Creative constructive antagonism in photography

<p>Hi folks,<br /><br />I've been following the comments on this thread from the sidelines, and have refrained from saying anything for fear that my comments might be too simplistic. Anyway, after a few sleepless nights, I've reached a level of fatigue that has removed the inhibition, so here goes:<br /><br />For me, there are 2 sides to the equation. On the one hand, there is the photographer who makes the work, and on the other hand, there are the viewers. The photographer's goal in creating an image might be to imitate, to break new ground, to shock, or many other things. How he/she goes about creating the image is the result of so many variables (individual, social, cultural, temporal etc) that the process underlying each image will probably be unique (even if there are only small differences from other images made by the same photographer). In terms of the viewers, whether images are seen as creative or subversive or imitative or innovative (or anything else) will depend on a huge number of variables to do with each individual viewer and their personal histories, and the social and cultural context in which they are viewed. Teasing out key influential factors with any degree of accuracy when there are so many variables is well nigh impossible (a lesson well known from large-scale epidemiological and scientific studies). So we are left with trying to lump together works into common themes and to try and explain the creative processes behind them using (to my admittedly limited mind) increasingly complex language. <br /><br />To illustrate: an image of a hand peeling an orange (a kind of 'kill-shot' if you will) will likely be interpreted by most people as simplistic, perhaps derivative (definitely not innovative) and possibly devoid of all interest; if the lighting is magical, perhaps it might be seen as having at least some redeeming feature. To me, the same image would bring tears to my eyes, as I fondly recall my late grandfather coming to visit me as a child, bag of oranges in tow, sitting on the verandah and peeling them for me to enjoy; the image would hold immense power and meaning for me, and I wouldn't care two hoots about whether it is innovative or constructively antagonistic. The argument can also be flipped on its head - if I were to make the same image, even with my history and context, the image still wouldn't have any impact on most viewers.<br /><br />When I shoot, my goals vary with each image/subject/scene and how I create it will vary with my mindset at that time (grumpy, happy etc) and with the more global variables I mentioned above. Only a small minority of viewers of the image will even come close to understanding the goals or variables that went into the image. To me, it does not matter. It also does not matter to me whether my work is dismissed or criticized - I don’t care if it is seen as creatively constipated or constructively antagonistic. It will also not matter to the (hopefully one or two) viewers who find the image poignant, humorous or moving. <br /><br />As I said, I may have an overly simplistic view, but only I will truly come close to understanding my motivations and processes in making a photograph, just as only the viewer(s) will come close to understanding if/how/why a photograph affects them (or not). All said and done, I enjoy making photographs - whether they are creative (or any other adjective) or 'art', I'll leave to others.</p>

<p>I wonder to what extent people might think that this (the movie "Whiplash"):<br /> http://www.kcet.org/arts/artbound/counties/los-angeles/drummer-peter-erskine-on-whiplash-film.html<br /> represents an example of creative antagonism, since it seems to suggest that the highest form of creative expression can be achieved only through a process of extreme sadomasochism (the classic ballet film "The Red Shoes" suggests something of the same). This attitude is far from uncommon among arts educators and trainers – I recall being told by the British photojournalist Grace Robertson that in the early days on the staff of the magazine Picture Post she was assigned to work with the veteran photojournalist Kurt Hutton, whose reaction to what he felt was inferior work was to (wordlessly) scream, rip Robertson's prints to shreds and stamp on them. I have also heard from young classical musicians whose playing to my and most other people's ears was sublime that, on taking masterclasses with so-called "gurus", they have encountered a deliberately harsh and hypercritical attitude. On the many occasions when I have advised and mentored young artists, my approach has been the opposite – I much prefer to say "You seem to be here at step X, I feel you should try to achieve step X +1, in order to do so, you might like to explore approaches a, b or c", while always being ready to be told "No I'd rather aim for something different and take a completely different approach."<br /> In one of his postings, Fred G. uses the word "transcendent" – an extremely important concept in my view, and one whose attainment demands progression to a higher mental plane, beyond friction and conflict, where I would venture to say that the word "antagonism" has ceased to have any meaning and the artist is simply allowing his/her art to lead where it will. I have experienced this sadly more rarely than I would have liked, most often when playing acoustic music groups, mostly but not necessarily with a classical repertoire.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred G. uses the word "transcendent" – an extremely important concept in my view, and one whose attainment demands progression to a higher mental plane, beyond friction and conflict</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I appreciate your point of view, David, and I think many folks want to attain that sort of resolution beyond conflict. I personally don't. And, for me, the word "transcendent" is a move beyond but not necessarily a move beyond conflict or antagonism. I often hesitate to use it because of its association with transcendental meditation, which is a quiet attainment. That's not what I mean, though. As a matter of fact, in this case I used it to mean going beyond the individual self and alongside the word <em>zeitgeist</em>, which doesn't necessarily entail a lack of conflict at all.<br>

<br>

I've had both kinds of teachers in various disciplines and, for me, some of the old curmudgeons worked really well, but so did some of the more circumspect and even cordial mentors. <br>

<br>

Regarding the movie Whiplash, I took the conflict between the Miles Teller character and his teacher to be real and also to be a metaphor for Teller's own internal struggle. That struggle needn't ever end. <br>

<br>

My favorite scene of such musical teacher-student antagonism is in Ken Russell's <em>The Music Lovers</em>, when Richard Chamberlain as Tchaikovsky first performs his now-famous Piano Concerto for his teacher, Anton Rubinstein, who trashes the piece and accuses him of banging out a bunch of noise and even mimics his playing, to which Tchaikovsky responds brazenly and confidently, "I won't change a note."<br>

<br>

Sometimes, the best antidote to antagonism, at least from without, is confidence, stubbornness, and a huge ego, something many artists have.</p>

<p>rajmohan - "Only a small minority of viewers of the image will even come close to understanding the goals or variables that went into the image."</p>

<p>I agree and also think there's a related point here, quoting Fred, "Every action we take, not just art-making, can be considered to help build a portrait of ourselves." And if I take Fred's broad view of self-expression**, then I can take rajmohan's point too " Teasing out key influential factors with any degree of accuracy when there are so many variables is well nigh impossible (a lesson well known from large-scale epidemiological and scientific studies)." [** Fred "Getting back to mere mortals, the expressions come not only from the self but often simply through the self as a result of interactions with others, as a result of history, as a result of a dialogue with other artists, present and past, as well as other things."]</p>

<p>Still, there's a self there that made an expression, without which there wouldn't be an expression. Seems an impossible hope to sort it all out.</p>

<p>David "I have also heard from young classical musicians whose playing to my and most other people's ears was sublime that, on taking masterclasses with so-called "gurus", they have encountered a deliberately harsh and hypercritical attitude."</p>

<p>Holy cow David I think you're describing what amounts to child abuse from a master, who if in turn was trained under similarly harsh methods becomes intergenerational child abuse and not wholly deliberate. David "... rip Robertson's prints to shreds and stamp on them." At least my woodshop instructor didn't take my beginner projects to the wood chipper.</p>

<p>Rajmohan, I think you bring up some important points. The main way I'd pick up on what you've said is to consider that an artist's goals and motivations are not the only things that get shared with an audience or a viewer. It's the results that get shared. We may read certain things into those results (or not) but we are each affected by them, intellectually and emotionally, rationally and sensually.</p>

<p>I think art is more than just communication as I think it often strikes a certain empathic chord and connection that communication doesn't necessarily accomplish. But, just looking at communication, it requires some degree of shared language, which is a type of symbolism. The visual language of photos is not dissimilar. When someone talks to me, I may understand some of what they are saying and misunderstand some but we usually manage to connect at least to some extent and share in ideas and moments. Same with photos.</p>

<p>Photos are not as specific as verbal language and there is often more ambiguity than with the spoken word, but I don't think that means we sever the ties that can bind the creator and the viewer through the photo itself, through the results. Think about a significant lovers' quarrel, which most of us have had. All kinds of misplaced motivations are attributed and then, hopefully, reconciled. And all kinds of misunderstandings can take place. Yet, it is precisely this kind of "antagonism" that will so often move the relationship forward.</p>

<p>Some of my most important art experiences have been when I first completely misunderstand or simply don't get a work of art I'm newly exposed to. That antagonism will run very deep, and when I finally make a breakthrough and come to an understanding, all the antagonism may not disappear, but the experience deepens.<br /> <br /> Learning about an artist is not some kind of academic accomplishment. And art does allow for much more personal interpretation and experience than ordinary communication. However, not so personal that the work of art should ever stop pushing back. Too often, in describing the so-called subjectivity of art, the very work that is the work of art gets dismissed in favor of everyone's right to their own interpretation. I don't have the solution and don't think there is one or needs to be one, but I think it's a beautiful conundrum.</p>

<p>Fred -</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Regarding the movie Whiplash, I took the conflict between the Miles Teller character and his teacher to be real and also to be a metaphor for Teller's own internal struggle. That struggle needn't ever end.</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>My favorite scene of such musical teacher-student antagonism is in Ken Russell's <em>The Music Lovers</em>, when Richard Chamberlain as Tchaikovsky first performs his now-famous Piano Concerto for his teacher, Anton Rubinstein, who trashes the piece and accuses him of banging out a bunch of noise and even mimics his playing, to which Tchaikovsky responds brazenly and confidently, "I won't change a note."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So Fred I wonder if Tchaikovsky composed within a lattice of internal antagonisms, his conflict with Rubinstein, like Teller's conflict with his teacher, a metaphor for Tchaikovsky's internal conflicts.</p>

<p>Seymour: An Introduction is a movie that in part concentrates on showing Seymour Bernstein teach piano to students. Seymour didn't come off as contentious with his students, his style more in line with how David describes his teaching style. For me I can benefit from a thorough raking over the coals, but prefer the kind of methodical 'showing how' that I see in Bernstein. </p>

<p>I think from the interview with Dr. Jung and Ms. Tippett that constructive antagonism was a kind of side point, where more emphasis was given to switching off, or attenuating, the 'narrative' part of one's brain to instead creatively meander.</p>

<p>From Weekly Discussion 2.0 #3 it seems that portraiture can be a creative meandering between the photographer and the subject.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So Fred I wonder if Tchaikovsky composed within a lattice of internal antagonisms</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I very much think he did. I can't help but see the alternation between bombast and idyll in that piano concerto as almost a literal outpouring of his struggle with his own sexuality and the role society expected him to play. Do I choose the sweetness and comfort of romance or the angst and darker sides of my own lusts?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>From Weekly Discussion 2.0 #3 it seems that portraiture can be a creative meandering between the photographer and the subject.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure. And it can also be more overtly antagonistic. I've done portraits where I've felt an edginess and wanted to find something other than what the subject was giving me, which is sometimes more of the "say cheese" variety than the "let's get real" variety. That can set up an oppositional dynamic that has great potential. So, sometimes the creativity is a collaboration . . . and sometimes it's more of an estrangement or even an alienation.</p>

<p>RE selfies, photograph-as-medium and deliberate antagonistic work: Very well said by all. Glad to see new Forum topic!<br /> I was inspired to think more about polemics and deliberatively antagonistic creative work. The most deliberative means of expression we have is with art. It is our selfie stick of self awareness. We attempt to get away from our self-centeredness and achieve <em>nirvana </em>or some-such, but find various modes of <em>selfie-</em>expression more interesting. <br /> <br /> I believe a better term to use instead of “aggravate” is “arousal”. And ‘creativity” is too vague. “Novelty” is more precise. Art tends to cycle from novel to commonplace, and then back again, especially in our meme-driven world. “Creativity” workers are caught up in a capitalist model of competitive novelty –“Mad Men”. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you enjoy the rush. Being creative, for me, is an unshakeable urge to be just <em>too</em> clever. Got to relax. <br /> <br /> The way art seems to me now, much to my delight and confusion, is that <em>anything</em> goes. The compressed, novelty/commonplace cycle gives us endless choices to exercise expressive needs. I feel that the pictures I choose to make have certain expressive <em>content.</em> I want them to arouse. That does not necessarily mean that I want you to see what I see in them. Just see something. They most often are not <em>about</em> something. Or, a picture <em>of </em>something. I may be just testing an idea of how the picture looks. I find consistency <em>and</em> growth in my own outlooks and feelings in them. <br /> <br /> Art has always been POP! Art. The idea of what is “contemporary” art is impossible to pin down. I find in it high arousal in both a good and a bad way. So-called “Museums” of contemporary art” are supposed to arouse. I go in knowing I’ll be either terribly annoyed or inspired. I’ll fall into the bad humor of <em>everything</em> about the present generation looking grotesque – as was mine to the to the previous. But the new guys are grotesque-er faster. <br /> <br /> </p><div></div>

<p>Alan - " I’ll fall into the bad humor of <em>everything</em> about the present generation looking grotesque – as was mine to the to the previous."</p>

<p>As were the older grotesque to us when we were under 'age 30', as used to be said. We were right then. The generations now younger to us, in seeing we elders as grotesque are also right. Not as to any particular one of us, but as to the sum of our adaptations as a whole. Viewed as a whole, we are crazy. And those younger to us now seem as a whole crazy to us. And history will repeat itself, sadly. But the young with their selfies don't know that yet. That's how I try and process my own bad humor on intergenerational topics. So in your posted photo of Chicago manners and dress, there is to me as a viewer an element of constructive antagonism involved, intergenerational.</p>

<p>So to say that in artistic words, I would paraphrase The Who:</p>

<p>Things we do look awful cold<br>

We didn't die before we got old.</p>

<p>Suggested movie watching: <em>Straight Outta Compton</em></p>

<p>Thinking a little more about it, I suspect that many in the younger generations would laugh at the old fogies who are suggesting that all selfies are art. I don't think many of them if any of them have made a case for that or even are thinking in those terms. It's kind of an older generation context, I think. Misplaced, IMO.</p>

<p>This is one of my favorite photos on Photo.net: <a href="/photo/12763154">http://www.photo.net/photo/12763154</a></p>

<p>The photographer's commentary on his shot: "Now listen, I'm old and big enough to go on my own.............. Did you hear what he said?........ No, did you?........ No of course not, got my ear plugs in :-) Best regards, Harry"</p>

<p>My take is that instead the bawler bird, the young child of the two mature parents, in fact wants to be fed by the parents. The bawler doesn't want to be on its own, it wants to be fed. At some critical point the parents abandon it, at that point where they have taught their child all that they themselves know.</p>

<p>Here's one of mine of a young cooper's hawk where the tantrum lasted for a couple days because the parents had flown the coop, not the other way around: <a href="/photo/13722933">http://www.photo.net/photo/13722933</a></p>

<p>Another species, young and fairly recently on its own: <a href="/photo/10281710">http://www.photo.net/photo/10281710</a> . it's being mobbed because it is a predator, uncomprehendingly, doesn't understand why it is a target.</p>

<p>Young but self-sufficient cooper's hawk now worried that somebody will steal his latest catch: <a href="/photo/15199213">http://www.photo.net/photo/15199213</a></p>

<p>At some point they are majestic, are completely settled into and absorbed by making their living: <a href="/photo/11159735">http://www.photo.net/photo/11159735</a> . The eggs are somewhere, or will be, and so it goes, a baby hawk becoming its parents.</p>

<p>And so did we, and so did Hip Hop beating that age-old drum of surrender, a marker of a recognition of 'a problem' and nevertheless that problem's reemergence into yet another generation unresolved.</p>

<p>Note that I'm interpreting other's, and my own, photographic artistic expression in the context of the human condition.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred - "It's kind of an older generation context, I think. Misplaced, IMO."</p>

<p>Sure, not all selfies are art, but they nevertheless are examples self-expression in a world adapted to, that world at large one where it is only money that matters, where money is the only thing that truly exists, the only tangible measure of all things. So I suppose a selfie may be either a marker of a self yet consumed by antagonism OR, a testament that despite all, self still endures.</p>

<p>As I said, I think selfies have little to do with selves and more to do with what I'd term "gestural punctuation", like a wave hello or good-bye. They are cultural as much if not more than individual, more exclamation than expression.</p>

<p><br />!</p>

<p>What's behind that punctuation mark except a self expressing. Me! Punctuation makes a writing express more because of what written words without punctuation don't convey. What isn't conveyed is left to the imagination. If there's only an exclamation, it's for the imagination [viewers, viewers] to convey the rest. Evidence for the 'rest' in a selfie is scant, I grant you. However. I deem our culture as leaving little room or space for self, where expression is largely confined to script reading. So culturally, I'm considering the idea that a selfie is a space for scripted expression. Because in many places, the likes of which we all know, self-expression isn't exactly encouraged while scripted expressions are. Art is unscripted expression that is new, useful, intelligible (for being part of a conversation) with punctuation included, sure, sometimes excessive punctuation, sometimes sort of regrettable punctuation yet part of civil conversation nevertheless.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>???</p>

<p>There are a very limited number of punctuation marks. What makes writing self-expressive are the words used and the way they're put together, the meanings, the cadences. Punctuation marks do what they're supposed to do. They punctuate those expressions. They emphasize, exaggerate, put a halt to, raise a question about . . . the expressions to which they are tied.</p>

<p>I don't think a selfie is much different than the family snapshot of days gone by. Family photo albums are significant. But most of the time and in most cases they're not art and they're not self expressions of the photographer. I've seen art displays based on family albums. Usually some kinds of ideas or themes are being explored with them when I've seen them in an art context.</p>

<p>oops I meant " I'm considering the idea that a selfie is a space for unscripted expression."</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I was surprised you said "scripted" because that would have undercut your ideas about selfies. I do see them more as culturally (and corporately) scripted expressions.</p>

<p>Referring again to family snapshots, most are much more mementos than expressions or self expressions and I'd even say the same thing about most non-selfie photos posted all over the Internet. They're remembrances that "I was here" as opposed to expressive of what it was like to be there.</p>

<p>Well, a selfie includes 1) a self portrait and 2) can also consist of the photographer photo bombing every shot. In days gone by item 2 wouldn't have been acceptable. Not scripted.</p>

<p>I'm just saying that one possible explanation for selfies is that society has become more confining and that selfies emerged in a compensatory way in response to that change. A self portrait we can understand. Having the photographer in every shot, landscapes, group portraits, well, that does seem a bit much. If it's the only space a self can occupy unscripted, then I feel sorry for what we have become. If it is a mere change in the script, what really has changed? It's still a script. I may have to look elsewhere for signs of a new dawn. The moral arc of the universe seems to bend toward scripts though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If it's the only space a self can occupy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Surely it's not. What the selfie phenomenon is, IMO, is a very visible manifestation of a cultural trend, seized upon by popular culture. I interact with younger folks all the time who are expressing themselves, be it in academic settings or community organization settings. They're still involved politically, at least here in San Francisco. They're still doing art. And in many cases, they're living here and commuting daily to Silicon Valley where they're responsible for software and apps that are driving the world in all kinds of unknown and unforeseen directions. They're expressing and asserting themselves all over the place.</p>

<p>Restated, if it's one of the few spaces a self can occupy unscripted.....</p>

<p>But you've described more than a few such spaces where they are <em>comfortable</em>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But you've described more than a few such spaces where they are <em>comfortable</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which brings us back to the topic at hand . . . antagonism. What do you see as the antagonistic or uncomfortable side of selfies?<br>

<br>

And I'm not sure that characterizing the spaces I spoke of as comfortable does them justice. The academic sphere these days is costly, so we've put kids in the position of taking on great debt in order to get an education and a start, which has its antagonistic aspects. And a good education will entail intellectual antagonisms, debating sides of issues, etc. Community groups that I'm part of and just aware of are struggling for a limited and often dwindling number of public funds, often doing health outreach, for example, into populations fearful of or at least reticent about perceived mainstream normative attempts. Political activism is antagonistic by nature.</p>

<p>For me, the antagonism or discomfort that gives rise to an era of selfie may be that life is harder for young people today than it was for me at that age, harder in the ways I'm glad you mentione, and in other ways too. If I consider the selfie in the context of the personal difficulties that are not pictured in a simple selfie, I feel I'm being fairer towards selfies. I'm at times tempted to be antagonized by selfies because selfies in popular culture can be presented as examples of excessive self-centeredness of the young. Self-centeredness in the young can be annoying, but it's nothing new or uniquely human, nothing really for me to be antagonized by.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>personal difficulties that are not pictured in a simple selfie</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's been my point. I thought you were saying selfies were expressive of this conflict. If they were, they would, on some level, picture it. Their being born of such conflict doesn't mean they're expressive of that conflict.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>selfies in popular culture can be presented as examples of excessive self-centeredness of the young</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm hesitant in the attribution of self centeredness. From the outside, other groups often look either self centered or self indulgent. People have long been saying of gay pride parades that they are self indulgent. They may simply be celebratory and not self censoring which is often mistaken for self centeredness. My own generation was denigratingly referred to as the "me generation." I've alternatively heard the current generation referred to as impersonal, their cell phones and technology taking them away from the "realities" of the world and, then, self centered. I'd lean away from not only their being self centered but their being self aware. I think technology has objectified more than subjectified all of us. My own youthful search for self actualization was mistaken by outsiders to be all about "me" which it was anything but. In so many cases, it was about the search to connect me to something greater, whether that was nature or others. Listen to the criticisms from the right about Black Lives Matter, claiming it would be much less self centered if it were called "All Lives Matter" which, of course, not only misses the point but proves it!</p>

 

<p>All good Fred.</p>

<p>Going back to the earlier quote from the Peter Korn interview: "...if you look at art over the millennia, art just tend to portrait a place where they think truth resides and so you’ve got a Greek Art portrayed this ideal of humanity outside of space and time in other words truth lay outside of humanity." He then suggests that truth moved to heaven, to nature where truth was thought to be there e.g. the Hudson River School, and then to the present era with individual truths, generally speaking as he puts it. And he is speaking of Western art.</p>

<p>But he began with Greek Art, not with the beginning, not with cave paintings. If I accept Korn's premise that art tends to portray the place where humans feel truth resides, then in the beginning, for the cave painter, truth was in the animals, it being animals that were portrayed. Will we come full circle? <a href="https://www.google.com/search?cat+selfies&rlz=1T4NDKB_enUS521US521&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIsbSJ29LWxwIVRSuICh3DsAJj&biw=1464&bih=1178">https://www.google.com/search?cat+selfies&rlz=1T4NDKB_enUS521US521&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIsbSJ29LWxwIVRSuICh3DsAJj&biw=1464&bih=1178</a></p>

<p>Cat selfies? Will we at some future time find it hard to imagine that in our representational art humans ever pictured themselves at all? Will we then begin to care about all of nature as much as today we care so deeply about our cats? Are cat selfies the cutting edge of societal change, the quickening of a new dawn for our species?</p>