Character

<p>In the case of Neil Young, possibly ancestry. He has a voice as odd as Gilles Vigneault, but like the latter has great lyrics that no doubt ring some bells. That is what got me, although I also don't mind his plaintiff naisal voice. We are atuned to songs with meaning, just as we are atuned to songs with no meaning but some sort of musical pulse or rhythm that saves the day for them.</p>

<p>For me, it's the physical character of Neil Young's voice and the sensuality of his delivery that I've always loved, no matter the words. Seeing him enhances the uniqueness of his voice, because his disheveled manner and his wild eyes, the boyish smile, the pale skin are the almost uncanny compatible embodiment of that voice.</p>

<p>Julie, it's hard to read tone of voice on the Internet and the reader may often project sarcasm or dismissal where none is intended. A lot of that could be alleviated if we could see each other. And listening to a voice can be greatly enhanced by the accompaniment of gesture, body movement, and facial expression.</p>

<p>There's an effortlessness to Ella Fitzgerald's voice that I could always hear. But the only time I got to see her, and she had to sit through the performance by that time, the visual effortlessness added a dimension. There's a corporeal dance that accompanies almost all song. A recording is at least once removed. Physical presence is very significant in music. Not only the fingers, but the shoulders and even the hips act to make the music for the pianist. It's not just a magical disembodied sound coming out of a speaker. It's a touch.</p>

<p>Familiarity and repetition likely played key roles. But the intimacy and physicality of seeing him added yet another layer.</p>

<p>It's definitely something about his delivery that does the trick. You've described him well.</p>

<p>In a book that I've been reading, anthropologist Tim Ingold says something interesting about speech (he says a lot of things that I think are interesting about speech and song, but I'll keep the quote to a minimum):</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"We 'feel' each others presence in verbal discourse as the craftsman feels, with his tools, the material on which he works; and as with the craftsman's handling of tools, so is our handling of words sensitive to the nuances of our relationships with the felt environment."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Presumably a good deal of that 'feel' is from non-verbal cues that go missing from a recording -- or forum text.</p>

<p>... which, now that I've thought about it for [<em>checking the time stamp</em>] six minutes, would strongly suggest that, in answer to my question of this morning, it IS necessary to bridge and integrate with or to something new and hitherto unfamiliar (disliked). I can't just "learn to like it" in isolation.</p>

<p>Neil is like Leonard Cohen or Bob Dylan, his compositions are of a type that you don't hear from other singers caught in the paradigm of the expected. They are easy to dislike because they don't follow the regular pattern, but then you realise that that is what is appealing. It is part of what sorts character from the everyday. </p>

<p><em>"I can't just 'learn to like it' in isolation."</em> <strong>--Julie</strong></p>

<p>Character likely doesn't exist in isolation either. Character seems relative. My character, who I am, is to a great extent determined by the look (in more than just a visual sense) of The Other -- and my reaction to that look. The character of a photograph is likely relative to other photographs, and even relative to its surroundings. It probably changes when it goes from natural to fluorescent to incandescent lighting, when it's matted or framed differently, when it's hung or held. Character is beginning to seem dependent, not independent.</p>

<p>"It probably changes when it goes from natural to fluorescent to incandescent lighting, when it's matted or framed differently"</p>

<p>Fred, if that is what is character in a photograph and it even impresses, or if one needs the crutch of relative to others in order to define character, the character is indeed at best meek. Probably enough so as a philosophical quantity to enter into Antonio's "Psychology of Photography" thread (on doubt) or in the new "Chats in Photography" posts dealing with knights, beheading and the like.</p>

<p>Arthur, you're crossing a line.</p>

<p>Not really, I'm just commenting on what I consider as important for meaningful discussion. Some philosophers amongst us enjoy more deviation that participation. "A spade is a spade", Fred, if you happen to be familiar with that quaint but appropriate Brit expression. </p>

<p>Arthur, pretend for a moment you're in a university class. The professor is assigning a paper on character in a photograph. Half the students must take up the approach that character is in the interpretation and meaning of a photograph and to some extent in what was in the heart and mind of the photographer at the time of shooting. The other half must take up the approach that character is not inherent in the photograph, the meaning, the interpretation, or the mind of the photographer and that it, in fact, changes with certain relative and situational factors extraneous to the meaning of the photograph. You would like to join the first group, so naturally a good professor will assign you to the second. You can choose one of two factors: 1) The size of the print made . . . from a small 4x6 to a large almost life-size print. How would the character of the same photograph be changed were it to be printed very small vs. very big? or 2) The lighting conditions it is viewed under . . . imagine a soft, nuanced print being taken from the incandescent glow of a diffused spotlight right over to a window where it would catch the very direct natural light. How might that change the character of the photograph?</p>

<p>Arthur, as for Antonio, I take him quite seriously both as a photographer and in terms of how he approaches these discussions and what he has had to say. He deserves more of a chance here than you gave him in your post above. I think if you looked for some philosophy in that doubt thread and if you looked for ways of seeing in that thread, you might find it. Look carefully at the photo that Antonio linked to (his own) and then listen carefully to the distilled description with which he <em>character</em>ized it. There is a whole lot of philosophy of photography in that one post and I'm worried that you may have too early dismissed the thread because you didn't like the title. Read my response to him about essences and don't get lost in the abstract philosophizing. Apply it to ways that you or he or I might photograph those ancient buildings and cities, the different ways in which and situations under which an old church might be photographed and what about it might be captured.</p>

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>I must learn to wake up completely before typing notes into the computer before breakfast. No, I was not criticizing Antonio's post, which I haven't even had the chance to read properly, as it is very recent. I just characterised doubt as a psychological phenomenon, that's all. And of course, even if not philosophical, it encounters the objective of discussing one's approach to photographing. Antonio also has the quality of sticking to a discussion and not turning it into a spurious chat session.</p>

<p>Nor am I really bothered that character of a photograph is so often perceived by many in terms of the physical appearance of the print (paper used, lighting, framing), or how it compares in that sense to others, but I personally believe that character of photography has much much more to do with the unique quality of the way a photographer has perceived an image and realised it, using the medium.</p>

<p>I quite readily apologize to readers for the Brit expression, which I use seldom if ever now but learned as a young person in that country, taking it then, too simplistically, to simply mean "calling something as it really appears to us", but foolishly ignoring (even to this day, until I researched it a few minutes ago) that it had historical roots of rascist undertones. My faux pas!</p>

<p>Referring to "deviation" was simply my frustration with the way some of our promising OTs go, my recent one in particular, where the discussion turns from a beneficial one on the approach (composition-wise) of the photographer in crafting his images, to a chat discussion about knights, beheading and so on. I guess I am being too serious, but I would suggest that apart from humorous discussions strongly related to the subject, chats that deviate rather than participate, and tend to derail a post, might best go to "casual conversations" or "off topic" forums, where I amongst many admit to having great fun with language, spurious thoughts and other casual posts. It is a delicate balance to be able to go deeper into a subject and maintaining input related to it. Debating forums at colleges (often the source of real education in those milieu) have long understod the basic princioles.</p>

<p>I am sure friend Luis will add this to his "bouncer" characterisation of my thoughts on rigor and respect in discussion, but that's OK with me. Perhaps if that shows at least some "character" and direction in my approach, I will be happy to acknowledge that anticipated critique.</p>

<p>Arthur, your thread on point, line, and form has much potential and a long ways to go. Proceed with it as you would like and those who are interested will pick up on what you have to say. </p>

<p>I think the physical and relational factors I've mentioned can affect and change character. They don't exhaust what character is. They go into the mix. </p>

<p>I was going to add this to my comment in the point, line, form thread but didn't want to distract from trying to establish further flow to that thread. So, although this relates to things being said in that thread, I'll post it here:</p>

<p>[Luis, I do so want to make a wisecrack about photographing you nude and the concept of point, but I will refrain. Speaking of which, Julie, <em>"picky, picky, picky."</em> Now add an "<em>r</em>."]</p>

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong>I am sure friend Luis will add this to his "bouncer" characterisation of my thoughts on rigor and respect in discussion, but that's OK with me."</p>

<p> No, it hadn't entered my mind, and I've been following this thread.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Luis, I do so want to make a wisecrack about photographing you nude...<br>

Fred, resist & desist! No cracks, for God's sakes. But next time the law allows me back in San Francisco, I'll let you know.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong> Speaking of which, Julie, <em>"picky, picky, picky."</em> Now add an "<em>r</em>."]"</p>

<p>Geez, Fred, I knew <em>exactly </em>what you meant the first second after I read it, and howled out loud.</p>

<p>I didn't get it until Fred's post above. When he said, "Did you mean to leave out the "r"?" in the other thread, I thought I'd done a typo with "cortex" (left out the "r") and written something to the effect that Luis had a feminine sanitary item in his head or on his head ... or something (Does he wear one? Is that the latest fashion? Would it help stop the bleeding?).</p>

<p>But, happily, after sprinting to the thread in horror, I found all my "r"s to be intact. But that left me wondering about Fred and co[r]tex and, well you don't want to know.</p>

<p><strong>Julie - "</strong>Does he wear one? Is that the latest fashion? Would it help stop the bleeding?"</p>

<p> Not often, only on light days. Nah, it's nothing new, I've been wearing it for a long time. The pad didn't help with the brain drain either.</p>

<p>A bunch of characters we are.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong>where the discussion turns from a beneficial one on the approach (composition-wise) of the photographer in crafting his images, to a chat discussion about knights, beheading and so on."</p>

<p>I would like to say that was an unintentional lobotomy, or near-beheading. We were in a holding pattern awaiting your guidance, leadership and input, Arthur, harmlessly passing time. What were we supposed to do, sit idle & bored? Fat chance. In spite of my memory being reduced to a standing wave now, I seem to remember a monk somewhere in the mix. Humor is as beneficial as anything else that has come up (perhaps with the exception of Julie's quotes) in that thread so far. Lest you forget, I called for a return to the theme. Of course, you do realize this is the kind of thing that spurs some people into badness. We, on the other hand, need no spurs. Want is another thing entirely.</p>