (there are probably cheaper ways to do that through Craigslist). There aren't many 1st gen MW students left alive. You could try writing John Daido Loori directly at:</p>

<p>http://johndaidoloori.org/jdl/index.php?option=com_contact&task=view&contact_id=1&Itemid=4</p>

<p> One thing to keep in mind is not to get too anal about the <em>precise</em> method, because like any living thing, it changed over time (and not all for the good). I gave the example about the earlier exercises being basic calisthenics, later turning into more established eastern and Gurdjieffian techniques. They all worked. The earlier students had an aura about them, but in reality, while MW's exercises varied broadly, the underlying principles (What MW referred to as "Laws") did not.</p>

<p> The integration of mindbody <em>preparation</em> and concentration (both of which MW goes into detail) is one of those ideas. For someone interested in pursuing this path in a DIY fashion, this could begin by taking the form of a good, long jog and some relaxation techniques (Google is your friend) along with a form of meditation. Or one may already be doing Tai Chi, or Yoga, used with some meditation techniques. Or dancing. Try the exercises in <em>The First Six Acting Lessons. </em> Reading lots of poetry, too.</p>

<p>Thinking Holistically brings us to a subject that was of great concern to MW, but for most photographers, never: Food. Yep, food. Integrating the optimization of one's bodymind must involve healthy practices, and this ends up meaning eating healthy food, too. Again, this is a comprehensive, complex system.</p>

<p>A few more observations...</p>

<p>MW was a big believer in tracing prints (not your own) in order to study their spatial, tonal, formal, emotional qualities and more. This sounds dumb until one tries it, and I mean tries it for <em>months</em> . He also had people draw quick sketches from projected slides, though I imagine one could do the same from a computer screen slide show. This is very different from tracing, and afterward, when compared with the original, often revealing. Again, don't even bother if you're only going to do a dozen or two. This mean hundreds.</p>

<p> I mentioned a strategy, and exercise, that recurs in MW's methods, and other disciplines, and I'll repeat it here because its significance and utility cannot be overstated. Try reversing the polarity of your thinking. This is not as easy as it sounds, because it involves apparent acausality. Imagine you have everything backwards. Turn around. As Newton said, there are undiscovered oceans behind us. This is not as easy to do as it sounds. For example, instead of taking pictures, let them take you. Or use you to enter this dimension. Instead of imposing, looking for, controlling, and subjugating, let the subject <em>find you and tell yo</em> u how it wants to be composed, lit, exposed, framed, etc.</p>

<p> Last, and this was not invented by MW...He gave his students a "night-thought", A thought put in one's mind just before going to sleep, and one sees if it's evolved when one awakens.</p>

<p> An example of such a thought might be your emotional response to a particular photograph (not your own).</p>

<p> A few URLs :</p>

<p>http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/white/white_articles2.html</p>

<p>http://www.sixfoot6.com/words/essays/minorwhite.htm</p>

<p> The earliest known picture of MW photographing:</p>

<p>http://historicphotoarchive.com/caps4/00299.html</p>

<p>http://www.viewcamera.com/pdf/2005/CorrectedBiggerstaff.pdf</p>

<p>I hope some find this helpful.<br>

<em>_________________________<br /> </em></p>

<p><em><br /> </em></p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Luis, thanks for the info, very helpful.</strong> I'm going to try the tracing exercise. I've been practicing Zen meditation for awhile and that is immensely helpful as you mention. But this moving outward and engaging with the world visually from that same quiet space makes me feel the need for some visual exercises that help build the visual muscle. I can't say enough good things about Miksang practice too.<br>

I also liked one of Stephen Shore's books that talked about floating through the layers of the photograph.</p>

<p>FYI, Loori died recently. Very sad to see him go. I was hoping to do his photography workshop when he recovered. <a href="http://www.mro.org/daido/">http://www.mro.org/daido/ </a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em><strong></strong>"John, I remain on the edge of my seat waiting patiently to find out just what you mean by "My learning". </em><em>What did you get from Minor White (directly or indirectly)? </em><br /><em>Not so much the procedures or exercises, but what you learned. Even in general terms?" - <strong>Luis G</strong></em><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br /><em><strong>Luis,</strong> the main thing I "got" and "learned: a certain kind of respect for photography, as well as a certain kind of <strong>"no big deal." </strong>I don't think White's influence was verbal, at least not for me. He did leave lots of epigrams, which have evidently been important to others...but I've only remembered one and it doesn't feel especially important: we photograph what feeds us, whether or not we like it. </em><br /><em></em><br /><em>IMO we are photograpers<strong> to the extent</strong> of our recent photos.</em> <em>Recent photos suggest the kind of photographer we actually are (as opposed to "were" as in HCB's case)</em>. I posted one yesterday that depicts someone else's construction of twigs and yellow leaves (in my Photo.net Portfolio). No big deal, a casual illustration of something amusing and attractive. At another level it illustrates<strong> </strong>a central truth I learned indirectly from both White and from Suzuki Roshi's work in San Francisco: <strong>no big deal.</strong></p>

<p>"No big deal" is a fundamental concept. White evidently wasn't entirely satisfied with it. His involvement with Gurdjieff/Ouspensky ("exoteric" rather than "esoteric") suggest to me that he diverted himself with the idea that another teacher had "answers" that were more complicated, possibly of more value than his own (a mistake IMO). Maybe that relates to his Roman Catholic roots.</p>

<p><strong>If I wasn't currently making photos</strong> I would be a<em> former</em> photographer or a <em>non </em>photographer. I'd be a <em>current</em> something else. Nothing wrong with being a former photographer or non-photographer: I enjoyed some excellent New Mexico raspberry-chili jam this morning, on toast: people at least as important as I am made it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>By the way, I'm very happy that Luis is sharing his understandings of Minor White's work and history here. My own understandings come from a different sort of direction, feel more psychological than mystical , therefore more personal (for me).</p>

<p>The physical aspects of White's teaching and experience may be virtually the same as the classic physical learning of drawing, of zen (which is inherently non-thinking), athletics generally, as well perhaps of Sufi Islam.</p>

<p>Zen sprang from Chinese Buddhism (C'han) , was revived in Japan specifically as military training...Alan Watts commented that he found monastaries much like military academies: <strong>The big idea behind both is to eliminate distractions, beginning with one's own (what one thinks one knows).</strong></p>

<p>Eugen Herrigel's <strong>Zen and The Art of Archery</strong> , mentioned by Luis, is very popular among people who kill deer with wooden bows and arrows...I only mention that because I know people who practice zen from that perspective. Herrigel's<strong> Book of Tea</strong> is equally relevant, maybe more visual. <strong>Gary Snyder</strong> offers more American-feeling perspectives that appeal to both photographers as well as meat killer/eaters. Perhaps less anthropologically distracting than Herrigel. Hmmm...maybe Gary Snyder's closer to my concerns than Minor White:</p>

<p>A random extract of Snyder:http://books.google.com/books?id=2Sl7sBlDoy4C&dq=Gary+Snyder&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=MEglS72CEZGqswOGzs3gDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12&ved=0CCwQ6AEwCw#v=onepage&q=&f=false</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Minor White didn't come up with these concepts/theories <em>instead</em> of photographing. He wasn't doing with words what he did with the creation of images. He was talking <em>about</em> something he was doing. That seemed OK to him. It seems OK to me.</p>

<p>I don't think <em>Equivalence</em> is the best word to use here. But it's a catchy word and it does work. More important is talking <em>about</em> the concept. Some can just do it. But some might struggle to understand it. Talking helps understanding. </p>

<p>I hesitate about the word <em>Equivalence</em> because I'm not sure it contains the notion of <em>transformation</em> that I find significant for myself.</p>

<p>I don't think of his words as <em>equivalents</em> of his photographic deeds, nor do I think of mine that way. My words explain and help me understand.</p>

<p>Minor White related these concepts to what he was photographing and how he photographed. He was specific and descriptive and personal. I admire him for that.</p>

<p> </p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm currently working on a documentary series. After a previous shoot, someone had recommended I take more establishing shots. So, this last time, I did. I was "conscious" (and quite happy to be conscious, intentional, and thoughtful in my work) of taking some photos that could be introductory, that could set the scene, etc. There is <em>Equivalence</em> at play here, I think. There is some sort of transformation that takes place. These establishing shots become more, in the context of the story I want to tell, than what they otherwise might be. And, while they serve as individual stills, in some cases as effective alone but not in all, they also serve as a welcome to the series. They could be placed elsewhere in the series and have a different effect.</p>

<p>In a single still, we also have an arrangement of elements. Much like musical notes and phrasing and dynamics are arranged. In music, we are moved by the transition from a smooth legato to a stern staccato. There are elements as expressive in photographs. We arrange these elements. We don't <em>think</em> about them like we think thoughts any more than the musician <em>thinks</em> about his notes. (I think Rebecca addressed this recently.) I don't know exactly what to call what we do with our visual components. <em>Equivalence</em>?</p>

<p>I move from the bigger picture of how the arrangement of stills in a series "speaks" . . . to the individual still where the arrangement of visual components speaks.</p>

<p>Because I use words to try to describe these phenomena does not mean I've reduced the phenomena to words. The words are an exploration in themselves. Words are appropriate because they form a language. I think <em>Equivalence</em> is talking about photographic expression and communication. We have poetry in words, lyricism in music. What do we have in our photographs?</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>John - "</strong> "<em><strong>Luis,</strong> the main thing I "got" and "learned: a certain kind of respect for photography, as well as a certain kind of <strong>"no big deal." </strong> I don't think White's influence was verbal, at least not for me. He did leave lots of epigrams, which have evidently been important to others...but I've only remembered one and it doesn't feel especially important: we photograph what feeds us, whether or not we like it."</em></p>

<p> All those teachings and you come up with two foggy comments and <strong><em>one</em> </strong> epigram? And the usual "um...ahh...it ain't verbal", which is patently untrue. I have my experiences, and 80 pages here of words edited by MW himself to prove it.</p>

<p><strong>JK - "</strong> <strong>If I wasn't currently making photos</strong> I would be a<em> former</em> photographer or a <em>non </em> photographer. I'd be a <em>current</em> something else. Nothing wrong with being a former photographer or non-photographer"</p>

<p><strong>One more</strong> innuendo and I'm out of this thread. Your call, John.<br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><strong>JK - "</strong> </em> By the way, I'm very happy that Luis is sharing his understandings of Minor White's work and history here."</p>

<p> Why don't you <strong>show </strong> me how happy you are<strong> </strong> by ceasing the attacks?</p>

<p> Studying Snyder to learn Minor White is like going ice fishing to learn to fly an airplane. Years before MW got his first copy, Braque gave HCB one. Cartier-Bresson praised the book and said he found it an inspiration. Like MW, he became a Buddhist. If John knew anything about Zen In The Art of Archery, he'd know about Herrigel, who would later become a Nazi Party Member, spoke very little Japanese, mistranslated more than a few things, and about his teacher, who actually didn't know a lot about Zen, but had some training, was an archery master and was trying to promote archery as a system. Do not let any this put you off. The book is superb.</p>

<p>___________________________</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong> I don't think of his words as <em>equivalents</em> of his photographic deeds, nor do I think of mine that way."</p>

<p>From what I learned, and the materials in my possession, I would agree with Fred on this. Minor White knew what <em>he </em> was doing. I think he could have done that wordlessly, but it would have all died with him. With the words, it became transmissible, more digestible, easier to understand, preserve in texts, and for those interested to practice on one's own. It's even leaked into this very forum, 33 years after his passing.</p>

<p><strong>Fred- "</strong> I don't know exactly what to call what we do with our visual components. <em>Equivalence</em> ?"</p>

<p>MW, as with everything else, went into this in some detail, with five types of elements. What we do with them fell into two large categories. One can <em>impose </em> a composition, the way most pictures are made, or let the subject tell you how it wants to be composed.</p>

<p>Equivalence is one possible kind of outcome. The term is overused, because so much of the rest of MW's teachings remains dormant and bound by copyright restrictions.</p>

<p> It's the right <em>kind of words, in the right order. </em></p>

<p><em> MW </em> faced a pressing contingency with his use of the workshop form. Even with a week-long format, there was an impossible amount of stuff to learn, or even remember. MW had to be very clear and organized in order to get through as much as he did.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Josh</strong>, interesting and helpful thoughts from you as the viewer. I hadn't thought about my photographs as possibly being a <em>combination</em> of miksang and equivalence. What I find fascinating is that those moments of a clear objective factuality, the way things can seem to be all visually tied together as one communicating whole, are always the moments when I'm without a camera, or not looking "through it" ( the camera ).</p>

<p>Photography - the act of - can't avoid igniting a sense of self in the photographer as much as it can't avoid to be purely descriptive about everything "outside of" this self. I have a feeling sometimes that this <em>sense of self</em> is cluttering clear photographic perception ( the seeing ), when this purely photographic seeing is all there must and can be to communicate with through photography.</p>

<p>Of course this cluttering of clear perception by the self isn't bad per se as it can be effectivily used and build upon, like you say for yourself : "Sometimes I choose 'purity' and sometimes I add complexity, thoughtfulness". But the base and the foundation of this cluttering can never be torn down completely, hence making it not so much a choice in my view.</p>

<p>While the terms <em>miksang</em> and <em>equivalence </em>do short to fully describe the concepts behind them I like it how they can immediately conceive an intention : " Watch out rock, I'm going to go all miksang on you ! ". Since the reality of the rock will stay the same either way, the difference between them is interpretational and not in the factual. Two ways of looking at one and the same thing rather then two different things.</p>

<p><strong>Todd :</strong> <strong>"One thing that is interesting and different may be the quality and amount of time spent in connection." </strong>Yes, I think that marks a difference. The photographer looking for an equivalence may consciously wait for the changing light, for the rock to be rendered differently, as it "should be", <em>as a projection</em> of what the photographer saw and identifies himself with.The photographer looking to catch miksang renders the rock, as is. An oversimplification maybe, but I see them as different branches on the same tree. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>We have poetry in words, lyricism in music. <strong>What do we have in our photographs</strong>? <strong>Fred</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p> A material Satori ! The camera and photograph as a literal sudden awakening of light, and then, release and rewind...</p>

<p><em>" A man who is seeking for realisation is not only going round for his spectacles without realising that they are on his nose all the time, but also were he not looking through them he would not be able to see what he is looking for." Wu Wei</em><br>

<strong><br /></strong></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><!--StartFragment-->"Photography - the act of - can't avoid igniting a sense of self in the photographer as much as it can't avoid to be purely descriptive about everything 'outside of' this self." <strong>--Phylo</strong></p>

<p>"I have a feeling sometimes that thi<em>s sense of s</em><em>elf</em> is cluttering clear photographic perception (the seeing), when this purely photographic seeing is all there must and can be to communicate with through photography<strong>. --Phy</strong><strong>lo</strong></p>

<p>"Sometimes I choose 'purity' and sometimes I add complexity, thoughtfulness"<strong> </strong><strong>--Josh</strong></p>

<p>"The base and the foundation of this cluttering can never be torn down completely, making it not so much a choice . . . "<strong> -</strong><strong>-Phylo</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>A riff on some of these thoughts.</p>

<p>If the act of photography can't avoid igniting a sense of self, then any act, not just the photographic one, for me, can't avoid it. I think that self will always be a part of my actions, though I will be conscious of it to a greater or lesser extent. <em>My</em><em> </em>history, <em>my</em><em> </em>culture, <em>my</em><em> </em>biology, <em>my</em> past experience, will play a role in my current acts. To that extent, my self is always with me. (I am not excluding the other.)</p>

<p>Not having a camera with me changes the experience, often. I have chosen NOT to take a picture. Some, I regret. Most I don't. Phylo, I think NOT having ones camera is a seminal idea. Those times have a had a great influence on my picture-taking. What I exclude and what's not there can be as important if not more so than what I "capture." Sometimes the acuteness of the experience by itself is more important. Those experiences can help me later, in terms of photographic visualization and preparedness.</p>

<p>I try to start from where I am, not where I could be, not from an ideal. I don't think of the self as cluttering. It's what I got. Perspective seems so much a part of my self and so much a part of visual rendering. Sure, I can be my own worst enemy sometimes and I can trip myself up or get in my way. But, all in all, I've been a pretty good companion. That's just a twist of phrase. I am not an also. I am.</p>

<p>Josh, because of other things you've said, I sense you are not using "purity" as an absolute negation of your self. (?) Here's what you said:</p>

<p>"[Fantasy/Self awareness] is in part how i differ from others and they from me . . . The more I allow for my fantasy to run free, the more effectively I can distance or use the norm that resides in me. A choice, one more dimension that I can use."</p>

<p>I take this for myself to be a kind of ebb and flow out of myself and then within myself. I tend to think of my photographing as both the making of connections with my subjects, a way to bring myself out of myself, and also as a gesture inward in order to make what I make.</p>

<p>Interesting that I can sometimes choose not to make as many choices, to "let it go" more, if I want. Yes, sometimes it just happens that way. There are photos that I am more a part of and ones that I am less a part of. I don't think absolute purity can be attained though sometimes what is attained may resemble it. I wonder if every photo isn't, to some extent, some combination of <em>Miksang</em> and <em>Equivalence</em>. And many if not all lean in one or the other direction.</p>

<p>Phylo, I think your last statement sums it up well for me. In conjunction with your others, at least I hear what you're saying as . . . we can't make certain choices and we must make other choices.</p>

<p>I have to be human living in a world. I have to have a perspective. I am not omniscient. <em>And</em>, I have to choose from that point. There is no clean slate from which to start or toward which to strive, for me. Just an ebb and flow. <!--EndFragment--></p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Phylo - "</strong> I hadn't thought about my photographs as possibly being a <em>combination</em> of miksang and equivalence."</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong> I wonder if every photo isn't, to some extent, some combination of <em>Miksang</em> and <em>Equivalence</em> ."</p>

<p>From the angle of this thread...Minor White made a distinction between a "photographic record" of an object which called a document, and a "picture of" an object, which he called a <em>possible </em> creative expression. These two categories varied according to intent, who and what the photographer is.</p>

<p> The former seems closer to <em>Miksang </em> to me, and it can be a subset of the latter.</p>

<p> Admittedly, there is no total escape from the self, but the more the self is emphasized, the more the photographer imposes his imprimateur on the subject, molding it to fit his preconceived ideas, and reinforces his preconceived ideas about himself and what is possible.</p>

<p>One can think of that as 'style', one's tropes or personal cliche's. Whatever else it is, it's the (stereotype and) default for most Western thought. Just to make this clear, it is neither good nor bad. Or greater or lesser. Most meditation systems strive to break the internal dialogue, thus throwing the mind into its autonomic mode, which carries most of the weight of awareness already. </p>

<p> In one of the best landscape books written, and perhaps the only one written by women, <em>Landscape as Photograph</em> , Estelle Jussim and Elizabeth Linquist-Cook write: "...though Minor White's landscapes are symbolic, they <em>never employ the allegorical mode. He does not personify ideas, but creates symbols for inner feelings."</em></p>

<p>I think MW might have changed that last sentence somewhat, but no matter. The authors were approaching the idea of the Equivalent in an unusually clear manner.</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Landscape-as-Photograph-Estelle-Jussim/dp/0300039417</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong> I have to be human living in a world. I have to have a perspective. I am not omniscient. <em>And</em> , I have to choose from that point. There is no clean slate from which to start or toward which to strive, for me. Just an ebb and flow."</p>

<p> True, but... many of us, while not omniscient, can have multiple perspectives, even opposing ones, simultaneously, no? Others can imagine (and draw) any view in a room from any other viewpoint, without moving, including their self-portrait. I can, and am able to fantasize it also when photographing with no problem. Most of us have the experience of immersing/losing ourselves into another when lovemaking.</p>

<p> What if one could take that one-ness and dissolve or at least diminish the duality of photographer and subject? Remember the business of reversing polarity? What if there was another slate <em>already inside us, </em> but our obsession with the racket of the conscious mind drowns it out most of the time? The other slate would also be a <em>part of you, just not one you are familiar with.</em></p>

<p> <strong>Todd</strong> , have you experienced some of this with your meditative practice?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Luis--</strong></p>

<p>For a long time, I've had the feeling that "most of us" experience things quite similarly but describe them differently. I doubt my lovemaking and yours, except for obvious differences, are as different as our <em>descriptions</em> of those acts might be.</p>

<p>It's one of the reasons I've considered an artistic or creative outlet for myself to be a good alternative to Philosophy. Because the verbal descriptions often lead to questioning and argument. Which is a fun, perhaps even necessary, part of Philosophy. Photographs, though they may be judged and cause arguments, I suppose, are more often accepted as someone's personal description and I less often find applicable to photographs the kind of search for common ground or the meeting of minds that understanding seeks. I am more likely to question in a particular way another's words than another's photographs. (Do the words apply to me? Are they meant to apply to everyone? Is he experiencing so differently from me?) I think a level of acceptance goes along with one's creative expressions more so than with one's verbal expressions.</p>

<p>No, I don't think I'd describe my fluency with adopting many different perspectives the same way as you do. I don't know whether that is an experiential difference between us or just a difference of verbal expression. I might have a better sense of that if I knew you better.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>An addition:</em></p>

<p>I don't find myself (though I may sometimes, either intentionally or not) "reinforc[ing] his preconceived ideas about himself and what is possible" when I include or emphasize myself in a photograph, even a self portrait. I can question myself. I can stretch myself. I can be seeking to change myself. I do not limit myself by my self.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Studying Snyder to learn Minor White is like going ice fishing to learn to fly an airplane. Years before MW got his first copy, Braque gave HCB one. Cartier-Bresson praised the book and said he found it an inspiration. Like MW, he became a Buddhist. If John knew anything about Zen In The Art of Archery, he'd know about Herrigel, who would later become a Nazi Party Member, spoke very little Japanese, mistranslated more than a few things, and about his teacher, who actually didn't know a lot about Zen, but had some training, was an archery master and was trying to promote archery as a system. Do not let any this put you off. The book is superb."</p>

<p>I don't think White"became a Buddhist." I think that's what somebody else wrote about him. I don't think there's an "ism" behind the "ist", and I sure don't think it's worthwhile to reduce the man to one randomly accepted label. </p>

<p>White was a human being who entertained a wide variety of ephemeral notions, one of which was photographic, but they all seem (to me) to have fit together: How is it helpful to reduce him (or anybody) to a label?</p>

<p>I'm puzzled by the need to dismiss Gary Snyder as well: poet, ourdoorsman, man's man, father, sensitive...a man with a value system. I think he's as close to photography as anybody is. </p>

<p>The need to condemn Herrigel at while recommending him tells its own value system story. Japan was Hitler's ally. Vietnam (remember them?) was our ally against Japan (and against Vichy France). A remarkably conflicted value system allowed us to slaughter em' all. Incidentally, Herrigel's alleged <em>mastery</em> of archery is not generally accepted by Japanese archers...don't recall him claiming it, either.</p>

<p>From experience (I ever read this anywhere), I find archery (wooden bow, wooden arrow) closer to photography than most other activities (Gary Snyder might agree). There's preparation of mind, body, technique, tools...then there's a whiff of awareness of an instant and the arrow is on it's way. There's even a click. HCB might understand.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Luis: "What if one could take that one-ness and dissolve or at least diminish the duality of photographer and subject? Remember the business of reversing polarity? What if there was another slate <em>already inside us, </em> but our obsession with the racket of the conscious mind drowns it out most of the time? The other slate would also be a <em>part of you, just not one you are familiar with.</em> "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, yes, even further, the core of Buddhist teaching is that the inner slate is the only real one. That the overlay of opinions, ideas, hurts, avoidance all create the outer slate that we think we are, and that has no real substance.</p>

<p>That is the main purpose or goal, if there is one, for meditation and photography for me. Yes, I've experienced this in meditation, but to a much lesser degree photographing.</p>

<p>Loori describes a total dropping of self in his initial breakthrough working with White, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satori">satori</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi">samadhi</a> experience. I've not experienced that while photographing. I find it usually takes hours to get into a space of greatly lessened self and into that flow w/o sharp edges to subject and object. It's a space of very nice joy.</p>

<p>This is what can make photography a transformational tool beyond changing or expressing one's personality (I hope anyway). A great expression and conveyance of the human condition, feelings, even insight, is great and valuable. But this quest to drop the self completely and let some brilliance that's unconditioned by our likes and dislikes and personal history come through is a "whole-nother-level."</p>

<p>What I got from White's books is that this was his ultimate goal. It's mine at least, so I use what I can from White and others. And that's where any practice where the mind is quiet and aware has that potential. If in that connection there is a dropping of personality, opinions, self-holding, then transcendence can happen. And I think it is a matter of degree, so more is better...(actually I mean less is better :)</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Of course this cluttering of clear perception by the self isn't bad per se as it can be effectivily used and build upon, like you say for yourself : "Sometimes I choose 'purity' and sometimes I add complexity, thoughtfulness". But the base and the foundation of this cluttering can never be torn down completely, hence making it not so much a choice in my view." Phylo<br /> <br /> "Josh, because of other things you've said, I sense you are not using "purity" as an absolute negation of your self. (?)" Fred<br /> <br /> <br /> Absolute? no. It isn't in my nature. But maybe sometimes an attempt at stepping aside. Long before I ever heard the word Miksang I stumbled into an exercise that was an effective way to get my creative engine started. I would take a walk with my camera and leave intent behind. My only desire was to see and shoot. For lack of a better word it felt pure. As the day progressed I could sense a cleansing. It was actually very exciting. But If I thought about it I would begin to lose it. The experience at its best felt like I was in the infamous zone. The photos that those days produced were secondary to the benefit I felt... because I have never acquired a taste, preference for the kinds of photos I made on those days. But the experience of making them is thrilling and unique for me. As Phylo has noted, the difference was in how I was perceiving.<br /> <br /> <br /> I have a bias against the word purity that does make it awkward for me to use. A dangerously (potentially) misleading word IMO. Sometimes I could replace the word with 'straight' or Phylo's word, clear.. But in the example that you are quoting Fred I was using it to suggest a lack of thoughtful intent in the hope of reaching a less convoluted and influenced state of perception. No white noise, no influence from bias, no guidance from inner voices. As Phylo says "I have a feeling sometimes that this sense of self is cluttering clear photographic perception ( the seeing )..."<br /> <br /> <br /> I suggest that there is a degree of choice in the matter at hand. Choosing purity!! I also detect a conflict, a dichotomy, but not irreconcilable for me as a photographer. " Watch out rock, I'm going to go all miksang on you ! " LOL. Most of the examples of Miksang photography I have encountered seem to be rooted in this idea of I'm going to go all miksang on you. But some photos, at the viewers end, communicate a clarity to me, with purity at the front end as well. I wouldn't expect that there are many photos labeled Miksang that are great examples of the philosophy. As I mentioned before "I believe there is a point early in the processes [Miksang and Equivalence]that they take a sharp turn away, depart from the other. perhaps to overlap again for the viewer." Perhaps as a viewer If I sense the purity of perception, there are equivalents to be considered. Maybe I have acquired the experience, visual vocabulary I need to help me recognize something that i am familiar with..?</p>

n e y e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Fred - </strong> Maybe if you clarified the perspective business a little? While I agree that there's similarities among the way we experience things, it's possible, maybe even probable we disagree on the <em>range</em> and potential limits of human experience.</p>

<p> [Hopefully, in time, we will get to know each other better.]</p>

<p>____________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John Keats talked about Negative Capability in poetry: </p>

<blockquote>

<p> I had not a dispute but a disquisition, with Dilke on various subjects; several things dove-tailed in my mind, and at once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in Literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously - I mean <strong>Negative Capability, that is, </strong><em><strong>when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason</strong></em><strong>-Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge. This pursued through volumes would perhaps take us no further than this, that with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other consideration, </strong><em><strong>or rather obliterates all consideration</strong></em><strong>.</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Where Keats got this, I'm not sure, or whether he came to this by working it out independently of other traditions, trying it on his pulses (his test for knowledge in general). His sense of Beauty in poetry is something different than MW's equivalences, I think, maybe a sub-set of it. <br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

Sometimes, talking about photography to improve photography strikes me as making stone sculptures with paint brushes. It can be done, but most of us don't have that much time.<br>

<strong><br /></strong></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><!--StartFragment--><strong>Luis--</strong></p>

<p>I'm uncomfortable talking about ranges and potentials of human experience. It would feel like quantifying something which, for me, would lead too easily to judgments of this sort: my range of experience is broader than yours, or mine is narrower than yours. For me, experience is the thing, not amounts or ranges of it.</p>

<p>I prefer to think of various ways of experiencing and various ways of talking about it and various ways of doing photography relating to it somewhat in the manner you summed up nicely in an earlier post:<em> </em><em>"Just to make this clear, it is neither good nor bad. Or greater or lesser." </em></p>

<p>What's important to me here is how my experiences affect and or relate to my photographs and how my photographing has been affecting my experience. I don't think a certain experience is inherently broader than another experience or a certain type of experience is inherently broader than another type of experience. They are what they are. I don't believe meditation is a broader experience than dancing, for example, nor do I think it suggests a broader range of experience. The dancer and the meditator are doing two different things. The psychologist analyzing someone or himself is doing a third thing. The guy next door masturbating is having his own experience, too. I'm the only one who gets to judge for myself which, if any, of those experiences I'd rather be having at a given moment. And, just because I like to have sex with another person, I'm not about to suggest to the guy masturbating that my experience is broader than his. Because it's not. Even if I prefer one act to the other myself.</p>

<p>If I'm in the process of photographing and I home in strongly and as exclusively as I can on one particular perspective and maintain that perspective and get a good photo out of it, that's fine with me. It's not, to me, narrower to do that than to sit in that same room and adopt a multiplicity of perspectives, which I might do on a different occasion. It's just different. For me, the proof would be in the pudding. The method to me is important as it accomplishes the kind of photo that the photographer wants to create. </p>

<p>You can talk about losing yourself in lovemaking, but your partners will likely assess whether you do. Plenty of people say they do and they really don't. Plenty of people who think they're good lovers aren't. So, I'd have to make love to you (and I'm not suggesting it . . . I know you know that) to give any real meaning to your statement. Likewise for the multiplicity of perspectives you talk about being able to achieve. I'd have to interact with you, perhaps see you at work or see your work, to know what that actually means in the real world. I can be pretty concrete and practical sometimes, as I know many meditators are as well. Results can matter an awful lot. That's why it would be important for us to get to know each other<strong> </strong>better.</p>

<p><strong>Todd--</strong></p>

<p>I'm uncomfortable with this, as it does start to sound judgmental to me:<em> </em><em>"A great expression and conveyance of the human condition, feelings, even insight, is great and valuable. But this quest to drop the self completely and let some brilliance that's unconditioned by our likes and dislikes and personal history come through is a 'whole-noth</em><em>er-level.</em><em>' "</em></p>

<p><strong>Rebecca--</strong></p>

<p>Talking about photography is fun, isn't it? I do it because it's there to do, among other things. I can't be out shooting all the time. It's a reflection as much as having any particular purpose. I'm not sure many of us do it to improve. Is sharing improving? "Negative capability" sounds like a cool concept. I hope to encounter it more. <!--EndFragment--></p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Fred</strong> , I understand what you're saying about the "purity" of experience (side pun) w/o judgment and at an absolute level I agree. Experience is experience, whatever it is.</p>

<p>But if you're interested in going a certain direction, then some experiences help and others may not. That's only my values, not trying to say others should care, and to me this dropping the self is a whole level of expression that I'm working toward...and it's better to me because it's what I'm interested in. I'm fishing for conversation on this too.</p>

<p>I think it also was a goal of White's (not exclusively), from what I've read in his bio's and his journal that was published.</p>

<p><strong>Rebecca</strong> , that quote sounds a lot like Rumi too. And it's very much like Dogen, holding the absolute and the relative in one hand. Maybe all artists trying to convey Spirit reach this point of holding uncertainty and paradox and learning to create from that? Now what would that photo look like?</p>

<p>Maybe we should start a series of "No Words" threads that start with "Equivalence - " and post photos that speak to that...maybe "Equivalence - Impermance" etc.? It would be interesting to post a topic and spend a week working to come up with a photo that expresses that. (Not that I'd be any good at it, but the digging inside myself is the stuff that makes my work better I think)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Fred - </strong> "I'm uncomfortable talking about ranges and potentials of human experience. It would feel like quantifying something which, for me, would lead too easily to judgments..."</p>

<p> I've made myself misunderstood, rendering the point moot.</p>

<p>"....than dancing, for example, nor do I think it suggests a broader range of experience. The dancer and the meditator are doing two different things."</p>

<p> I don't think for a minute it suggests a broader range of experience, but they're not as different as you might think in some cases, and while a different route, they can lead to nearly identical mental states, as do many other disciplines. Many kinds of dancing may as well be forms of meditation. MW and many of his 1st gen teachers used dancing (ecstatic, like Sufi) as one of the exercises, btw.</p>

<p><strong>Fred -"</strong> The guy next door masturbating is having his own experience, too."</p>

<p> Is THAT what he's doing? And here I was, admiring the randomness of the pattern on his curtains!</p>

<p>Seriously, in Goldman's book I recall at least a couple of forms of meditation that involve masturbation, believe it or not. I remember one was Catholic. See, many humans instinctively reach for the meditative experience. </p>

<p><strong>Fred- "</strong> You can talk about losing yourself in lovemaking, but your partners will likely assess whether you do."</p>

<p> Ingrates!</p>

<p><strong>Fred- </strong> "So, I'd have to make love to you (and I'm not suggesting it . . . I know you know that) to give any real meaning to your statement."</p>

<p> <strong>YIIIKES</strong> ! (Just kidding). I doubt that would work. Because even then, you would have no way to crawl into my wee cranium and decipher shadows ecstatically dancing (or passed out) on my dura. You'd still be guessing at what I'm feeling, and I might be faking, or experiencing something you do not know, or showing it in a way you would not express or have seen expressed, understand, etc. so you still would not really know. In the end, only *I* would know if I reached that state or not, and you, with all your deductive powers, would still be guessing.</p>

<p>All that cerebral <em>frisson,</em> and for what? All one would need to do is ask the other, or bring the sodium pentothal.</p>

<p> I cannot speak for Todd or MW, but I do not believe that meditation gives the practitioner superpowers, or propels one's work automatically to new dizzying heights. You might look at my work or Todd's, or Minor White's and think that (in concrete and practical terms) there's nothing to this, and you'd be right -- as far as you can see, of course.</p>

<p>Or... you could be truly concrete and practical, and learn to meditate to find out if there's any meaning in it for you.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"In the end, only *I* would know if I reached that state or not, and you, with all your deductive powers, would still be guessing." <strong>--Luis</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Luis--</strong></p>

<p>What if it turned out you were kidding yourself? I don't think you'd lie to me about being lost in your sex making, but what you might call and think of as losing yourself, I might think is . . . not. George Bush, remember, heard the voice of God. I have no way of knowing whether he was making it up or really believed it. I suppose I can only guess whether or not he actually did hear the voice of God and only he really knows, but . . .</p>

<p>Honestly, I know I'm sounding rather skeptical, and I'm using Bush as an extreme case and certainly not comparing you to him (DEFINITELY not), but asking people about these matters only gets <em>me</em> so far. I've heard an awful lot in my soon-to-be-56 years. I've heard stuff that's all over the place, especially living in San Francisco. I can only deal with it in so far as it has meaning for me. And it usually takes a bit of my own experience of it and my own shared experience with the person who's making the claim for me to have a handle on what's actually going on when the claim is made.</p>

<p>This is why it's more significant to me how whatever state you reach or claim to reach reveals itself in your photographs, if it does, or at least affects your photographs or photographing. That's more tangible to me than whether or not you reach the state you claim to reach, even as I recognize it may be rather intangible in the photo itself.</p>

<p>Yes. One of the prime reasons I used "dance" is precisely what you picked up on . . . that in many ways it's comparable to meditation, though still different.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"and it's better to me because it's what I'm interested in" <strong>--Todd</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Todd--</strong></p>

<p>It's probably a matter of how we differ when it comes to assessing value.</p>

<p>I tend to see <em>better</em> and <em>worse</em> as moral judgments. It's <em>better</em> to help people than to hurt them would be the sort of judgment I'm comfortable making. My saying "better" in this case seems to universalize it as a "should," and not just for me. The moral judgment suggests I'd want others to agree.</p>

<p>What interests me, or my tastes, on the other hand, don't seem to warrant my making the kind of judgment that is communicated by "better." If I like Impressionist more than Renaissance painting, I tend not to say Impressionist painting is better than Renaissance painting. I tend to say "I prefer it" or "I like it more."</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong> What if it turned out you were kidding yourself?"</p>

<p> That is a distinct possibility. I'm not doing anything unusual, or original, in my meditation. The disciplines, philosophies and principles in question have been about for a <em>long </em> time. It would be a popular delusion, believed (or suffered, you be the judge) by a significant number of the world's population, and one that is innocent, relatively harmless, inexpensive, exists in many forms and across most cultures, brings peace (or the illusion of it), better health (as equally deluded Drs and shrinks prescribe it, and their scientific tests objectively tell us many of the benefits are true) and is green and sustainable.</p>

<p>Wait....what am I doing? There's nothing to defend. These are well-established practices. One would hope you would give equal weight to the same skepticism turned onto yourself. What if you are kidding yourself?</p>

<p> What's funny is that you could easily find out if this might work for you, in your own head, on your own terms, in your own pictures, but you haven't said a word about trying it.</p>

<p>You can look at White's pictures. No one could provide better examples of the results from his method.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"There's nothing to defend. These are well-established practices." <strong>--Luis</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>They are indeed. And you have absolutely nothing to defend. What I questioned, and will continue to, no matter how many people practice, are some descriptions of it, not the practice itself. For some reason, a few posts ago, you said my questioning you about the "range of experience and potentials" was moot, but that was my point. I was questioning what you claimed about the practice, not the practice itself. I've seen many of the results of such practice and have nothing negative or skeptical to say about it. <em>Descriptions</em> aren't persuasive to me. Behavior is. Again, why it would be important for me to know you better.</p>

<p>Talk about photographs and the range of experience relative to a certain method of seeing isn't terribly persuasive to me either because it is the photographs that will tell me what I want to know about the method used, the method you are claiming shows a broader range of experience than you think I am willing to allow for.</p>

<p>I know many Christians for whom I do think Christianity gives them something significant and something I'm attracted to, though I would describe the reasons differently from how they would describe them . . . in many cases. I know more Christians for whom it's all posture. Hollow words and hollow descriptions. They might all tell me very similar things when talking on this board. The talk would be unpersuasive.</p>

<p>I am skeptical about most organized religion, for example, though 75 per cent of my countrymen claim to be religious. I don't doubt that many good things come from some of those beliefs. I've read a lot about the power of prayer. But I wouldn't describe that power in the same terms most practicing people of faith would. And, despite what I've read, I don't pray.</p>

<p>I am by no means dismissing your experience. I've questioned only your description of it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"What's funny is that you could easily find out if this might work for you, in your own head, on your own terms, in your own pictures, but you haven't said a word about trying it." <strong>--Luis</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I rarely suggest to my friends they try homosexuality (well, I have once or twice . . .), even though it works for me. I wonder why that is?</p>

<p>Yes. I look at <em>White's</em> pictures and I see the connection to <em>his</em> method. But we're talking about you and your claims, aren't we? And, as far as White's pictures, they do illustrate something about his method but they don't appeal to me as a motivation for trying those methods myself, to be honest. Which doesn't mean I might not, at some point. (So many things to do, so little time.) What I do <em>not</em> see in White's photographs is any sense that he has experienced something beyond the range I have or beyond the range I think I have or think anyone could have. I don't see anything in his pictures that speaks to me of the quality or quantity or level or range of White's experience, though the pictures do speak to me of White's experience.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...