Stimulus

<p> A small correction. My next-to-the last sentence in my post says I did not get to where I am today in a golden flash of wisdom, but it does not say I do not believe in them. It is Free Will that I do not believe in.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>...aaah! There's sometimes a world in a comma!</p>

<p>Good gracious, Gladys, am I now overhearing one of those neurotic California group psychoanalysis round tables.... I think my thread has come to its fateful end.</p>

<p>Arthur, as a Canadian you might look to Newfoundland for your cues...after all, it was Newfoundland that spoke for "Canada" in 1919 (because it was Newfoundland that contributed the most) and, other than Montreal govt's destruction of the Grand Banks fishery, Canada's mainland has yet to make a mark. </p>

<p>"In photography, we do our reading and writing at the same time." -- <em>Ernst Haas</em></p>

<p>It's my belief that to the extent that one knows beforehand what one is going to photograph, one is imitating, or acting; sticking to a preformed (dead) script. To be ready/available/open to/for what one knows that one cannot have foreseen is the best that the good photographers can hope to be able to do. To the extent that experience is fore-seen, it is not seen at all.</p>

<p>[i can't respond to the title question of this thread because for me, everything is stimulus. It is a torment to choose so little out of the ferment of what I experience. The real question is "what is <em>not</em> stimulus?"]</p>

<p> Arthur, you asked, t<em>wice</em> to be precise, & I held back because I felt my answer to this question wasn't what you wanted to hear, as you clearly stated about one of Fred's posts: "What you have said is <em>exactly what I had in mind </em>in setting out the question in the OP." But as great as he is, only Fred can be Fred. There are many legitimate ways of knowing besides Fred's. His way, as much as I appreciate it and wonderful as it is, is neither Universal Law -- nor the fairest of them all. It is one, not <em>the </em>way. Nor is mine, or anyone else's.</p>

<p> Finally, after the 2nd time Arthur asked, I posted. Arthur's response is to make fun and wistfully long for closing the thread?</p>

<p> We don't all think alike or march in lockstep. The TOUs, apparently <em>allow this</em>. One would hope it would be fostered and encouraged, & that this might lead to further dialog and exchanges of ideas, instead of disbelief. I can't help but think that there's a lot more unconventional thought and practice out here, but is being unwittingly & effectively stifled.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"... to the extent that one knows beforehand what one is going to photograph, one is imitating, or acting; sticking to a preformed (dead) script."</em> - Julie Julie Julie </p>

<p>So, Shakespearian actors are sticking to a dead script?</p>

<p>Portrait photographers, who by definition know what they're going to photograph, are sticking to a dead script?</p>

<p>"Preformed" means dead? Intentionality equals death?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Concept, conception, intention does not = the picture; does not = perception; does not = the form in which we find that which we desire. Note that I specified "foreSEE".</p>

<p>Nor does conception or intent preclude feedback loops of desire/perception -- in which the picture makes the desire even as the desire opens one up to the reception of that (possible) picture.</p>

<p>J<strong>ohn, Julie, Luis,</strong></p>

<p>The variety of opinions and approaches to photography will mean that not everyone believes that personal motivation and stimuli are important in creation (photographs, sculptures, whatever). I personally have absolutely no problem understanding that. In fact, Phylo prefers the Miksang approach and I look foward to hearing more of his experience with that. Like many, I have a live curiosity for photography and for the philosophy of it and other forms of art.</p>

<p>However, the thread and other threads show continuing examples of a certain desire to negate the ideas of others and les on exchange. Perhaps the egos of certain are somehow empowered by that approach. I know that some contributors have now left the forum (hopefully not permanently) because of this atmosphere, and I fully sympathise with their reasons. They cannot of course respond to further comments, as they are not presently participating. I am also gradually coming to a similar way of thinking and will likely quit for a while, to see how things develop in future.</p>

<p>I would humbly suggest that we exercise a certain altruism of thought and a higher respect for the sincerely held opinions of others in future. Debate is essential, that is not a question of conflict, but it should be done sincerely and respectfully. That this can happen on an Internet forum may be doubtful, but it is a worthwhile challenge, I think.</p>

<p><strong>John</strong>, on the secondary subject that you raise, that of The Rock, I am partly sprung from Irish Newfoundland stock (matenal grandparents) and have spent pleasant times there. However, neither I or most of my Newfoundland friends would ever suggest that Newfoundland IS Canada, but only a very small part, culturally and socially of the country. What I like about that province is their specific culture. They suffered greatly under the British colonial disregard (cannon fodder in WW1, economic neglect in thefirst half of the 20th century), but are developing well now, notwithstanding the cod moratorium (the waters have been overfished by theworls since at least the mid-19th century), and particularly because of new natural resources (off shore fossil fuel sources). Anyone who really knows Canada will attest to the amazing freedom and cultural diversity of it, its civilised society and the particular ethnic cultural forces in Atlantic Canada, Quebec (I could go on for ages about this), Ontario and various communities of the West. It is very dynamic. We are rather self-sufficient, if that is not too pompous a statement to make. And we like much of America, which although different, is also a great place.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Arthur, the world agreed with you in Paris, in 1919, by honoring Newfoundland's brave cannon fodder (the rest of Canada was relatively sheltered from WWI).</p>

<p>But it was not the world, it was specifically Canada's Trudeau and his fanboys who quickly destroyed the Grand Banks fishery (comparable to destruction of Amazon rain forests) using massive subsidies to replace the up-till-then primative Newfie long-line fishing tradition with a destructive East German-style industrial fleet. The stylish Mr. Trudeau and his special interest govt (ethnic Quebecois) replaced "economic neglect" by turning Newfoundland into a welfare state, causing a global environmental disaster rivaled only recently by oil shale rapine and BP. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>In fact, Phylo prefers the Miksang approach and I look foward to hearing more of his experience with that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Never said it quite like that. I still prefer <em>my</em> approach, in flux and all, which I want to develop along the lines of the photograph being an act of experience, rather than having an experience in need to be photographed or rendered in a photograph. The linked article touches on a lot of things that I've come to appreciate and which can be translated to photography.<br>

You asked how it would help my photography. It's not about how I can progress my photographs but more how I myself can progress, through my photographs. Nothing to do with "being a simple fettered recording device".</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the thread and other threads show continuing examples of a certain desire to negate the ideas of others and les on exchange</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only if you feel your ideas are being negated because others are giving some of their own, different than yours.</p>

<p>I don't think many here want to "negate" the ideas of others.</p>

<p>When ideas are challenged, isn't that a good thing?</p>

<p>And...when I casually mention "Zen" or "Gurdjieff," as if the labels refer to commonly shared experience, or when someone else uses "Miksang" or other transliterations of nominally "asian" ideas, aren't we perhaps obstructing exchange of ideas by avoiding plain English?</p>

<p>John, ideas being challenged <em>can</em> be good, but only if they are being challenged by challenging ideas. Your continuous questioning of the language in which others choose to communicate their ideas is getting old, not really challenging or thought provoking.</p>

<p>Phylo, I'm sorry to read that you're not thoughfully challenged or provoked.</p>

<p>Nobody needs to treat language the same way I do. I happen to aspire to clarity, admitting that regularly make things obscure.</p>

<p>I wonder why anyone would consider their way of writing beyond comment. Wouldn't they consider their photography beyond comment, for the same reason? </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>the thread and other threads show continuing examples of a certain desire to negate the ideas of others and les on exchange</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>"Only if you feel your ideas are being negated because others are giving some of their own, different than yours (....Phylo)"</strong></p>

<p><strong>Phylo</strong>, if you care to read a bit more carefully what I have said (typographical errors aside - I had clients coming in and out of the summer gallery while writing and didn't get a chance to revise) you may understand really what I am getting at. I did mention that I welcome debate and different opinions. I wouldn't be here if I was simply interested in my own ideas.</p>

<p>The necessity of your recent exchange with John, with your response about grammar, and his recent fixation on Newfoundland when the more important trust of this thread is elsewhere (and why I attempted on a few occasions to bring it back to that), indicates a bit of what I am referring to in regard to the problem of the forum. If you care not to see it, or to consider why others are leaving, so be it. Personally, I would rather we face it, rather than ignore it.</p>

<p>Arthur, Call this an obsession if you wish. </p>

<p>I needed to correct your mistake about the almost immediate destruction of what had for centuries been the world's most important fishery. You might feel a similar need if I claimed Canada was ruled by Frenchmen.</p>

<p>I lived in St Johns when Joey Smallwood declared a national ("provincial") state of mourning. Someone ordered RCMP not to come to Newfoundland's aid in a bloody emergency. Joey ordered black bunting on all public buildings...I saw them, wish I'd photographed. UK had previously betrayed the little nation, ceding it to Canada for a few ancient American destroyers, never-paid cash, and those subsequent RCMP non-services. The US had used the destroyers to provide illicit pre WWII declaration aid to UK. </p>

<p>Smallwood was my hero. Newfoundland's own silver dollars featured the national flower, the Nightshade I think...no aluminum coins or loonies, they. </p>

<p> I highly recommend "Shipping News," both Annie Proulx's novel and the film, both of which capture a lot about the place. No worries, it's not political. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>John, please set up an "Off Topic" discussion wth a title something like "Do Newfie's have the right to bitch" or something like that, and I will gladly contribute. It is a most interesting case and there are a lot of aspects of the situation, and just as many opinions.</p>

<p>This forum has gained several especially insightful NEW contributors in recent months. We are dealing more with real photographers' ideas, less with that sophomoric "is it art or is it a photograph" stuff.</p>

<p>The most painful losses this Forum has experienced have been <strong>women</strong> who were directly abused for expressing difficult feminist views. It remains an old boy's club.</p>

<p>Happily, the past several months have not suffered as much of the faux-philosophic posturing that dominated previous years.</p>

<p>Our most insightful (imo) contributors are <strong><em>speaking more about their own work</em></strong>, less about dubiously-related philosophic readings.</p>

<p>IMO of course :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Some people in this forum (wink, wink, wink, see last post above) remind me very much of Mao Zedong. Ah, 1966 ...</p>

<p>IMO of course :-)</p>

<p>"Our most insightful (imo) contributors are <strong><em>speaking more about their own work</em></strong>, less about dubiously-related philosophic readings."</p>

<p>One of the persons who I believe left this forum, because of the personal baiting or mindless snippets of some, talked at length and very well about his on work, his approach, and philosophy of photography. He posted several examples of his work. In the past year, I have also posted several of my images in discussion of my own approach and where it was related to threads in this forum.</p>

<p>There does seem to be a lack of similar <strong>openness</strong> from some of those who rarely <strong>speak about their own work</strong>, and even more rarely post images to confirm their work. This raises the question of whether they lack confidence in their own opinions, or are simply too shy to do so? I wonder whether the <strong>faux-philosophic posturing</strong> is coming from some of those that criticise others of the same thing, or is it that perhaps that they not always willing to give enough attention to the substance of what others are discussing? One-line responses that are not supported by reasoning are a convenient refuge in some cases.</p>

<p>On a related subject, some time ago I suggested that a forum with a description somewhat like <strong>Personal photographic approaches</strong> be created by Photo.Net, in order to give a forum to the discussion of one's own work, distinct from philosophy of art or philosophy of photography which has more universal implications than personal descriptions of approaches.</p>

<p>Happily this Forum has recently gained far more than it's lost: several new participants are good writers, focused and curious, thinking and asking real questions rather than parroting "authorized" readings. And they are fine photographers. </p>

<p>Forums with any sort of vitality inherently gain and lose participants. Old Boys here did actively attack and drive away two very challenging women, mostly because they had new ideas. Hopefully those wounds will heal, and in any case the recent evidence of better writing will make the Forum more interesting to female thinker/photographers.</p>

<p>I'm in agreement with Henri Cartier-Bresson, when he was quoted as saying that in photography, we deal with things that are constantly disappearing. How much more concise is that? To me, at least; in our own way, with a camera, we can stop time. <br>

To answer your question, that's my stimulus to photograph; among other possibilities.</p>