How much do we project our interior world on the canvas of the world at large?

<p>So sorry, my apologies. The previous was not the correct file. Here is the "actual" right page of said book.</p><div></div>

<p>Daniel, in my opinion, as long as one is thinking <em>in terms of</em> leaving or breaking rules, one is still playing the (existing) game (one's given inner world). Breaking the rules only makes sense if you <em>are</em> playing that game. Lines and balls and whatever a rule refers to only matter while you're playing that game; you can't break those rules if you're not in that game (I repeat myself ... ). So a picture that is seen as "breaking all the rules" is simply a picture of broken rules; it's defined by its game, it doesn't escape it (I'm not convinced that breaking rules was part of Brandt's motivation, in any case).<br /> 　<br /> Consider:</p>

<p>After the initial excitement at it's oddness wore off, William Carlos Williams's poem:<br /> 　</p>

<blockquote>

<p>so much depends<br /> upon<br /> <br /> a red wheel<br /> barrow<br /> <br /> glazed with rain<br /> water<br /> <br /> beside the white<br /> chickens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>　<br /> ... was described by one critic as "just silly." Is it? In terms of the "To be or not to be" game, it is. Think about the word "depends" (and leave out adult diapers, please). It's that word that needs pondering, IMO, because red wheelbarrows aren't usually in your 'inner world.' To many viewers, not much 'depends,' either, on a cigarette butt and car bumper, as in the OP photo.</p>

<p>Inner world, to me, means all of our becauses.</p>

<p>When you know what you are seeing (i.e. "knowledge of and about"), then your mind cuts like a blade, "this, this, this" and to you its <em>sense</em> is clear. But if you don't know what it is that you are seeing, if it is an alien experience that you don't have "knowledge of and about" your mind spreads, pools, fingers, tastes ... There is one "this" with a "?" The whole thing is some thing, but what?</p>

<p>I think the problem here is that we are trying to communicate with a language that simply isn’t adequate for the job: “it’s like talking about quantum theory in a language of levers and weights.” (Jay Haley describing the hypnosis work of Milton Erickson). All the metaphors we are using: conscious, unconscious, inner, outer, game, awareness, etc., are just too crude, IMO. We all experience something when we are doing our photography, it’s just difficult to describe it. Curiously my own experience of what happens when I photograph matches some of the descriptions of the MRI brain researchers looking at brain activity of rappers and jazz musicians when they are improvising. From the discussion of the MRI study:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>“That is, creative intuition may operate when an attenuated DLPFC no longer regulates the contents of consciousness, allowing unfiltered, unconscious, or random thoughts and sensations to emerge. Therefore, rather than operating in accordance with conscious strategies and expectations, musical improvisation may be associated with behaviors that conform to rules implemented by the MPFC outside of conscious awareness.” </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whew! In other words, for me, when I am being creative, I notice a decreased awareness of my own thoughts and feelings, and, a heightened sense of readiness, a feeling (if you will) of waiting, then, boom, “that’s it, take it.” When I am photographing a person as in a portrait, my shutter finger literally has a mind of its own—it just knows when to push the shutter even before my conscious mind is aware of that being the best moment. I think that’s like jazz improvisation too, you just trust your unconscious, or whatever you want to call it. Is this “playing the game” or is it outside the game? Or does it matter what you call it?</p>

"Whew! In other words, for me, when I am being creative, I notice a decreased awareness of my own thoughts and

feelings, and, a heightened sense of readiness, a feeling (if you will) of waiting, then, boom, “that’s it, take it.” When I am

photographing a person as in a portrait, my shutter finger literally has a mind of its own—it just knows when to push the

shutter even before my conscious mind is aware of that being the best moment. I think that’s like jazz improvisation too,

you just trust your unconscious, or whatever you want to call it. Is this “playing the game” or is it outside the game? Or

does it matter what you call it?"

 

I feel I am reading THE process of making art, not fake art or pretentious art, but genuine art. The finger pressing the

shutter, or the hand moving across the canvas, or the fingers gliding over the piano before the conscious brain knows it. I

always thought this is how real art is made. I can't think of any other way, any other recipe would produce commercial

posters or Hollywood flicks IMO. Yet, when you analyze such genuine art, you will find many patterns that seem like the

artists were consciously following conservative rules including rule of thirds, golden ratio etc. these are not any rules

made by some art grammatician, they are there because they work and are deeply connected to how we perceive

aesthetics. Also even if we create art spontaneously, our past experience still plays a role, whether you want it or not. And

if you try to brush off that past experience, the process will involve some consciousness on your part (and still you will fail

most times), so either way you ARE playing the game.

 

Have you ever stood at Grand Canyon during sunrise and decide to photograph a piece of paper on the ground that a

tourist left behind? I know I haven't been able to, so far. It's hard to win over temptation to bring out the other side.

"It's not so much the knowledge of a thing, it's the knowledge of a sensation that we are unique in having when looking at

our own photographs. "

 

That's probably very true. On the other hand, it is this personal sensation that sometimes masks any other aspect of

the photo that may be evident to other viewers. I must confess, sometimes I have gained new perspectives from critics that

have modified my view and understanding of some of my images. How our own sensation from being there contrasts with someone else's from viewing solely the finished image can teach us a lot about our photos. I think it is this combination of personal feeling and

other's perceptions that yields the best out of one's photographic journey.

<p>Steve wrote: "Whew! In other words, for me, when I am being creative, I notice a decreased awareness of my own thoughts and feelings, and, a heightened sense of readiness, a feeling (if you will) of waiting, then, boom, “that’s it, take it."</p>

<p>In response to which, Supriyo wrote: "I feel I am reading THE process of making art, not fake art or pretentious art, but genuine art."</p>

<p>Hmmm ... I feel like <em>I</em> am reading THE process of how I buy stuff on Amazon.</p>

<p>Also, to repeat what was pointed out earlier in this thread, Steve's MRI study is not science: it is illustration in support of belief.</p>

<p>It shows that when something is inserted into the MRI, the brain reacts in some way. That the "something" that is inserted is "creativity" is a matter of belief. The assertion that the recordings of the brain are "creativity" is an attempt to give a scientific gloss to what is not science. Note that I am not saying that Steve is "wrong" in his claim; rather I am saying that it's about his personal belief, for which <em>belief</em> I have every respect and don't wish to devalue.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why depend on other's perceptions?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not?<br>

<br>

Why spin it as a <em>dependency</em> rather than as a desired relationship, perhaps of empathy or something similar?<br>

<br>

What does "effectively communicate" mean if you don't have a sense of other's perceptions in mind? Communicating only with oneself? That would not be enough for me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I always thought this is how real art is made. I can't think of any other way, any other recipe would produce commercial posters or Hollywood flicks IMO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no recipe!<br /> <br /> I'd be happy to produce photos at the artistic level of many great Hollywood flicks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yet, when you analyze such genuine art, you will find many patterns that seem like the artists were consciously following conservative rules including rule of thirds, golden ratio etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's because the process and the art are something very different from photographers' own descriptions of them. I take all these descriptions of "how I work" with a grain of salt. I often see something very different in the work than what's described as process by the photographer. The work often tells the more interesting and genuine story. I think just as photos often wind up following already-established grammars and vocabularies, descriptions of internal process do so as well.<br /> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Having a sense of other's perceptions doesn't mean that you have to consider those perceptions into your own creative process as the only alternative or means to look at your work more objectively and through multiple perspectives.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Supriyo didn't suggest having a sense of others' perceptions was the <em>only</em> means to look at his work more objectively. IMO, he was suggesting it was <em>part</em> of his process.<br>

<br>

I think of the creative process as a dialogue of many sorts, with other artists, with history, with potential viewers, etc., and I'm not talking about discussions about one's work, I'm talking about the process itself. <br>

<br>

I understand that for many it feels like an internal process (whether it is or not), a solo endeavor. For me, it does not feel that way (whether it is or not).</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Doing our photography</em> involves much more than the act of taking pictures. The act itself isn't particularly meaningful in terms of expression and can be as casual or uninvolved as driving to the destination we want to get to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and discussion with others about our work can be part of the process as well.</p>

<p>I think that a lot of good art photography is intended to put the viewer a state of being rather than communicate some thing. For example, a visual equivalent of Wallace Stevens's <em>The Snow Man</em>:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>One must have a mind of winter<br>

To regard the frost and the boughs<br>

Of the pine-trees crusted with snow;</p>

<p>[ ... ]</p>

<p>For the listener, who listens in the snow,<br>

And, nothing himself, beholds<br>

Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is also good work meant for contemplation rather than communication:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How many rocks are there lying in the Ryoanji garden? How was the order found that makes the arrangement a "cipher of transcendence" that has been valid for centuries? Were the boulders repeatedly moved across the space before they found their definitive position? Is the arrangement the result of a long process brought about by calculation? Did it develop as if by chance on one day? — <em>Corrina Thierolf</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And sometimes one is just sketching. Taking visual notes, or test driving an idea.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Steve's MRI study is not science: it is illustration in support of belief.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Julie, a lot of science is done that way.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... what is not science.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That could also be <em>your belief</em>.<br>

<br>

The brain commands the hands to move in a way to create something. Whether a particular work is creative or not depends on the brain it is coming from. The brain is made of brain cells which work following the laws of science. How is this not science?</p>

<p>I understand, there were some contradiction and miscommunication in what I wrote last night (Friday night effect may be). What I meant to say is, no matter how many rules are learned or structures followed, at the precise moment of art creation, the spontaneous synergy of thoughts and reflexes play the central role. IMO, conscious planning takes the backstage at that time although such planning is absolutely necessary to put the photographer in the center of the scene. So Fred, yes there is no recipe for genuine art. Thats what I intended to say. Following a step by step recipe would be similar to creating ordinary everyday commercial Hollywood flicks (not great Hollywood flicks, sorry for the miscommunication), or cover photos in glamor magazines. I am speaking in statistical terms. Of course great art can be made in glamor and fashion photography. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>That's because the process and the art are something very different from photographers' own descriptions of them. I take all these descriptions of "how I work" with a grain of salt. I often see something very different in the work than what's described as process by the photographer. The work often tells the more interesting and genuine story. I think just as photos often wind up following already-established grammars and vocabularies, descriptions of internal process do so as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Thanks for expanding on that. I think (I may be wrong) the rules and patterns evident in a good artwork cannot be properly backtracked and described as a step by step process even by the photographer. Again its my take, that the spontaneous synergy and reflexes that are at work during the shutter release are part of the reason why. I have heard art teachers say to their students, "you did everything right, but there's no life in the picture".<br>

<br>

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be discussing our processes and motivations. I feel the description of what the photographer <em>thinks</em> as his modus operandi can also be insightful.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There is also good work meant for contemplation rather than communication:</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I totally agree with you. Often the feeling from an artwork is a resonance of empathy or the triggering of a thought or question, at least for me. Not really communication of a coded message. However it also depends on how relaxed are you in defining something as communication. Many times, communication works via resonance. Good teachers teach their students not via lectures, but by raising questions. Thats communication of knowledge, isn't it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And how do you put the viewer in a state of being other than through the communication of something to the viewer? It shouldn't need explaining that what I mean with communication in the context of art is the conveying of an idea from one source ( the artist through the work ) to another ( the viewer ) and not an exchange of information between two sources.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That puts a smile in my face.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm talking about the creative process and not on having a discussion about one's work in which case it's more a form of dialogue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Phil, to me these two (creative process and discussion about the work) are intertwined. One feeds into the other and shapes my future perception. And considering others' views is not compulsory for me. For instance, there are works of mine that I thought as great, but others did not find so. When I look at those works with the other feedbacks in mind, sometimes it doesn't change my perception of them, but other times they do.</p>

Julie,

As an addendum, it is my opinion that the universe is a combination of the effect of scientific laws (observation) and the

projection of those observations in the conscious mind (art). Why leave out the science part of it when discussing art?

How does that help to expand our understanding of the creative process.

<p>Supriyo, if it can't be measured, it's not science. If you point to the MRI as a measurement, you get into <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent">affirming the consequent</a>.</p>

<p>Phil, I don't think providing someone the conditions to be able to experience a state is communication. It's creating an opportunity; providing admission.</p>

<p>Edited to add, <em>nowhere</em> did I advocate leaving out (good) science.</p>

Julie, in the beginning you said, if it can't be measured it's not science. I suppose you mean, creativity cannot be

measured, so its futile to study it scientifically (correct me if wrong). That in itself shows that you are biased in your belief

that this subject is beyond the reach of science. So even if you didn't directly advocate leaving out science, it comes to

that. If you think something is beyond the reach of science, no matter how good the science is, it doesn't help.

 

I haven't read the MRI article, so can't comment on that. Usually such works involve a lot of verification through multiple

sources and previous work before a conclusion is reached, to avoid situations like 'affirming the consequent'. I have a

feeling that there are more back and forth evidences than what Steve provided here which is just a snippet. I believe you

have the ability to realize that, yet you jumped on it to denounce the study as soon as it was mentioned. This in itself

shows that you are probably acting out of some sort of an inner belief than logic. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

BTW, creativity can be measured, if you consider us to be the measuring instruments.

"Phil, I don't think providing someone the conditions to be able to experience a state is communication. It's creating an

opportunity; providing admission."

 

One of Watzlawick's axioms: One cannot not communicate.

<p>"If you think something is beyond the reach of science, no matter how good the science is, it doesn't help." To the contrary, I am arguing that it what has been presented as science is not science.</p>

<p>And I would appreciate it if you would stop the personal attacks. Thanks.</p>

"To the contrary, I am arguing that it what has been presented as science is not science."

 

And I am saying you don't have enough clout to make such definitive statements, based on what Steve provided. You can

express doubts though, or ask for more information.

 

 

I am not saying you are an idiot, or calling you names. That's personal attack. Countering ones personal ideas or opinions

cannot be personal attack, as long as there is a counter argument.

 

Could you kindly point out to me which part of my comment was personal attack to you.