Technology and temporal slippage

<p><em>"</em><em>Fred, context is often a cage to catch a concept in."</em> <strong>--Rebecca</strong></p>

<p>I'm not sure how you mean that, but my reaction is that context is not like a cage. A cage implies, to me, lack of freedom and that there is something outside the cage which does not <em>confine</em>, as a cage does. That's not how I see context, which I think is part of any concept although context can be like a cage in that it is a surrounding. We can escape individual contexts but I don't think we can escape context completely. A bird may escape or be freed from its cage. Now, one might metaphorically say the bird is always caged on some level, but I assume you know that's not what I mean. I think our being finite and human gives us a perspective, and our ideas, emotions, etc., will always work within the context it resides, if even for the moment, be it personal, cultural, religious, gender-identified, what have you. By all means, we will overcome or override or, perhaps, completely relish certain of those contexts, but we will never be without one.</p>

<p>I think finiteness and the associated context we humans have give us freedom because we can and must choose. Were we infinite and without context, Godlike, we would have it all and could do it all. We wouldn't have to choose.</p>

<p>"Context is often a cage to catch a concept in."</p>

<p>That applies well to the example of the "new" technology video and the instantaneous moment image selected from it. The context is the video and its limits or theme, whereas the "caught" concept in that case is some post-event deconstructed instantaneous image.</p>

<p>In a general sense, art operates on a higher level. Context is simply the environment. The concept of the image takes place within it, through human intervention, and is a priori largely independent of the context "cage."</p>

<p>I was thinking about Fredric Jameson's "Prisonhouse of Language" in one way and how framing makes something significant in another (early scholars of popular culture ignored fan fic and fan vids because they were women's work).</p>

<p>Art is a concept for framing a repurposed event. Raw reality is too much time. Commercial product requires serious money and original sets to make its arcs; vidders steal the arcs and put them together in new ways.</p>

<p>I'd agree with you that humans can't survive without contexts, though.</p>

<p>I'm still thinking the guy's observations about what makes forgeries work in one cultural context and fail when that context changes is also relevant to art going in and out of fashion. </p>

 

<p>Context is extraneous form. One can think of it as a cage, or environment. The latter makes it possible for for many concepts to <em>exist. </em></p>

<p>Fred's wistful-sounding: "I think finiteness and the associated context we humans have give us freedom because we can and must choose. Were we infinite and without context, Godlike, we would have it all and could do it all. We wouldn't have to choose."</p>

<p> I'm not convinced we have the freedom to choose, though if nothing else, it's a handy illusion. To be infinite would mean giving up not just context, but also form. In many religions, even God makes choices.</p>

<p> Appropriation is nothing new in the art world. Not to video, either. I disagree with this as a definition of art: "Art is a concept for framing a repurposed event.". That's sometimes part of what art is, but not all it is.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, yes, I'm honestly not convinced either that we have the freedom to choose, but on my good days I think we do and it's hard for me to maintain the stance that it's an illusion.</p>

<p>One of the many reasons I think religions have it all wrong is because they erroneously give God choices which, by definition, he shouldn't have to make.</p>

<p><strong>Rebecca</strong>, like Luis, I don't like that description of art.</p>

<p>I may go back to Art is what upper class people and people given upper class privileges call what they do.</p>

<p>I am amused at how art gets interpreted in so many ways. If we are speaking of fine arts or of most arts the definition that makes most sense to me is "those (arts) in which mind and imagination are chiefly concerned", without even imposing the rider that fine arts are done for non-commercial reasons. Perceptions of art as being related to fashion or to upper class interests are incomplete descriptions of art and probably incurred because of one's particular cultural milieu. While a trainee in industry in Britain I lodged with a very poor family. The father, a worker at chemical plant, loved to listen to music in his spare time and sang opera at a local arts group. Not for fashion or class distinction. </p>

<p>[Felix! I think he got hit by a bus; the buses are everywhere and they are out to get us all ... ]</p>

<p>I expect that the "Art is for icky snobs" line is delibate button-pushing (aimed at those of us known to be bristling with Art buttons).</p>

<p>In any event, to add to Authur's story, see this one in <em>The Economist</em>:<br>

<a href="http://www.economist.com/culture/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15767419">http://www.economist.com/culture/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15767419</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Arthur, I think arts get associated with class marker when other sorts of distinctions are more fluid. Taxi drivers in Italy follow the opera. In the US, that would be more unusual. I found that my interest in certain high arts disconcerted people who were using their interest in arts as a distinction rather than as a common pleasure to be shared. I also found that people wanted me to be a regionalist rather than a cultural hybrid. A poetry play I wrote in San Francisco, somewhat inspired by Robert Wilson, was reprinted in a collection of poets' plays. I wrote an introduction talking about both the South and my NYC days. My comments about NYC were edited out.</p>

<p>Class plays a big part in art in the US. It may be playing a big part because other class markers are more crudely a matter of cash and fungible; it may be playing a part because arts are so humanly fundamental and the academics and the rich want to bogart the art, but those distinctions and snobberies are there, and here. I get stimulation from both here and the gear heads, but I get the impression that at least some of the folks here see the gear heads as declasse and would not want to be mistaken for one of them.</p>

<p>The whole genre ghetto thing is also part of this. I'd agree that Heinlein isn't as good as Kafka, but most of the people teaching creative writing aren't even as good as Heinlein, but what they're doing, they'll call art or literature, and what Heinlein did, they'll call sub-literary. Somewhat the way people who think of themselves as art photographers will try to find a way to give credit to the camera if crime photographers do interesting work. </p>

<p>I don't discredit all esoteric art, but often the purpose of it is to distinguish us from them, and if art is really powerful as art, it draws in them. And if it isn't powerful, it's one of those fashions that the general public doesn't catch up with because there is more than the usual element of illusion involved. Humans have an interesting ability to deceive themselves in order to make their situations more bearable, or simply more fun.</p>

<p>I do think there are fashions in art as well as kitchen ware. Part of the critter we are.</p>

<p>Q: "Do you think the new technology will have any impact on the philosophy of "the moment" and if so, how and why......"<br>

A: Yes, and No.</p>

<p>'Yes', for anyone engaged in creating images they will use whatever technology comes along to assist them in doing this. Silver plates, film sheets, film rolls, digital bits, movies, burst modes, whatever is at hand and useful. A pointed stick and blood worked at one time, as does a LOLCat image captured in a cell phone video today.</p>

<p>'No', for anyone viewing the outcome as a bystander, or casual observer, or cultural participant. Does anyone viewing it really care how Bresson got his famous image? Not really, except perhaps for <em>critics</em>. There's nothing about the technical capture that influences the viewer. The image stimulates and engages, or it doesn't. The ones that don't go in the dustbin. Modern humans are exposed to more images than previous humans, so it takes more to engage them, stimulate them. You know, once they've seen Paris, how you gonna get them back on the farm?</p>

<p>There is an exception of course, and that is in a rule-based endeavor. One can imagine "art clubs" with rules: No multi-media! No Photoshop! No instant cameras! No movie stills! No animations! Whatever you can dream up can become a doctrine for those seeking exclusivity, separation, distinction, and recognition, e.g a club. But the doctrinaires are all going to be behind the creation, not in front viewing it.</p>

 

<p>Rebecca, thanks for your distinctions in regard to how you feel art is appreciated. I am aware that these exist and are related to some circles of art observers. I guess that the only thing important for me, with little time or interest in getting into line in black tie or other costume to join a so-called elite set of groupies, is simply what the art communicates to me and how it influences my existence. Esoteric art, fine art, contemporary art, "art actuel" or popular art definitions are for me secondary to that experience. </p>

<p><strong>Arthur/Rebecca</strong>, I'm becoming more aware that art can be used to express and "art" can be full of itself, nonsense, and a bludgeon. Art is a unique and powerful experience for me and "art" can drive me crazy. I think Arthur has drawn a good distinction between art and "art." As a thing and a process, it's got magic and transcendence. As a word, it's mostly a pain in the butt.</p>

<p>[<em>This post is not related to the last dozen or so posted above. I just had some more ideas that I think are relevant to the topic.]</em></p>

<p>I ran across a quote by Diane Arbus this morning that I did not like at all. In a letter to her husband (Allan), she wrote this about taking pictures at a home for the mentally handicapped [they use "retarded" in the book]:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"It's the first time I've encountered a subject where the multiplicity is the thing. I mean I'm not just looking for the BEST pictures of them. I want to do lots ... I really adore them."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought to myself, how ridiculous. What does "multiplicity" have to do with good photography?</p>

<p>But then I was reminded of something I myself wrote in an email to a person who asked me what I was after in my pictures (dated Feb. 24 and the person is not a photo.net member as far as I know):</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Have you ever caught sight of a reflection of yourself in a window or mirror -- or in a photograph where you did't know you would be found, maybe from an odd angle or from behind -- and not known who/what you were looking at? First the recoil, the alarm, confusion, then after a while, there is acceptance; you incorporate that new view into your conception of "what I look like." In between that recoil and that acceptance is a time of wonder, of dawning, of filling in, of expansion, discovery, meeting, joining. Your conception of yourself and in some small way, your entire world is now deeper, rounder, more full or filled out. That "filling out" is what this kind of picture is about. And this is the kind of picture that I like to make.</p>

<p>... They require a growth, a stretching, or as I said already, a "filling out" -- in both volume and time."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Next, I thought of another quote that I thought was nutty (forgive me mark); that by mark Deneen in the <em>Truth and Lies</em> thread (Apr 01, 2010; 11:53 p.m.):</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> "I can only say what delights and surprises me. I only shoot images for my own amusement. I like the idea that a camera sees a different world than my eye-brain sees. If I stand on a busy street corner let's say, and shoot 100 frames over a few minutes, I'll find 100 delights I missed in real time, 100 surprises that never registered in my brain just using my eyes."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Couple all of those with Fred's persistent inquiries about, and testing of the constraints and/or boundaries of intentionality (<em>Truth/Lies; Accidents; Adrift</em>) and I am having a light-bulb moment.</p>

<p>All of the above seem to me to be the antithetical to pre-visualization, conceptualization and/or decisive moments.</p>

<p>What if stills-from-video is not about motion and its not about time, but its about "filling in"? Adding, stretching beyond; letting the scene pull you (beyond intentionality; because you "adore them") or be somehow active. Fill is, by definition, amorphous; not line, not edge, not point; just all the stuff that actually makes up (embodies) the thing itself. If our intentions are like a blueprint or some sort of structural vision that requires precision, then does "filling in" require a different attitude, approach, paradigm? Stills-from-video, or just a more room or allowance for affection, delight and surprise (as opposed to fighting or overcoming/owning those impulses/emotions)? How are the two approaches (structure and fill) reconciled?</p>

 

<p ><strong>JH:</strong> I don't know too much about Mrs. Arbus, but realise that she did have a penchant for photographing the unusual or specific members of human society, so I am not sure in that quote that she was just thrilled at having so many subjects that interest her, rather than the usual possibility of maybe one or two. Whatever she meant by multiplicity (it is a rather odd term), your extension to your mirror revelation is very apt and one I have experienced as well and with a similar thought. There is no doubt some value in multiple images, like video, or rapid fire cameras, in showing us something that the eye couldn't capture. I think that that sort of shooting is restricted in its utility to sports and people pictures, where the intent is to capture the significant moment that is difficult to perceive otherwise.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But what is significant in that moment? What makes it more important than others? The information has been filled in between two dots, but which two dots? The choice, if not the capture, is then the artistic or communicative act of the photographer, and is thus important. For most photography I see little need of that form of automatic capture. In fact, I believe it to be generally counter-productive to a thinking photographer.</p>

 

 

<p> Multiplicity in the sense that Arbus meant it had been around long before it dawned on her -- or the invention of video. I think of this in the same way that faceting a diamond allows for light to enter through each facet and exit through the others.</p>

<p> Writing about Cezanne, Meyer Schapiro noted: "It is as if there is no independent, closed, pre-existing object given to the painter's eye for representation, but only a multiplicity of successively probed sensations."</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"</em><em>What does 'multiplicity' have to do with good photography?"</em> <strong>--Julie</strong></p>

<p>This is where I go when I read Arbus's quote. Arbus, I hope intentionally, opposed "multiplicity" and "best" in her statement.</p>

<p>When I was getting to know them and photographing residents and workers at my nephew's community of people with autism, retardation, and other varying mental abilities, I was profoundly aware that many judgments and perspectives I take for granted (what is good behavior, what is a good product, a good result or the best result of an activity or day's work on the farm or in the wood shop or the crafts room) had to be left at the doorstep. In many instances, I began by wondering about many of the challenges I was facing. Might I exploit these people? Might I make them self consciousness? Would I seem self conscious? How could I take the best pictures in this situation? Well those wonderings pretty soon left me as I let go both of my own inhibitions and my own pre-judgments as well as, most importantly, my own need to come up with the BEST pictures I could. I don't even think I really decided this, but I wound up just shooting to shoot what I saw and what was seen and felt by all of us. There was a great multiplicity. Not that such a multiplicity doesn't exist in the world around me in my more everyday environment. It does. It's just easier to access it when it's so vibrant and noticeable.</p>

<p>I didn't leave all intentionality and thinking about photographs or their making at the door. But I did change how I applied those intentions and thoughts and I was a little less concerned with judgment than with genuineness.</p>

<p><strong>Afterthought:</strong> I wonder if genuineness is more a multiplicity by nature and judgment isn't a little more singular in focus.</p>

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>I'm still thinking about all of this -- what I wrote and what you've said about your own experiences with your nephew's comunity. In particular, your Afterthought: "I wonder if genuineness is more a multiplicity by nature and judgment isn't a little more singular in focus."</p>

<p>This all feels very familiar to me and yet I had not recognized it. I've been so steeped in the previsualized moment, and yet I have a feeling that I've been doing ... something else.</p>

<p>Stray thoughts -- I'm thinking about your description elsewhere of being able to hear the performers breath. And I'm thinking of animals in the zoo versus animals in the wild (or stuffed versus live). Live, wild, breathing is as you say, genuine.</p>

<p>One more quote and then maybe I'll let this one go. This is from <em>S/Z: An Essay</em> by Roland Barthes and it has helped me to think about multiplicity:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>... literature itself is never anything but a single text: the one text is not an (inductive) access to a Model, but entrance into a network with a thousand entrances; to take this entrance is to aim, ultimately, not at a legal structure of norms and departures, a narrative or poetic Law, but at a perspective (of fragments, of voices from other texts, other codes), whose vanishing point is nonetheless ceaselessly pushed back, mysteriously opened: each (single) text is the very theory (and not the mere example) of this vanishing, of this difference which indefinitely returns, insubmissive.</p>

</blockquote>