Why?

<p>Josh, Matt, and Fred...<br>

I hope I have not simply quoted MW or anybody else in responding to threads, or starting them. I have in fact been hostile to people who use quotations, especially without citations, without expressing their own ideas.</p>

<p>I have, however, specifically started a couple of recent threads to remind future Photo.net visitors, that certain significant photographers existed (White is an example...browse with his name and you'll find few references, yet I think he was more important than any other photo teacher...)</p>

<p>I have not attempted to explain how White, someone I never met, influenced my photography, though that's been repeatedly demanded of me. I don't think he's influenced my photography directly, but as I've explained, I was surrounded by a cluster of his students for quite a while during an especially formative part of my life. What I got from them, in their diversity, was a sort of seriousness.</p>

<p>I do believe that nice, tight, philosophic packages are traps, and that misusing words in the course of constructing them makes them even more restrictive and ugly (unless the words are metaphoric)....the difference between a proper square knot or clove hitch and a granny knot.</p>

<p>Similarly, I don't think "philosophy" can be honestly personal if one resists thinking a little about oneself psychologically (or equivalent). From what I speculate about MW, he was more interested in teaching methodology, interpersonal psychology, and the hunt than he was in answers or, for that matter, photographs. The only MW quotations that ring bells for me draw analogies between viewing photographs and "eating."</p>

<p>Sorry for starting so many paragraphs and sentences with "I" in this post. Bad writing.</p>

<p><strong>"If I knew where I was going I wouldn't want to go there."</strong></p>

<p>One of the interesting things about being in research (my own primary field of activity), or in any artistic activity, like many photographers here, is that an expression like that applies only in one part to one's activity. An underlying personal philosophy and inquisitive and purposeful approach is in many ways a structured one and most important to the activity. In regard to unknowns, I prefer the expression:</p>

<p><strong>"If the result was predictable, there wouldn't be a need for me to find or to develop it." </strong></p>

<p>I may be in a very small group of those who are happy to share personal philosophy in art, rather than to treat it as something to be hidden, or to be cherished as some protected value. I feel that sharing it doesn't diminish it and I look forward to more open discussions on personal philosophies (to complement those of others outside this forum).</p>

<p>Discussing on how to discuss. The big problem here is that there isn't one.</p>

<p>If I had a personal philosophy of art, it wouldn't be in words, but I might use words to point at it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rebecca's post leads me to want to make a distinction.</p>

<p>Sometimes we discuss the philosophy of photography and/or art. How do photos work? How are photos similar and different to other mediums? Questions come up like: Do photos represent reality? Do we seek truth through photos?</p>

<p>Sometimes we discuss our philosophies of life and how they may affect and/or be reflected in our photographs (intentionally or not).</p>

<p>Where I would part company with you, Rebecca, is <em>if</em> you mean to be singling out as unique the notion of using words to "point to" your philosophy of art compared to anything else you might talk about. Isn't that all words do on any subject? When I talk about stop signs or traffic or love or the weather, my words are not those things. My words point to those things.</p>

<p>Words are not a substitute for anything. They are a sign of something.</p>

<p>Words can be used effectively or poorly, just like focus, composition, and lighting. Sometimes art and photographs get idealized (even idolized) as if all of them are effective and it's only words that fall short. Many photos, paintings, and sculptures are ineffective or downright crappy. Some statements do a lot better at grasping the truth than do some photos. And, of course, some photos do it better.</p>

<p>[<em>Fred, below I'm going to answer your post that was addressed to me, but I want to say something else before I get to that.]</em></p>

<p>To all the people who have posted to this thread and have regretted it, and to those who are reading but won't post because of the suggestion that "some" posts are "dumb," I'd like to say this:</p>

<p>I urge you not to be put off by the sprinkling of bombastic, boorish, bullying, hooting, chest-pounding, bluffing baloney that sometimes goes on here in this forum. None of that often ad hominem noise puts clothes on the emperor. If he or she is naked, please feel free to say so (and he or she often is).</p>

<p>Cleverness is in no way required in order to post. A genuine wish to learn is (or should be). I treasure "dumb" questions. Sure, when I first read some posts I think to myself, "Boy, that's dumb!" -- but then -- <em>because</em> it provoked me by being "dumb" -- I spend the rest of the day thinking about why and almost always ending up either changed or at least clarified in my own thinking as a result of being challenged. I desperately wish there were more dissenting, and in particular, more "dumb" or "simple" or "what the heck are you going on about??" postings to the discussions here.</p>

<p>With that introduction, I'd like to now answer Fred -- because I think this may illustrate why "dumbness" is just fine.</p>

<p>I'm not entirely sure what issue Fred and I are circling. I don't think Fred is either. Finding that out is part of what we're doing. In addition -- or (obviously) because of that, we have no idea where that undefined question may lead us.</p>

<p>So I'll just grab onto the bit that I think I understand and run with it. I think what we're after is two things: how you know what you're after in making a photograph, and how is philosophy connected to or part of that process?</p>

<p>If you are a bug collector, you can go out looking for a particular bug (specified search), or you can go out looking for any bug (unspecified search). If you're looking for sea shells on the beach, ditto. A photographer can certainly do a specified search (go for a particular target). But if a photographer tries to do an unspecified search (as I have claimed that I do), if he is looking for "anything" then he's also looking for "everything" or even "nothing." So how do I know what I'm after? I back up and let my directions come from my response. What response? (As if I'm going to answer the question of why we photograph in one forum post ...) Let's try a barebones definition of motivation as a search for anything, everything, whatever provokes in me a defined awareness that I had not realized before -- or better yet an awareness that <em>wants to be</em> defined; that demands to be resolved or is resolved in the moment in a particularly revealing and satisfying way.</p>

<p>So, to connect that convoluted and evasive (but necessary) placing of motivation, of the picture-making trigger, in myself (unspecified search) rather than out there (specified search) , I can now say that therefore the philosophical map of my previous post and that Fred is asking about, is the terrain in which I look for ... anything rather than something.</p>

<p>Next, how is this philosophical hand-waving connected to any one particular, paper and dye/pigment/silver, in-the-hand piece-of-paper picture of very particular things? How do you get from the smoky vague richness of theory to the thingness of "a" photograph? Is it (philosophy) <em>in</em> the picture? Is philosophy actually <em>there</em>, playing a part in the making of the picture? This gap, this "space between" theory and thing is ever a mystery. I think that this is the electric attraction of photography. The motivation, the impulse that moves your finger on the shutter release button has to do with that defined awareness described above -- the discovery of it, or the wish/need to resolve it which in turn springs from, is tied to, all the questions that philosophy addresses.</p>

<p>So, there you go. That's my response to Fred and I am here to tell you -- as I would not ordinarily do -- that I am not at all certain that it's what I want to say and am also not at all sure that it's "valuable" or that it moves the discussion or our understanding ... anywhere. That doesn't matter. Or rather <em>that's the point</em>. If I'd already made up my mind, if I already had the answers, I wouldn't be here. This is a discussion; we're stirring the pot. Tasting, considering, agreeing, disagreeing ... Please join in!</p>

<p>Fred, philosophy isn't art. Philosophy can point at art. I don't privilege either of them.</p>

<p>Semiotics -- where words are a subset of signs. Signs can be subtle or obvious.</p>

<p>Truth is a word that wobbles when examined closely.</p>

<p>We humans build our truths out of many odds and ends.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I sincerely hope that there is not a trend to creating different camps of opinion or specific person to person dialogues on the forum, or to dismissing other's thoughts as "baloney" or some sort of similar notworthiness. I do not separate my photography from my philosophy of life, or more specifially from my philosophy of art, and I look forward to honest and sincere exchanges of such personal thoughts, which I believe Wouster was in part getting at.</p>

<p>Maybe it's beacause a platitude feels much safer than a philosophical idea of any original standing. Kind of more comfy in a way.</p>

<p>Julie, I love the image of the two of us circling the subject. My experience with philosophy is that more circling is done than is the reaching of specific and definitive conclusions. You and I, without a lot of specifics or dogma, have had some great philosophical dialogues (or exchanges of personal ideas).</p>

<p>I hope when I talk about philosophy/personal ideas you don't think I'm talking about something akin to your "specified approach." Though there are times when I do have something "specified" in mind for a particular photo, much of the time I don't. Your entire post above is talking about your own ideas about photography, your personal philosophy. <em>That's</em> what I'm talking about.</p>

<p>No, you haven't given specific motivations relative to specific photographs, and I expect you might choose never to do that or never even to be able to do that. But you have given me some insights into how <em>you</em> think and how you approach making photographs.</p>

<p>In a way, I sense that maybe you or some others originally thought Wouter and I and others were asking you to line up specifically your thought processes to particular photographs or particular aspects of photographs. <em>Not at all!</em> I am the first one to say that I think photographs are often <em>over-interpreted</em> and that responses about "meaning" in a photograph often seem misplaced. Photographs often make me feel something more than they make me think something.</p>

<p>What I do think can be articulated to some extent and that I find intriguing are personal ideas about the making of photographs in general (the approach, the process). I am definitely struck by what you just provided, Julie.</p>

<p>Lack of specificity, importance of context and how it makes things changeable and hard to grasp, the role of gut, emotion, and spontaneity, the intangible, <em>even the inarticulable</em>, are all challenging and sometimes mystifying subjects for philosophy and for discussion. The irony of a lot of philosophy (and talk about art) is that there's a sense in which <em>the truth</em> is that there is no fixed or specified truth. We could talk for hours about that . . . if we wanted to.</p>

<p>This is just why I started my last post to you, Julie, by saying that I sense that we're not that far apart. I still sense that and I've always enjoyed and benefitted from discussing these things with you.</p>

<p>To sum up, I often like <em>circles</em> better than straight lines and much better than points. I sense that you do, too. And that, in itself, is a wee bit of personal philosophy.</p>

<p>Fred's reply to Julie was like reading an a-ha erlebnis, much like the second part of Julie's first post did. Philosophy is, to me, much like finding a path through an unknown land of which you may have seen some map. There are roadsigns, but in a foreign language you never learnt.<br>

Today, I went out with my camera because there was a lot of wind and the sea is near. Must deliver something pictorial, I figured. So, now I come home, check the overkill of pictures made, and just a few of them have to do anything with the idea with which I left home. And then I read Julie's post, which makes all the sense in the world. Maybe the destination is where you accidentally end up, temporarily, all the time. I don't know. The journey is fascinating.</p>

<p>Apart from that, Julie, thanks for the introduction there. I could not agree more.<br>

Arthur, Ilia, same there, I agree wholeheartedly. And indeed, what Arthur states is what I am getting at. Ilia's post summarises what made me start this discussion. Thatnks for being much less verbose than me.<br>

When I posted first, I kind of told myself: let things run, and see what comes out. I'm so bad at shutting up. :-) But I honestly, despite some bitterness here and there, appreciate the outcome.</p>

<p>Wouter, thanks for the most interesting conversation.<br>

I am a frequent visitor here and in the casual conversations forum, but rarely post. I come to read what others have to say about photography. I don't really have a philosophy of photography. I rarely think about what I am doing before the shutter snaps, my eye tells my hand to shoot and I listen. I tend to be in Julie's "anything" school of photographers; about the only time I am after specific images is when something in one of my "anything" wanderings resonates and drives me back to "get it right."<br>

Again thanks for bringing all of my favorite writers together in one of the most interesting discussions here for a long time.</p>

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>You're right; we were misunderstanding each other. You do a such a good job of spotting where communication has gone awry. I love your post and am savoring it ...</p>

<p>I don't mind at all talking about where and even how philosophical ideas in general -- whatever they may be -- play a role in my photography. What I won't reveal is what my own particular philosophical beliefs are (I'm not at all sure I could, in any event). In other words, how, where, when, and why are fine. But not what.</p>

<p>Arthur, I sometimes disagree with your posts, but <em>because</em> of that they make me think; they extend and balance these discussions, and thereby push us -- or at least me -- out of where we are. That's what I'm here for. Thank you.</p>

<p>Wouter, you make me want to go out and shoot, this minute (and I will as soon as I post this...)</p>

<p>Hello Michael!</p>

<p>And I'm off, camera in hand ...</p>

<p>I participate in this forum for very selfish reasons - it helps to get my mind going - just seeing the Arbus "secrets" quote triggered memories not only of her work that I hadn't thought about for many years but also in the context of thinking of the secrets - I also remembered that one of my own often repeated intructions to students was:</p>

<p>One of the great things about art (visual) is that it is a fantastic way of getting secrets off your chest without having to suffer the indignity of everybody knowing what those secrets are. - of course keeping heavy secrets can be mentally damaging, so this way you get the best of both worlds.</p>

<p>Its the random thought generation that appeals to me - I don't care whether we explain ourselves by quoting other's examples or expressing our own view, as quite often both are really one in the same. I don't even mind if we wander between art, music, architecture or anything else as long as its sort of aimed at trying to gain some greater understanding.</p>

<p>I think I've said before "I'm a kind of I'll know what I'm looking for when I find it person" so chatting away in this bar like atmosphere is very helpful.</p>

<p>Sorry to be so selfish. </p>

<p>Clive</p>

<p>its allright Clive, we all are</p>

<p>We are here searching for the unified theory of everything. Isn't that obvious?</p>

<p>The reason so much gets written here with so little satisfying resolution of the search is that words will not do it. Words are, most of the time, a hindrance - mistaking the finger pointing for the moon. Some have already tried to address the idea that words are not what they represent, but some also fuss over definitions, as if a proper definition will prevent the confusion, but it never seems to work.</p>

<p>Julie and Fred are dancing around the truth that what they are after is an experience - a personal, insightful, even revelatory experience of the connectedness that all great photographs (or paintings, or music, or dance, or carpentry, or ski jumping) can reveal to us, but it can only be found in the experience itself. The frustration for both is that the more they discuss that experience, the farther they get from the experience itself. </p>

<p>In truth, most of us would be better off to just go take some pictures.</p>

<p>It is fun, however, isn't it?</p>

<p>Larry, sorry but it's way too easy for you to characterize and "define" (your word) what Julie and Fred are doing and likely much more difficult for you to address what you're doing. I don't talk or write at the expense of taking pictures. I learned a long time ago how to pat my head while rubbing my stomach.</p>

<p>Dancing, by the way, is one of the great passions. Julie is a terrific partner. Dancing and talking are experiences, not substitutes for them.</p>

<p>Perfect, Fred (and thanks).</p>

<p>I probably shouldn't mess up that beautiful response, but I'm going to add a little bit anyway.</p>

<p>I've had experience. I've had experiences that would set your hair on fire.</p>

<p>So has everybody who has posted to this forum, I am sure. What we're going on about is <em>how to communicate to each other</em> about experience. That means we have to have this thing called a "language" -- which could take the form of words, pictures, sounds, whatever ... In our case, it's photographs. To use a "language" of any kind we have to develop it in a common understanding. Unless and until we have the "perfect" picture "language" (communication), we have to rely on words to establish or (help) indicate or verify what or how or why we are using some particular method. Where/if it's working and where/if it's not.</p>

<p>Language is one of the greatest gifts that nature or God has given to man. It's use doesn't exclude other means of expression, like art or photography, and they don't need to be exclusive of one another. Fred and Julie, and others, use language in a very positive manner to express their thoughts. Larry, I think that without thoughts photography wouldn't be as complete, wheher those thoughts are involved in the creation of a photo, or in simply understanding it. </p>

<p>When I first enlisted in PN, I was excited to find a Forum entitled "Philosophy of Photography." This really grabbed my attention. Like lots of other people, including the folks who have posted responses on this thread, my natural bent has been, and still is, to be introspective, questioning, challenging, etc. Add to that the fact that I went all the way to ABD (all but dissertation) by being involved in philosophy academically for approximately 10 years. (And my area of concentration was possible-world semantics.)</p>

<p>After getting the crap kicked out of me on several occasions, I came to the realization that, notwithstang its title, this Forum only occasionally involves a foray into what I now call "formal" philosophy. I found out that lots of interesting, valuable discussions have occurred without necessarily being limited to the dialectic of argument - criticism - counterargument. Just running ideas up the flagpole to see whether they fly not only is productive; it also is fun. So, I have tried to adapt my style accordingly.</p>

<p>BTW, I can't remember the last time I read any philosopy. I've read a lot of poetry and some fiction. Maybe I'm now too intellectually lazy. Maybe I just don't give a rat's behind when I come across something labelled "philosophy" involving nothing but debating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. However, I've retained my philosophical orientation, and that still permeates almost everything in my life - especially photography. </p>

<p>Admittedly, I have very little grounding in photography, other than the years I've spent doing it. As a result, when Forum threads involve discussions of name photographers, I'm really behind the 8-ball. I suspect that I speak for at least a minority of PN members. For this reason, I am very grateful to Wouter for initiating this thread.</p>

<p>" I think that without thoughts photography wouldn't be as complete, wheher those thoughts are involved in the creation of a photo, or in simply understanding it. " - Arthur</p>

<p>That idea was constructed to be inescapably correct, fwiw. But I think it misses something more important than correctness for the same reason philosophizing usually misses it: Everything is equal-weighted with the result that we fail to adequately appreciate "big" possibilities. There is no sense of proportion.</p>

<p>For example, some of us "pixel peep" and fail to notice that our images are routine and derivative. For example, some of us obsess on cameras rather than photographs. For example, some of us talk more about photography as "art" than about photographers who have or lack commitment and skill and "special sauce," as demonstrated by a body of work. </p>

<p><strong>" . . . for the same reason philosophizing usually misses it . . ."</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

John, can you please elaborate on this? I'm not sure that a response I had in mind may be entirely appropriate without getting some more information from you. Thanks.</p>