Jump to content

The role of desire in photography?


Recommended Posts

<p><<<<em>I very, very rarely see what I would call a compassionate picture(s) of the homeless</em>>>></p>

<p>Luis, I agree. The reason I brought it up is because I think many people who take pictures of homeless people mean to be compassionate, thinking they are bringing something important to light to the general public or thinking they are giving "homelessness" a visual voice of some sorts. In most cases, unfortunately, the PICTURES are not compassionate even if the MOTIVES are. In some cases, the motives themselves are askew and misguided, or at least are worth questioning.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Luis, to continue. The reason for my skepticism even about genuine compassion is that it can have that element of feeling sorry for. There is a negativity to compassion that I don't find in empathy. The "I wish you weren't going through this" side of compassion as opposed to the "I stand here with you" side of empathy. Like I said, this is a personal thing I struggle with. Perhaps because my dad's been disabled for most of my life and I have the experiences I do with my nephew, I often see compassion offered when empathy would be more welcome and constructive.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yes, there are implicit judgments often, but not always made with Western forms of compassion. I believe compassion (and empathy, to a lesser degree) come in many closely related but different flavors, and I don't want to get into thin-slicing all this, only remarking that there's a spectrum.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Is there a "driving" vs "leading" or voluntary/involuntary division in the idea of desire? Also, what motivates us to pick up the camera (regardless/before any subject is present) vs the immediate "now? now?!" of picture making seems to be adding to the tangle.</p>

<p>I'm interested (as should be obvious from my poetic fragments) in where desire leads me when I have nothing to go on *but* that desire which takes me by surprise. By responding to or submitting to the desire, I hope for revelation. (As already noted, this is the opposite pole to Wouter's pursuit of a desire-defined <em>target</em>.)</p>

<p>It's as if I have been exposed to a cogntive <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagent">reagent</a>. Desire is not the reagent itself, but my sharp and urgent awareness that something latent has been sensorially made present by the existence of that reagent. In crime shows, they put dust on a surface and fingerprints pop into view; this is the cognitive equivalent to that "pop into view" except I don't (yet) know what to make of what has "popped into view." Desire has to do with that "pop into view" sensation.</p>

<p>What's interesting is to try to locate not just what has been revealed, but the reagent itself. What made this revelation occur just now? Just here? If you can find what that reagent is/was, you can work it, use it, make (better) pictures with it of what has been revealed but also of what else it might be used to reveal. This (the nature of the reagent), to my mind, is at least as interesting as the particular event/thing that has been revealed in this particular instance.</p>

<p>This is what I was trying to get at in my a previous post where I talked about exploring desire in and of itself. To reverse engineer it; to get to what it is indicative of, of the source of its cognitive reagent, that reagent being of great interest in the creative process and as a means to worlds previously unknown.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie, having read your post several times now, I simply can only say that I really do understand what you're saying, and that most of the differences we say are down to using specific words, rather than talking substantially different actions/emotions/inspirations. At least, in my view, it's that close.<br>

You do add a good point in looking into where a desire comes from, what its 'ancestor' is, and to better understand from there what it would be all about. Rationally, I fully agree. Emotionally,... sometimes, it's just not possible. Desires can pop into view with a bang, light, and noise and often are a bit more ferocious than the mind is rational. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wouter, in this month's <em>National Geographic</em>, in a cover article, 'Why We Explore,' they blame it on a genetic feedback loop. Not very romantic, but it's a different angle, and kind of interesting, so I'll give you a few snips:</p>

<p>"In humans [as opposed to other primates] the result [of our genetic heritage] is legs and hips that let us walk long distances; clever, clever hands; and an even cleverer brain that grows far more slowly but much larger than other ape brains. This triad separates us from other apes and, in small but vital developmental details, from other hominids. <br>

"Together, says Noonan, these differences compose a set of traits uniquely suited for creating explorers. We have great mobility, extraordinary dexterity, 'and, the big one, brains that can think imaginatively.' And each amplifies the others: Our conceptual imagination greatly magnifies the effect of our mobility and dexterity, which in turn stirs our imaginations further.<br>

"' Think of a tool,' says Noonan. 'If you can use it well and have imagination, you think of more applications for it.' As you think of more ways to use the tool, you imagine more goals it can help you accomplish.'"<br>

[ ... ]<br>

"As we leverage dexterity with imagination, we create advantages 'that select for both traits.'"<br>

[ ... ]<br>

"The first time a human ancestor used a rock to smack open a nut, she opened the way to a culture that may have increasingly selected for the genes studied by Jim Noonan that underlie dexterity and imagination."<br>

" ... pioneer families leveraged their most restless genes and traits by creating a subculture that placed premiums on curiosity, innovation, toughness, and a willingness to take risks ... "<br>

[ ... ]<br>

"'When you set sail to find new lands, you became mythologized — even if you didn't come back.' And so Tupaia, riding the DNA of his ancestors, headed east.<br>

"A proper sailing craft like the ship the Polynesians developed makes a near-perfect metaphor for the larger powers we gain through culture. It gives our malleable genomes, imaginative minds, and clever hands the power to transform even the strongest forces in our environment — wind, water, current — from threat to opportunity. Let the wind rise to a howl and raise a great sea, we needn't stay home or become flotsam, for we can change tack, trim sail, and become what amounts to a different vessel."</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><<<<em>Desires can pop into view with a bang, light, and noise and often are a bit more ferocious than the mind is rational.</em>>>></p>

<p>Wouter, this is such a wonderfully-articulated personal musing which, to me, itself illustrates and reflects the topic as well as addressing it directly. Your word "ferocious" will stay with me beyond the confines of this thread. It not only describes but conjures at least one important sense of desire we're talking about.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I wonder if desire can have as open and unfiltered relationship to <em>going beyond</em> as possible. Would it make sense to talk about going beyond without necessarily getting into curiosity, exploration, etc. It's not why I go beyond but that I do and that I can and that I may. Exploring and being curious seems to nail it to a wall or something, for me. It mutes the colors, tames the ferocity (to use Wouter's word). Maybe . . .</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It seems like there are way too many variables to successfully back-engineer the reagents of desire, but it is a good enough reason for a quest.<br>

_________________________________________</p>

<p>Where I struggle with the idea of desire is that it is linked to possession, owning or having something. I see myself as more of a conduit. Curiosity and exploration can be and often are about the unknown(s) and certainly about going beyond or <em>elsewhere, </em>but not just anywhere. Even if in an entirely new vector, my history, experience, work carry momentum and direction and are my point of departure. Whether desiring, exploring or acting on curiosity, we all start from somewhere. </p>

<p>I experience something analogous to Wouter's dramatic moments sometimes. Other times, it is subtle, like a barely audible sound on a moonless night in a forest, or a kind of restlessness. </p>

<p>I may be wrong, but I think we are all talking about the same thing with personal variations, different sources and/or linguistic preferences. In the context of desire, is it a constant, or a pulse/cycle? What defines the turnover? The quenching of desire? Ownership? </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm not sure what would be the difference between us all talking about the same thing with personal variations and us all talking about different things. That, in itself, would be an interesting thread. Just how different (or the same) are our differences or samenesses. I probably tend to see them more as differences in the strong sense.</p>

<p>________________________________________</p>

<p>I hadn't thought about possession, so thanks for that. It helps, I think, explain both the eastern and western religious objections to desire that I alluded to above, but I hadn't put a name to it. I probably do tend to see myself more as an agent than a conduit, so the "me" part of possession may be stronger for me and less problematic an aspect of desire. In any case, I often find religious objections (especially when it comes from all sides) reason enough to enjoy something and even find it juicy. Telling me there's a bit of sin involved may well stoke my own desires. :-)</p>

<p>Possession/ownership may or may not be realistic, and so even if it plays a part, I may realize that it's a fantasy from the very beginning. I often find myself desiring things (and people) I know I will not have. That in itself can enable and help mold the desire. I don't have to assume that my desire will actually be quenched in order to be in that state. So, I think desire can be decoupled from ownership and, as I said, can just be a moving beyond without necessarily being a moving toward something, certainly something in particular. It can also be a moving toward but not in the sense of having but in the sense of seeing, of something being revealed and not possessed.</p>

<p>I kind of like this quote from Nietszche . . .</p>

<p><em>"Christianity gave Eros poison to drink: he did not die of it but degenerated--into vice."</em></p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><<<<em>Telling me there's a bit of sin involved may well stoke my own desires.</em>>>></p>

<p>Re-reading, I just want to make sure it's understood that I don't think this is what Luis is telling me but what some religious thinking is telling me. I understand that Luis's struggle with desire is about ownership but he hasn't framed that, and I'm sure he wouldn't, in terms of sin.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>IF ...<br /> If, just hypothetically, "most people" [i realize what a dubious claim it is to speak for "most people" ... ] love, practice, do photography because it is *unlike* the (other) arts; it does not require arousal, orgasmic climax, spiritual revelation, etc., because it is about the joy of the simple-familiar, everyday communal/shared, the texture, taste/smell/feel of what is "home" both literally and spiritually ... i.e. NONE of what has been talked about in this thread, not even the less demanding curiosty/exploration level of it ...</p>

<p>... what's going on with making something hard that wants to be so mundane? Or, to put it another way, what do you do with or about or to or ... whatever, with the mundane which is so indelibly (wonderfully, IMO) a part of photography -- if you're trying to do un-mundane work? Mix "mudane" with "desire" ... You risk having the Russian ballet at your backyard barbeque.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie, I'm afraid I do see it as a quite dubious claim that most people do photography because it is *unlike* the other arts.</p>

<p>I do it both because it is *unlike* the other arts and because it is *like* the other arts. For me, photography is both mundane and special. It is the ballet AND a backyard barbecue.</p>

<p>There's a lot about photography (especially its emotional pulls and pushes) that IS hard, for me, and I like its being hard. Then again, I often liked the harder parts of schoolwork and studying. I am often drawn to hard. But that doesn't mean there isn't also an ease that attracts me as well.</p>

<p>I like talking about desire and think it's been helpful. I didn't bring it up because I thought it was something unique about photography as opposed to other arts. I think it's something shared by all sorts of artists, and others.</p>

<p>But, for sure, when I view photography, I view it very much akin to other arts (even though I embrace its differences as well). I feel like I am participating in something greater than what is defined by the boundaries of one or another means of expression.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I am not immune to desire by any means. By the very real fact that all we know comes from less than 4% of the universe, I think there is a lot out there about which we know nothing. Some of these things I feel are greater than myself. I also think ideas are not so much ours as they find their way through us. I do not preach this, nor have any concrete back-engineerable proof, either. Right or wrong, I feel like a conduit that connects, at least partially.</p>

<p>Desire spurs the flow of energy, but possession inhibits it. For me the best part of desire is the obscure and unfulfilled kind, but I realize this is different for others. It could also be argued that the same is true for experience(s) gained through exploration or knowledge through curiosity. Some times, I find myself switching around all these things. They're not exclusive, these means of propulsion/attraction.</p>

<p>Fred's correct: It is not a question of religion, let alone sin. When I said I struggle with the idea of desire it is because it is often something I do not feel is as applicable <em>to me</em> some of the timeas much as exploration, curiosity, or other things. It is only a personal position, nothing more. </p>

<p>____________________________________</p>

<p>I see photography as an artistic medium in line with the other arts, not outside of them. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>And then there is the torment of Tantalus - that pain of desire when the object of desire is there but the desire cannot be satisfied. Similar in some ways to Luis's example of desire unfulfilled and yet possibly dissimilar in other ways (less ferocious pain?).</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Russian ballet at the backyard barbecue happens if "Russian ballet" (which is a form of identity desire) and "barbecue" (which is a form of identity desire) are what you see. If, instead, you arrive with no "what you see" labeled desires, then such a comical conflict is not possible. If you arrive empty, without desire, you may be able, may be allowed, to see what's there.</p>

<p>Obstacles create desire; desire creates obstacles. It's solipsistic circling. I say this of myself. How to solve this conunudrum; when self is both goal and what prevents that goal? Get rid of both. Remove desire from myself; empty myself of all desires. Rather than taking, allow myself to be taken or overtaken by the desires of the world; to be invaded, infected, developed; a medium in which, on which, through which (a conduit, to use Luis's word) generation, procreation, new fruit can grow.</p>

<p>For us, too, there was a wish to possess<br />Something beyond the world we knew, beyond ourselves,<br />Beyond our power to imagine, something nevertheless<br />In which we might see ourselves ...</p>

<p>When Odysseus wants to hear the sirens, he has no idea what "hearing sirens" will be -- there's not identity desire; he simply makes himself available, an empty receptor at the mercy of what they will instill in him. Likewise, in the poetry reposted above, Strand wants to find what is "beyond our power to imagine" and he does this by being an empty vessel:</p>

<p>But that it was ours by not being ours,<br />And should remain empty. That was the idea.</p>

<p>By being empty, it's like a bell waiting to be struck, a string waiting to be plucked -- by whatever it is that is "beyond our power to imagine."</p>

<p>When Marianne Moore writes:</p>

<p>What sap<br>

went through that little thread<br>

to make the cherry red!</p>

<p>She's not interested in all those things that she already knows; cherrys, redness, sap, etc. She's being taken by that which is revealed, given to, sounded in her by the cherry, redness and sap but which, even if surrounded by the net of the poem, yet remains unnamed.</p>

<p>Or Dylan Thomas, doing the same with:</p>

<p>The force that through the green fuse drives the flower<br>

Drives my green age; that blasts the roots of trees<br>

Is my destroyer.<br>

And I am dumb to tell the crooked rose<br>

My youth is bent by the same wintry fever.<br>

 <br>

The force that drives the water through the rocks<br>

Drives my red blood; that dries the mouthing streams<br>

Turns mine to wax.<br>

And I am dumb to mouth unto my veins<br>

How at the mountain spring the same mouth sucks.</p>

<p>Or, dare I say it? Fred G.'s own "the inverse of the desire to fill in the blank."</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've never been empty. Never want to be. I arrive at the barbecue where I am, knowing all I know, desiring all I desire, a fullness of experience, culture, and biology. I see with eyes that have seen before. I see with all that and I see through all that. When I arrive at the Russian ballet, the main difference is I'm dressed better.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just to add, not being empty doesn't mean my consciousness doesn't shift, from slightly to greatly, and doesn't mean there aren't things as yet unknown and unfelt. While I don't think I can start out blank, I think the object of my desire can be that blank not yet filled in. Potential. Possibility. Surprise.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie,<br /><br />Too bad I have a subscription on the Dutch edition of NG, they're usually a month behind on the larger cover stories. This one sounds an interesting read - but on discussions like this, I'm always left with a doubt on how much we actually really know on animals and how they experience things:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We have great mobility, extraordinary dexterity, 'and, the big one, brains that can think imaginatively.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And we have no clear proof that animals cannot think imaginatevely. We assume they don't based on comparison to ourselves. A lot of studies like this do have a human-centric angle. It's a context I'm never too sure of (my background being in history studies, where it's certainly worse - judging the ancient Greeks on current-day values is a silly activity and, in my view, showing a lack of empathy). I'll have to read the full article, but I'm cautious around such comparisons where humankind declares itself unique and at the peak of development.<br /> <br />In the context of desire, though, it's nice to consider animals with our human-centric glasses on: animals seem far more guided by desires than humans do. The (perceived) lack of rationalising seems to remove the roadblocks for giving in to desires.<br>

Which is an ugly bridge towards:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Obstacles create desire; desire creates obstacles. It's solipsistic circling. I say this of myself. How to solve this conunudrum; when self is both goal and what prevents that goal? Get rid of both.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's only solipsistic circle because you create it. If you cut out the idea that obstacles create desire, and that it creates more obstacles, you can start working on reaching the goal. Get rid of the idea of obstacles, and the road opens up.<br />To me, what you describe is a rationalised reason to not give in to desire, to not let passion guide you, but to let the rational decisions override everything. At least, it sounds that way to me; a fear to endulge, prefering the certainty of logic and reason above the raw and unreliable force of emotions. It seems to impose artificial limits that prevent you from reaching full potential. That, or a pre-imposed excuse not to try.<br>

__<br>

P.S. I do not want to imply with the last part that I'm much better at any of this - for sure not. But it's worth trying to let go, worth trying giving in to raw emotions without always considering the logical consequences. Desire, to me, is irrational like that, and I am glad for the few times I let myself be guided by them, rather than my logic.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>For me the best part of desire is the obscure and unfulfilled kind, but I realize this is different for others.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which is also a sopt of possession, in the sense of being possessed. Is it 'being victim' to our desires? For me, I would not say it is the best part, but it's a considerable important part too. The unfulfilled kind is, to quote Fred, "<em>Potential. Possibility. Surprise</em>". It's what moves, what makes things, what drives things. It's, to use the cliché, what makes the journey worthwhile, but not the destiny. A desire to live life and make something worthwhile out of it. As fuzzy a goal as can be, but it's like coffee in the morning.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Desire is omnipresent in the human spirit. Perhaps the unfulfilled desire will always seem to be be the most important. When Cohen wrote his song "Hallelujah" and had it finally released in 1984, it and the album went unnoticed, completely under the radar of the time. And for the first time, Columbia records refused to publish a Leonard Cohen album and he went to a smaller company for that. It took him years and many tens of draft versions before he had gotten the lyrics of the song to say what he wanted them to, then blanko. The mixture in the song between between the spititual and the sensual has been his desire, or perhaps at least a principal one, for most of his life. The first unnoticed unfulfilled desire manifested in Hallelujah grew on the public psyche in the nearly thirty years following (rare are the pop songs that achieve that continuity of expression), with every major singer, and even many American Idol ones, thirsty to sing the lyrics, with K.D. Lang's memorable version a highlight of the Vancouver winter Olympics ceremony. It ain't just the catchy music, virtually every interpretor of that music feels a strong relationship to its message and to the desire it communicates.</p>

<p>Can a photographer feel the unfulfilled desire that Cohen did (he certainly didn't have that easy a path as an artist, but is a magnificent winner today)? It's possible I guess, but in most cases I think that the desire may be felt inside by the photographer but is only exceptionally exposed in the created image, or perceived as such by the viewer. How many POW images have illustrated a feeling of desire? An image that is pretty, compositionally correct or of a sensual or emotional subject may suggest desire on the part of the photographer or in the viewer, but cannot that be simply massaged and superficial rather than felt deeply. The medium is the message (thanks to McLuhan), or can the message become the medium?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><<<<em>Can a photographer feel the unfulfilled desire that Cohen did</em>>>></p>

<p>Of course. (I love Leonard Cohen's music.)</p>

<p><<<<em>in most cases I think that the desire may be felt inside by the photographer but is only exceptionally exposed in the created image, or perceived as such by the viewer.</em>>>></p>

<p>I would say the same about "the musician."</p>

<p><<<<em>How many POW images have illustrated a feeling of desire?</em>>>></p>

<p>Very few. How many people who pick up a guitar and strum do?</p>

<p><<<<em>An image that is pretty, compositionally correct or of a sensual or emotional subject may suggest desire on the part of the photographer or in the viewer, but cannot that be simply massaged and superficial rather than felt deeply.</em>>>></p>

<p>Yes, in all mediums, arts, and arenas.</p>

<p>___________________________________</p>

<p>I'm a little surprised you're using PN's Photo of the Week as any sort of relevant example. I'm not sure how appropriate it is to be extrapolating much about photography from the choices of some anonymous Internet elves on a disintegrating web site.</p>

<p>Maybe I've missed your point. If you're comparing Leonard Cohen's music to the general quality of PN Photos of the Week, certainly Leonard Cohen communicates more desire (and is a very good example of that). But if you're talking about Leonard Cohen's music communicating desire compared to "a photographer" <em>per se</em>, as you suggest in the first sentence of your second paragraph, I'd want to hear why and would find the Photo of the Week discussion irrelevant regarding such a claim. I'd want to compare apples to apples rather than apples to rotten tomatoes. So perhaps you could compare the longing in Cohen to the longing in Lange or Brassai or . . .</p>

<p> </p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...