To what extent is photography a solitary pursuit?

<p>Don,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Our sense of our autonomy is an illusion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Amen.<br>

But, does that mean we should stop to strive for it if we believe it is in our own personal best interest (sorry for the political correct derscription, but I feel no need to mingle in the other discussion) ? The question to me would more be: what would this autonomy yield? Wouldn't it make one a loner, eventually?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Arthur, these two statements by you and Lannie, I thought, crossed your own line. You both didn't seem to be expressing just a personal value. <em>You both seemed to be suggesting what others ought to do.</em> It's one thing to express contrary opinions. And had you and Lannie used "I" and talked about what you each value, I would have no quarrel with it and certainly would respect whatever goals you choose for yourself. But you didn't do that. Lannie talked about what the goal of ANY life should be and you talked about what the goal of A WORTHWHILE life should be. I didn't hear that as being limited to your own life. I heard it as much more universal than that. (Emphasis supplied.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You read me correctly on that, Fred, but keep in mind that for me the whole idea of <em><strong>independent thinking</strong></em> or <em><strong>independence of thought</strong></em> is simply a reference to <strong><em>moral and intellectual courage</em></strong> to stand up to those who might bully us, lure us, or otherwise impel us to conform and thus forsake our own artistic or intellectual vision. Sure, it could mean other things if one starts parsing words, but "moral and intellectual courage" is the sum total of the "ought" that I was recommending above to <strong><em>all</em></strong> persons--sort of like defending and promoting intellectual integrity, nothing more and nothing less. In the context of photography, the most obvious application of such a maxim would be in the context of defending artistic integrity, of recommending and reminding persons to be true to their own artistic vision, not the current fashion or something else that compromises their own independence as an artist.</p>

<p>I thus have no trouble recommending <em>moral and intellectual courage</em> to all persons, both for their own sake and for the sake of those who interact with them. I would especially recommend such a virtue universally to all persons who engage in photography <em>qua </em>art. Art has few moral imperatives, but perhaps one may say that it has at least one: <em><strong>Be true to your own artistic vision.</strong></em> I have no trouble recommending such a virtue to <em><strong>all </strong></em>would-be artists.</p>

<p>Rather than see myself as a value imperialist on this, I am defending precisely the opposite. Saying that all persons ought to be "independent thinkers" is to me saying only that they should not let others do their thinking for them. For me, recommending "independence of thought" as "moral and intellectual courage" is more or less on a par with saying that persons should get more exercise and stop eating and drinking so much. It is not absolutely universally true because quadriplegics, for example, cannot exercise, and a guy with a bad knee should not try to run a marathon, but it is good enough for most situations and most persons. An anorexic might need to eat more, not less. A child or person who is insane might also be counter-examples to such a virtue as an absolute, but the counter-examples are so few and far between that I feel no particular compunction about recommending independent thinking as a general ethical maxim, a maxim that has particular relevance to artistic and intellectual pursuits.</p>

<p>Since words like "independent" and "independence" have so many meanings out of the limited context which I was addressing (artistic and intellectual integrity), however, there is no doubt that you are correct in many of your observations.</p>

<p>Context is everything, and to be quoted out of context can be frustrating indeed, especially when someone wants to make one into the very thing that one hates.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't it make one a loner, eventually?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You got to walk that lonesome valley, Wouter:</p>

<p>

<p>Such is the cost of freedom.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>While we (Fred and I, at least) are on the subject of moral imperatives, I can think of a few that are not too oppressive:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is the law and the prophets.--Jesus of Nazareth</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Written_Law.html">Torah</a>, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it--Rabbi Hillel</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Kiss me. (I'm not talking to you, Fred.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In other words, the imperative mood can be friendly moral injunction, friendly invitation, friendly lots of things. It need not always come across like the words of drill instructor: "Marine, get on your face and give me twenty-five pushups!"</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p><strong>PICTURES AND MUSIC TOGETHER</strong></p>

<p>As for "independent thinking" and "artistic integrity," they need not always be about photography, of course. Pete Seegers' moral example stands out in my mind--enhanced here with photos by others:</p>

<p>

<p>I'm signing out now. Thanks to all who participated.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>"But, does that mean we should stop to strive for it..."</p>

<p>There's a difference between 'independence' and 'autonomy'. We're members of a gregarious species, but we are much less 'signal bound' than other species are. I can act independently while acknowledging that my every move and thought developed in a social cultural matrix The less signal bound a species, the more an individual member's learning is due to imitation rather than 'natural instinct'. I think it is language's ability to form a complete thought about something that is not real, that encourages the sense of autonomy.</p>

<p>"The question to me would more be: what would this autonomy yield? Wouldn't it make one a loner, eventually?""</p>

<p>It could yield very good work. The photographer pursuing an autonomous path might be a master. And he might be a "loner", which may be a polite way to say one might become an asshole.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Don, in respect of your somewhat inelegantly expressed last line, it is my experience that a qualificative of that type rarely refers to those sometimes thought by some as "loners" or those seeking independent and autonomous thoughts and creations, but it probably better refers to some who slavishly imitate the ideas of others or adapt too readily to some popular group behaviour.</p>

<p>However, on one point I believe you are right. Autonomous thought and actions can yield very good work. They support a positive response to one of the initial sub-questions - Does the creative spirit thrive on (or in) solitude? </p>

<p>"Does the creative spirit thrive on (or in) solitude?"</p>

<p>I think solitude is necessary, to spend time with ourselves alone. We work out things regarding the "creative spirit". And we are all 'loners' at some point, usually in our teens and twenties when we are very interested in individuating ourselves, becoming our own person. At some point, an awareness of ourselves in continuity should join up with our awareness of ourselves as being unique individuals. It's a sad thing to see a 50 year old person still rebelling against parents and teachers, as if they were demons.</p>

<p>Don,<br>

Thanks for answering, I quite agree with your points there. To be sure, I did not raise my points thinking to debate you, rather seeking some clarification whether I read you correctly.</p>

<p>I'm neither seasoned photographer nor philosopher, but I'd like to weigh in on this.</p>

<p>As I read this thread, I am reminded of something I've read over and over here on these forums...to walk away from the car to find your pictures, because most people won't inconvenience themselves to do so. Doesn't this inherently suggest that photography is solitary? If the position of the camera and the uniqueness of the vision are of such importance that sharing a location with other photographers, regardless of their ability, vision, and/or equipment is to be avoided, how can one argue that photography is anything but solitary? It can be engaged while in the company of other people, but the photographer is still isolated by the camera; he/she is outside the scene in question, documenting it.</p>

<p>Should the photographer use a remote and enter the scene, does that change things? In my mind, it does, in that the photographer is now intruding into the scene, whether or not it has a positive impact on the final image. If a photographer is documenting his/her vision, he/she cannot be a part of that. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>the photographer is still isolated by the camera; he/she is outside the scene in question, documenting it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jay, there are those who say that the photographer is <em>alway</em>s in the photo. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>A better question than "loner" (which implies outcast, inability to relate, IMO) and some alternative may be:</p>

<p><strong><em>"is a person who does not frequently produce photographs actually a photographer"</em></strong><br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br /><strong><em>...or isn't everyone a photographer, </em></strong>since more humans will soon have digital cameras than shoes (cell phone cameras at the very least) .</p>

<p>...<strong>or </strong><em><strong>"is a person who does not regularly</strong> produce something considered "creative" <strong>by others</strong> properly considered a "creative person?"</em></p>

<p>As to "solitude," isn't there evidence of creativity in complex studio situations, buzzing with art directors, clients, assistants, and friends? In contrast, is there as much evidence of creativity among solo-backpacker Ansel Adams aspirants?</p>

<p><strong><em>...is "creative" a significant compliment</em></strong>....or is the adjective a <strong>consolation prize</strong> for people who have not accomplished anything substantial?</p>

<p><strong>Did anyone ever call VanGogh "creative?" </strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>The original question was:<br>

"To what extent is photography a solitary pursuit?"<br>

I am 62 years old, and most of my work was done before the advent of the internet. Before the advent of the internet, photography was for me a solitary pursuit, in that I was the only person who studied and critiqued the images that I produced. Now of course the whole situation is different.<br>

I usually upload to a photography forum what I shoot within a day or two of when I took the image. So photography is definitely no longer for me a solitary pursuit. But when I am actually shooting, the situation can vary. I recently have been shooting a lot of self-portraits, which I would consider a solitary pursuit. But I do shoot them to share with others, and not just shoot them for my own personal satisfaction and viewing.</p>

<p>Good questions!<br>

Are the best photographers loners? >> The best photographers aren't necessarily loners. They are just very independent.<br>

Does the creative spirit thrive on (or in) solitude? >> In solitude, you are not out to entertain, but to focus on the task at hand. There is creativity in a group as well, so solitude is not the only way.<br>

Is the creative process an individual process or a social process? >>Both. If it's a social process, it becomes a movement (i.e. the Impressionists, Minimalists). In a social process, it may also be politically-motivated art.<br>

Do the best photographers/artists play to popular demand, or to an internal voice or vision? >> The best do not play to popular demand. The best are often rejected, because it's so far removed from popular "things."</p>

<p>There are many others, but I would prefer that persons make up their own questions, or else modify the question(s) to allow for the fullest expression of their own ideas.</p>