A question about Camus.

<p>I sometimes think of a lecture in my first PH101 class on Albert Camus and making photographs. I would like to know where in Camus' writing the discussion of the photographer attempting to <strong><em>be </em></strong>the subject photographed occurs. As I recall it was specifically about him making a portrait of a friend. The thrust of it that I have retained was that one should, near as possible, become<em> </em>that person. Portraiture is an obvious theme that would lend itself to that. I don't recall if it was Camus or my instructor that expanded on that idea to include non-persons. Attempting more than superficial representation of inanimate objects is a conventional exercise in the arts. Never mind anthropological issues like animism. One thinks of dance, music and theater. As a photography student, especially in the Aquarian '60s, <em>being</em> a rock or tree stump in order to obtain a more comprehensive rendering of its essences seemed perfectly reasonable. And still does.</p>

<p>Sounds good. How do you go about being the subject?</p>

<p>Feodor: how about "self portrait?" Or "portrait of one's self as person x, y, and z"</p>

<p>Can't find it <strong>Alan</strong> unless it is in Albert Camus's book: "<em><strong>La Postérité du Soleil", </strong></em> which is on landscape photography mainly. See <a href="La Postérité du Soleil">here</a> (if you read French)</p>

<p>Whatever Camus I read forty years ago wasn't French. He was not writing about self-portraits. The idea of <em>being </em>the subject is to try and imagine or feel what the subject must be like in more than the usual depth. Casual portraits reveal little that is special about a person. Studio portraits reveal even less. Rocks or a trees have a history, material, and natural qualities that, thought about more comprehensively, even meditated upon if you are so inclined, could produce a better picture as would landscapes or urban subjects. <br>

The point I believe my instructor was trying to get across was that photographers should not try and make pictures that resemble what a picture of their subject ought to look like. It's not hard being a large granite rock in a stream. Sharing the sunlight with a butterfly, cool and mossy underneath with maybe a trout nearby waiting. Hmmm, sounds like a Chinese ink brush drawing title.</p>

<p>Andres,<br>

I meant to rave about your bridge picture from underneath. Tell me you didn't become as one with the bridge! Bridges affect me more than natural landscapes and I feel them.</p>

<p>I was not more part of the bridge than I'm deeply part of history and feel and "read" old stones. Pont Neuf (the "new bridge") is the oldest standing bridge across the river Seine in Paris. Was build between1578 and 1607 (Interrupted during the seven French Wars of religion). Others might say that it is just another "pretty" snapshot and feel, and "understand", absolutely nothing.</p>

<p>Is it possible that your instructor was referring to Roland Barthe rather than to Albert Camus? The former referred to the difficulty of the portrait in his text "Camera Lucida" and what the portrait really revealed, or didn't, about the person photographed. Both lived at about the same time in France. Perhaps Camus, Absurdist movement philosopher inspired by Kierkegaard, may have inspired your instructor by such thoughts as:</p>

<p>"Man is the only creature that refuses to be what he is."</p>

<p>"It is not your paintings I like, it is your painting."</p>

<p>The question of feeling how an object (bridge, stone) is can possibly be related to the philosopher's interest in subjectivity and the uniqueness of the individual response. While he doesn't scorn science or the search for objectivity, he feels that the subjective response is what most matters. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Camus, Absurdist movement philosopher"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If a philosopher denouncing the absurdity of human conditions ("l'absurdité de la condition humaine") and calling for revolt against the absurdity, is an "absurdist philosopher" then ok but surely too short for the Humanist he was, but he was also a writer (The Stranger, The Plague) strong critic of Soviet communism (before Sartre !) and a celebrated resistance fighter against the German occupation.<br>

<br /> « L'absurde naît de cette confrontation entre l'appel humain et le silence déraisonnable du monde »</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The question of feeling how an object (bridge, stone) is can possibly be related to the philosopher's interest in subjectivity and the uniqueness of the individual response. While he doesn't scorn science or the search for objectivity, he feels that the subjective response is what most matters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would believe that it relates to more than the "subjective response".<br>

In fact the whole discussion on for example <em>abstract expressionism</em> and what Americans called "modern art" turned around the object/subject matter and the relationship to time. Barnett Newman took the somewhat radical position (in "The Sublime is now") that Europeans were attached to the transcendence of objects (the bridge above) where Americans attached to the transcendental experience. On this basis he argued that European art was dead and buried (sic!) and that the future belonged to the Americans (the New York school). <br>

ARS NESCIENDI !</p>

<p>Anders,</p>

<p>Apart from "ignorant art" (or "knowledgeless art") or "ars nesciendi", which is an important subjective comment you make in your last paragraph but that I am not in this instance in a position of knowledge to evaluate (tant pis, c'est simplement un exemple magnifique de mon ignorance conceernant la distinction entre les mouvements américains et européens en art), the question of the Absurdism philosophy of Camus is well known. See "Absurdism" in Wikipedia and the same source's article on Albert:</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Camus</p>

<p>"L'étrangeur" et "La peste", in their translated forms were required and valuable reading in my first year English course as an undergrad engineer in Canada. I think more than Sartre I would have appreciated being in the company of this enlightened and humanist Franco-Algerian. Some of the workings of his mind, even without reading those texts or his philosophical essay "The Myth of Sisyphus", can be gleaned by reading many of the quotes (thoughts) he had during his existence. While these are not fully in context in such short form, they are quite revealing of a man, who amongst other valkues, placed love and friendship with others on a very important plane. He knew the resistance fighters and certainly supported them, but apparently not as actively as some of the "front line" fighters. I don't see that as a negative thing, as he was almost certainly under extremely close and handicapping surveillance during Pétin's Vichy regime and the Nazi occupation of France. </p>

<p>Not the best source, but a bit more complete in terms of the fullness of the individual quotes than others:</p>

<p>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_camus.html</p>

<p>I think Bush II was <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2147662/">once spotted</a> with <em>The Stranger</em>, perhaps to seem edgy philosophical and intellectual, and the absurdism of it all being of course that the protagonist in that story kills an Arab, for no particular reason and just because he can. But, I mean, what was he <em>thinking</em> ( Bush ) ? </p>

<p>Thanks Arthur.<br>

Concerning lack of knowledge about the relation between American and European art movements you are not alone, I'm convinced. The extreme patriotic self-understanding of American artists in the 50s and 60s, influenced art schools, art critics (Clement Greenberg et co) and the general understanding of art and artists in America to such a degree that one can still see the consequences of it in current art discussions.</p>

<p>I think Newman is one of those that most clearly has defended the perceived uniqueness of the American Modern art (abstract expressionism) although he obviously knew relatively little about the European-art-world during and after the Second World War. As mentioned, his use of dichotomies like <em>Object / subject</em> and <em>transcendence-of-objects / transcendence-of-experiences</em> or his discussion on "<em>Beauty</em>" / "<em>Sublime</em>" are replaying many of the debates that continuously are running here in this forum.</p>

<p>As you read French, I will quote Rimbau on BEAUTY proceeding the forthcoming declaration that Beauty is dead:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Un soir, j'ai assis la Beauté sur mes genoux. − Et je l'ai trouvée amère. − Et je l'ai injuriée.<br /><br>

(Rimbeau, 1873)</p>

</blockquote>

<p> ARS NESCIENDI (the art of ignoring)</p>

 

<p>Phylo, maybe Bush just read this passage from "The Stranger", that made him stop and think:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For the first time in years, I had this stupid urge to cry, because I could feel how much all these people hated me.<br /><strong>The Stranger</strong><br />Part 2, Chapter 3.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Someone, might have put a marker on that passage so that he did not need to read it all.</p>

 

<p>Anders, I’m perhaps not very analytical when it comes to art movements (I should be, but I rather spend my time contemplating the art after reading briefly of the overall art movement in which it finds itself), but I am aware of the differences and of the strong nationalist character as you mention in regard to the USA. I never really made many comparisons, as, for instance, between the British Angry Young Men movement of theatrical and novel writers and their American social writers (O’Neil, Kirouac, or the “film noir” writers to name a few) or the similar Canadian movements (The “Refus Global” artists or the equally socialist writers speaking to political separation and/or a more humanist society).</p>

<p>Each country or significant geographic region has its various movements, and a good dose of the nationalist and nepotism type sentiments. We have a large exchange of artists, writers and intellectuals between the two largest French speaking cities and cultural regions in the World (namely, Paris and Montreal), but when I listen to French TV programs dealing with the arts, they are almost uniquely concerned with home artists, writers or intellectuals (and politicians). Rarely do you see anyone from French Canada (or elsewhere) and there are many French Canadians living in or touring/visiting France. Same case for Britain, the other major “mother country” of many Canadians. Although they are quite happy to integrate Canadian intellectuals and artists, the view and curiosity seldom crosses the Atlantic.</p>

<p>While I love to read the Guardian and The Economist from time to time, I won’t subscribe any more, as their interest in a country member of the G8 and with 60% of the Gross national product of Britain is not covered in regard to the art scene, and only very very occasionally in regard to economy or politics (not so for the reporting in regard to the USA, due to its unignorable great size). Canadian intellectual life is often similarly viewed by our friends to the south. I find instead more balanced sources of information elsewhere in order to counteract that chauvinism (Note. I am not an Anglophobe by any means, and lived in England for a very constructive 6 years).</p>

<p>So, it is my impression, Anders, that much of the disconnect between different regions is due in large part to ignorance on the one hand and chauvinism on the other. </p>

 

<p>Regarding Canada and Europe Vs US, it's outright silly to speak of US as if it is one country, just as it's silly to speak of Canada as if its technically dominant Chinese population (in Canada's west) isn't more like California than it is like, say, Manitoba, which is more like the US Midwest...or French Canada, which I've repeatedly been told is hated by the bulk of Canada's population. Similarly, some say Newfoundland is Anglophone Canada's cultural engine more than anything on the mainland. Some prejudices, yes, but gleaned from Canadians.</p>

<p>CBC is a fine broadcaster, but it's a mere shadow of what it was twenty years ago (when it seemed to rival English language BBC). I think that if Canadians had any interest in being noticed, and distinguished from Americans they would start by re-envigorating CBC and reinventing Canadian Film Board (for which I once planned to work). In other words, Canada's cultural isolation seems something Canadians want, just as Glen Beck, Lady Gaga et al are evidently something Americans want.</p>

<p>As well, I doubt that Camus or Sartre are currently seen as comparably philosophically as important as, say, David Foster Wallace by literate young Europeans or Canadians with philosophic inclinations. </p>

<p>America's global cultural dominance springs from its size, the fact that it's long driven most popular music and literature and media (the significant French film makers idolized Americans and France has been essentially devoid of rock & roll, but is interestingly mixing rai and rap/hip-hop). The events of 68 in Paris were a blip by comparison to the events that had been going on in the US starting around 1950s and fizzling out mid 70s. IMO :-) </p>

<p>Here in New Mexico my impression is that the important art, the stuff that draws curious people to galleries, comes from China and Japan more than from NY or Europe. </p>

<p>My guess is that Europe's intellectual/aesthetic elite will increasingly have Arabic, Persian, African, and Turkish roots.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Europe's intellectual/aesthetic elite will increasingly have Arabic, Persian, African, and Turkish roots</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Europe always has had those roots, by the Greek and Roman and North African cultural heritage. By definition it travelled to the New World too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Casual portraits reveal little that is special about a person. Studio portraits reveal even less." --Alan</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This suggests you've had very different experiences with portraits than my own.</p>

<p>-----------------------------------------------</p>

<p>That being said, I, too, sensed that the Camus reference was not necessarily about portraits. There are several ways the photographer can become the subject. He can, as has been said, become one with the subject (to whatever extent that's possible). In other words, he can empathize with the subject and put himself into the subject, living or not. He can also make himself the subject by shooting a certain way, with a particular perspective that suggests a kind of pointing to the photographer, even if the photographer doesn't appear in the photo. In a portrait, the person whose portrait is being made can connect with the photographer in such a way that you almost can't miss the photographer's presence. In other kinds of photos, compositional elements (particularly open-ended geometries) can make the photographer very much a subject of the photo without the photographer (or his/her shadow) actually appearing.</p>

<p>Also, often in a coherent body of work or even a particular series, the voice of the photographer can become much more pronounced than it would be were the individuals taken as more discrete units.</p>

<p>FRED G. I'll stick with my generalization. As we know, the charm of photographs is that they confirm and imprint what we already believe. <br>

I am certain that the theme was more or less as I described it. Camus wrote about making a portrait of a friend and not about the formal process of making the picture or intentionally inserting himself. Given his views, I think he was saying something along the lines of trying to sensitize himself to the subject's condition. Something more deliberate and complex than empathy. It may have been that Camus felt a sense of intellectual responsibility and of urgency to apply as much from himself to the task of making the portrait as he could. I guess I'ts time I dug into him again and pry this out. This topic has gotten a bit out in the weeds.<br>

:-)</p>

<p>Anders, you're right in a theoretic, ancient history way. But to assert that Europe even existed as an entity before the recent agglomeration is unsupportable (Hitler and several Popes tried). The various ancient states and regions you've mentioned did of course trade with far flung cultures, but I don't think there's much cultural evidence of those influences today (an academic can tease out traces, but an anthropologist would be more interested in what followed from WWI and WWII and Shoah). In addition to Europe's "European" aspirations there appears (to me) to be the touristic residue of Dick Cheney's "old Europe" combined with Americanization and the increasing impact of immigrants (as in America, where Hispanic and Chinese immigrants are reshaping things).</p>

<p>America's musical impact on the world springs mostly from our African roots (jazz was virtually non-existent in Europe before WW1). Europe was blessed by American black music via Django Reinhardt, who was turned on by Louis Armstrong recordings. Django was a Manouch Gypsy, which means he wasn't European so much as superficially Europeanized. Like Robert Capa his life direction was toward America (Django failed with Duke Ellington, so retired to Samois and died).</p>

 

<p>"Thinking is not unifying or making the appearance familiar under the guise of a great principle. Thinking is learning all over again how to see, directing one’s consciousness, making of every image a privileged place. - Albert Camus"</p>

<p>Anders, historically speaking, I think the differences you pointed out are mostly due to provincialism, not nationalism. </p>

<p><strong>Alan - "</strong>The thrust of it that I have retained was that one should, near as possible, become<em> </em>that person. Portraiture is an obvious theme that would lend itself to that. I don't recall if it was Camus or my instructor that expanded on that idea to include non-persons."</p>

<p>I'm sorry, Alan, but I do not know which book the quote came from. I suspect I know from where it came. Camus, like HCB and many other French intellectuals of his day, was no stranger to Zen, where this type of unified gestalt or awareness of connectedness/unity is well-known. It is also found in some physics, where the observer and observed are regarded as a system.</p>

<p><strong>Feodor - "</strong>Sounds good. How do you go about being the subject?"</p>

<p>It's more about becoming the subject. What are the barriers that presently stand between you and the subject?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"As we know, the charm of photographs is that they confirm and imprint what we already believe." --Alan</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The draw of many photographs, to me, is that they present a challenge, as viewer and as maker.</p>

<p>I don't find photographs to be much about my so-called beliefs as much as they are about possibility and desire (eros?).</p>

<p>Portraits introduce me, show me, teach me. I prefer when they intrigue me or ask something of me rather than confirming much.</p>

<p>Some of the better portraits actually reveal what's right on the surface, which may seem or sound superficial but is anything but.</p>

<p>BTW, Alan, I didn't mean to suggest that Camus had in mind the various ways I posed one could become the subject of their photographs. I was talking more generally about how one can become the subject of their own photos. Didn't mean to go off track, though.</p>

<p>Some of the misconceptions of the culture of other countries and the question of a not unexpected cultural chauvinism are two sub-themes that have spun off independently from Alan’s Camus question and would be interesting threads in themselves. Why are we off track? I think that part of that is due to the way the O.P. was formulated as well as the difficulty of finding the apparent Camus quote in order to better understand what he meant. The question, whether from Camus or not (I tend to think not, as it might well be that Camus was simply describing the subjectiveness of an absurdist’s view), of the photographer “being” his subject, is mentioned by Alan as follows:</p>

<p><em>“The thrust of it that I have retained was that one should, near as possible, become that person.”</em><br /> <em> </em><br /> <em>“Attempting more than superficial representation of inanimate objects is a conventional exercise in the arts.”</em><br /> <em> </em><br /> Is Alan interested in Camus’ apparent portrait reference or is it to the question of the artist understanding (“being”) inanimate subject matter for what it is? It doesn’t seen clear to me.</p>

<p>We seem to have gotten off topic, and not just “in the weeds” as Alan informs us. Fred highlighted a subsequent quote of the original poster:</p>

<p><em>“Casual portraits reveal little that is special about a person. Studio portraits reveal even less." –Alan</em><br /> <em> </em><br /> Does this have a link to the question of the photographer somehow being his subject?</p>

<p>So where are we in the discussion of the photographer being his subject? Unless we have the context of Camus’ quote, which some of us have tried to locate unsuccessfully (and at the same time renewing and gaining additional insight into a very interesting existentialist type of philosopher and humanist, for which we may thank Alan’s O.P.), it is hard to understand whether Camus was dealing with (1) subjectiveness per se (which is a thread of importance in his philosophy of Absurdism) or (2) was referring to the need for the artist to understand his subject. Or (3) was he interested in transforming the subject by his own personae?</p>

<p>Studio or non-studio (“casual”) portraiture does not seem to me to be very related to this philosophical question, as each of these types of portraiture can be “orchestrated” by the photographer to one of the approaches I mention in the foregoing paragraph.</p>

<p>I think it would be useful for the O.P. to be defined more clearly, should Camus’ original statement not be uncovered. Does Alan feel that Camus was referring to “being” the subject as a manner of better understanding the subject? In that case, which is rather practical and an approach used by many, why not? It probably doesn’t incite an extensive argument (but I may be wrong). What is perhaps more important is a discussion related to subjectiveness or to the photographer becoming the object or subject itself.</p>

<p>In regard to the latter, there are many examples of that, both directly evident and less so. Two examples: When persons familiar with your photography, your choice of subject matter and how you approach that, are easily able to say that an image or a print is yours, then you are in a sense being at least a part of the subject matter. On another plane, and when the viewers may not know you or your work, the symbols you use in the image and what they imply can be a very personal statement, although one that might be only identifiable as one of a group thought (as being part of art movements or social or political movements).</p>

<p>"As we know, the charm of photographs is that they confirm and imprint what we already believe." .. Alan Zinn</p>

<p>We don't know that. Some of us surmise it, or simply want it it...which explains Karsh.</p>

<p>"Studio or non-studio (“casual”) portraiture does not seem to me to be very related to this philosophical question, as each of these types of portraiture can be “orchestrated” by the photographer to one of the approaches I mention in the foregoing paragraph." ...Fred G</p>

<p>I'm not sure which "philosophical question" this addresses but it seems to me that Fred G's work has a consistent Fred imprint...in other words, his orientations, goals, and limitations conspire to make a certain identifiable look. I've seen little evidence that he escapes it, though he clearly tries.</p>

<p>My own more limited portraiture and my desire to photograph people who are fully aware of being photographed results in surprises, not all of them positive, about my self in photographic relationship. For me, portrait photography is substantially a risky learning process in which each risk springs from previous risks and is valuable almost exclusively as a springboard to the next. I intensely dislike some of my recent portraits (I hope they reflected neither me nor my subjects), which has led to some rethinking, which will (or damned well better) lead to new risks.</p>

<p> </p>