Convergence and fantasy

<p>As a spin off from Luis' thread on social media, where we briefly touched upon this subject, I'd love to hear other's insights on the thought that struck me while posting there.</p>

<p>As progression over last decades, all media seem to converge more and more (*). Music is enjoyed with video, images come with words, words with images. Music, for the major part, has lyrics, and is presented on vinyl or aluminium with an image. Already from my generation (70s child) on, we are less and less exposed to either of those alone. In many musea, one starts to see mixtures; purely images (paintings, sculptures, photos) does not seem to 'entertain' that well, so there are added videos to tell more about the work, its creation or its creator. And at the same time, novels (those classics, with only words) aren't selling like hotcakes. The internet, for sure, is a pure mixed-media communication channel.</p>

<p>What I do wonder about, is how these changes influence our fantasy, our abilities to mentally complete a work with the part that isn't actually there. Reading a (well written) book leaves people making images of the lead characters. Seeing a good photo invites one in to make up the story on what happens inside that image. I think this fantasy is not only fantastic to have, but is a large foundation of our creative minds.<br>

So, what happens if we're less triggered to let our fantasy have a go at words, or an image... if we're constantly given both? How will this affect what we create, and how we create it? If one expects a photo to be "embedded" into words as part of a story (rather that being a story on it own), does that change your approach significantly? Does it change the result too?</p>

<p>I really have no real thoughts on this yet; if I'd have an idea, I'd share it here. It may sound a bit like crying wolf over something happening as part of a natural progression, but it's not. It's not an attack on 'new media', nor saying that ye' ole' ways are better. I'm just really wondering if such changes matter, and if yes, how they'd matter.</p>

<p><em>(*) I admit this could be left to argue as well, and sure feel free to point out to me if this premise is already flawed.</em></p>

<p>I'd say that we have many decades of this, now, in the form of popular magazines (see "Life," back in the day, for example). Some stories have been illustrated in one way or another for centuries. The ease with which this is done has certainly changed. But I don't think it's a new thing, per se. Certainly it's going to be very difficult for someone reading a book upon which a movie was based (and having seen the movie first) to "un-see" the movie's images when enjoying the text. But again, that's been in issue for about a century, now.</p>

<p>I've viewed several Youtube presentations that combine still images with music. When done right they work well for both my eyes and ears. IMO there will always be a place for music alone and still images that can stand on their own.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I do wonder about, is how these changes influence our fantasy, our abilities to mentally complete a work with the part that isn't actually there. Reading a (well written) book leaves people making images of the lead characters. Seeing a good photo invites one in to make up the story on what happens inside that image. I think this fantasy is not only fantastic to have, but is a large foundation of our creative minds.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter -- What you're describing brings to mind McLuhan's "hot" & "cool" media. A movie (hot) engages the visual and auditory senses but requires little participation from the viewer. Your "well written book" (cool) requires the readers participation and engages them more. Even if we accept McLuhan's categorization of certain media as hot or cool, there are gradations within them. "The Dark Knight" or "The Hangover" require less of a viewer than "Donnie Darko", "Midnight in Paris", or "My Dinner with Andre".</p>

<p>It's very hard to say what, if any, impact the merging of media will have. As Matt said, I don't know that it's particularly new. The technology has improved and has become more accessible. I think it is the accessibility and the flattening of the learning curve for certain technologies that has had more of an impact by virtue of the media flood it has released: blogs, videos, photographs. I've seen discussions of digital photo manipulation on PNet where some posters say that the same manipulations have been made for years with film. True, but it requires more time and financial investment to dodge and burn, or create the illusion of someone floating in midair, in a dark room than it does in LR or PS. Anyone with access to a computer with an internet connection can create their own blog on whatever topic they desire. Cinematic quality dvds can be made on a shoestring budget (sans multi-million $ CGI effects...but how far behind is the accessibility to that technology?).</p>

<p>There is a convergence not only of media, but a convergence, and compression, of technology and time as well. As a whole, attention spans are shorter, partly because there is so much competing for them. Imagine a contemporary audience sitting through a mid-nineteenth century lecture or political speech. Not very likely that many people would sit through either one. I'm not sure if he coined it, but paranormal radio show host Art Bell calls this "The Quickening".</p>

<p>Like you, I don't mean to laud the past and bemoan the present. If it weren't for digital technology I wouldn't even be on this discussion board. But I can see neither what the future holds, nor what the future will hold dear. It might be under our very noses, but we just can't see it. Or at least I can't.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here's a slide-show with three different songs combined that I did. I think the songs complement the three areas of shots pretty well all part of a one day excursion. It's really is a lot of fun to do allowing creativity beyond just taking the shots. Getting the right music and putting it all together takes a lot of time. Uploading to YouTube or sending DVDs to family members have an added enjoyment. Alan<br>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/AlanClips#p/a/u/0/43EynU-XM3c">http://www.youtube.com/user/AlanClips#p/a/u/0/43EynU-XM3c</a></p>

<p>Nice, Alan. Felt like I spent the day there myself! Sounded like you included some ambient sound in the baseball sequence? My only criticism is this:</p>

<p>Never, ever, put ketchup on a hot dog. ;-)</p>

<p>Yes, indeed it isn't very new - it's more that the thread on social media made me more aware on how little we're exposed to 'cool' media (I like the distinction, even if hot and cool are not words that immediately resonate for me). Internet for sure steaming hot... there is always some banner blinking in a corner :-)<br>

Probably what triggers it for me, is what Steve wrote "<em>attention spans are shorter</em>", well, yes, I agree and that's the part where I cannot help to worry a bit too. Attention span also has to do with the effort one is willing to put in - if we have to 'shoot' for the short ones, we'll have to shoot for effects grabbing attention.<br>

For the record, I am not against these mixtures at all, and I certainly would not want to disregard the effort and creativity Alan put into his work. In these 'media mashups', there is also an enriching part in it for sure. New forms pushing new boundaries. A good thing.</p>

<p>As said, it's just a thought that came up, as I was listening piano music on a music installation with just 2 speakers instead of 6..... I'm glad to hear your thoughts, and I realise none of us can predict the future but sometimes it's worth contemplating all the same.</p>

<p><em>(Steve, CGI effects: can be done at home already - for $0 too if one wishes. For example, the program Blender and some open source renderers can create very convincing CGI. The learning curve is very considerable, though)</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, what happens if we're less triggered to let our fantasy have a go at words, or an image... if we're constantly given both? How will this affect what we create, and how we create it? If one expects a photo to be "embedded" into words as part of a story (rather that being a story on it own), does that change your approach significantly? Does it change the result too?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I see convergence between the audence and the story becoming even more a feature of digital presentation and allowing creative opportunity to interact with the 'plot' and affect the outcome. There is already some ways to do this, but proper implementation by incredibly powerful rendering might foster creativity in ways we've not seen before.</p>

<p>Taken to an extreme level we might see 'Oscars' awarded to your next door neighbour for the plot development and story line they interacted with which created an unexpected cinematic gem.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Steve: I would never ever put ketchup on my hot dog. Mustard only. That was my daughter's hot dog! Don't know where she got that from. That Nathan's Hot Dog stand in the first sequence we ate in is the original Coney Island Nathans from the turn of th last century. Now they have the July 4th hot dog eating contest there every year. Some guy this year by the last name of Chestnut ate something like 69 in 10 minutes!</p>

<p>The ambient sound actually happened because I left my camera on video mode by mistake and I was picking up my daughter and me chatting. It was actually a funny sequence. During the baseball intermission, there were a couple of people dressed as hot dogs and relish running in the field advertising Nathan's Hot Dogs. They weren't in the video. Anyway, so I mentioned to my daughter that she could have gotten a job as a hot dog for Nathan's. And she says that she should have gone to Relish University and I chime in, yeah how about Hot Dog U? It was really an inside joke between the two of us.</p>

<p>That's what's nice about combining music, stills, even movies and narration, especially of family experiences. It takes the photograph beyond the visual. It involves all the senses and especially the emotions . Why limit creativity to one thing when we have so many tools today to excite the senses and accentuate feelings? I think that's what Wouter was getting at in his OP.</p>

<p>You ask a very pertinent question here. I know in my own case that my reading now is worse than it was when I was a 12 year-old. I haven't exactly lost the ability to visualise what I am reading, but I am certainly nowhere near as fluent as I used to be. Many people of my generation say that 'radio has better pictures than television' and indeed we used to listen to the radio and create the images in our heads. Now we don't have to, and thus we are losing that ability. These days the media are too explicit - they leave no space for our imaginations. I see the consequences of this in my teaching - I have to 'join the dots' for people because they can no longer do it themselves. Joseph Chilton Pierce has written and spoken extensively on similar matters and I recommend reading his work. This is where mythology and parables are so powerful - they leave space for one's imagination.</p>

<p>Wouter,</p>

<p>Suppose, on a span, at one end you have flux and at the other you have full stop. Suppose also that conversations, the daily noisy, active interactions of people (and critters) are "conversations." When one is in a conversation, where is one's attention focused? What is one intent on doing? It's somewhere on the interactions, on the in-between (chattering, gesturing, touching, <em>doing</em>); it's only minimally on exactly what is being used to "do" the conversation. Note also that a conversation has a form, an existence. A before, a during and an after. So it's an active thing, that lasts some amount of time (it keeps moving) and focus is on that ongoing-ness. It's not primarily self-conscious.</p>

<p>Suppose that snapshots are, by definition, things that are embedded in a conversation. If that is even partially true, then the focus or use of a snapshot is on the ongoing-ness, not on the what it is as "an image." It is a part of, dependent on, its framing conversation. Suppose the use of sounds, when showing those snapshots (later) is an attempt to re-frame them into movement, duration, mood -- because that's how they "work."</p>

<p>Now, on the other hand, suppose you are in a conversation with your spouse, your significant other, or a total stranger with whom you've become stuck on a very small elevator and for whatever reason, you both fall silent. Full stop (which includes slow dancing in silence, etc.). That can be incredibly dreadful, or incredibly wonderful depending on how you feel about said other person, but it will be profoundly different from a conversation. Each will see/feel the other. Each will feel what's between you (has been, is, might be), each will be intensely aware of being seen and thought about. But throughout, one is *IN* a high-voltage, binary lock-in that's ... not a conversation. Suppose such high-voltage, binary lock-ins are what an art photograph (without music) might be about.</p>

<p>Suppose one doesn't set either one or these scenarios (flux or full stop) as necessarily better than the other. Suppose they are just "about" different inter-personal efforts or intents or purposes or processes.</p>

 

<p>What John and Alan point it is indeed one of the things I am getting it, but with a "but...". And the "but...." is exactly what Chris adds. It is 2 sides of the coin, I think.<br>

Yes, new creative options, why would we limit to one thing if we have all these options at our disposal to reach out and touch people, and as Alan says, appeal to more senses? There are hardly any reasons why not.<br>

The one reason not to, I can think of, is what Chris wrote. Reading a book (of which I never saw the movie, or not yet), it appeals to one sense that the 'multi-media' approach may leave dormant: my imagination. Making up faces, spaces... colouring in for myself what the writer described.</p>

<p>So, obviously, there is a time and place for both ways. As far as I am concerned, no arguing needed that both ways are fine, valid and useful. The point is: don't we currently have too much of one and too little of the other? And isn't imagination and developing this imagination a very important piece of your creativity?</p>

<p>Maybe an interesting slightly related topic: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/tm.htm. The last link is a recent study how people more and more remember how they found info, and forget the actual info.</p>

<p>Julie, we posted at the same time and I only see it much later now.<br>

Thanks for a refreshing view on what I tried to address. I've got to think it over a bit more, also wondering whether my OP was actually more assumptious than I thought it was... well, let me refrain from commenting a bit and rethink :-)</p>

<p>Wouter: "So, obviously, there is a time and place for both ways. As far as I am concerned, no arguing needed that both ways are fine, valid and useful. The point is: don't we currently have too much of one and too little of the other? And isn't imagination and developing this imagination a very important piece of your creativity?"</p>

<p>I agree that both ways are good and there's no point arguing which is better. But one thing about leaving it up to imagination. I believe you can ask this question from the viewer's perspective. Leaving it up to their imagination to fill in the blanks. But what about the photographer's imagination? Shouldn't I be allowed to use as much as my imagination to create what I think is "creative"? After all, I believe my photography is mainly for me to try to become as creative as possible. At the end, except for snapshots of the family, I'll probably be the only one who looks at my work at the end anyway. Shouldn't I be pleased that I maximized my creative ability with all the tools that are available?</p>

<p>Alan, good point, but well, that's part where I think my OP went wrong:the imagination as a viewer is the same imagination of the creator. So, my point was more at that: as a creator (photographer), being less triggered to ignite your imagination, how does this affect your creative vision?<br>

Of course you should not only be allowed to use as much imagination as you can, I think you should push to use as much as you can, and then more. Whichever tools and options get you there. In that sense, I think we fully agree.<br>

My somewhat messy writing in the OP clouds the question, unfortunately. But I'm wondering about: what you consume in arts, and how this trains and sharpens your imagination, is a direct influence on you being an artist, I think. How does the increasing stream of media which does not require your imagination affect this "teaching" of the imagination, and hence affect your creative potential?</p>

<p>Wouter, the increasing stream of media is very different from what I consume in the arts. The internet still has not taken over the arts. Arts still appear in galleries, museums, books, jazz clubs, the Opera House, the theater, even on the street, etc.</p>

<p>I suppose I could view opera as the addition of singing to an orchestra which, in some ways, could water down the role or imaginative aspects of the orchestra itself. But I don't. I experience opera as an integration of singing and orchestra, inseparable and therefore distinct from either singing or strictly symphonic works.</p>

<p>When I create a slide show (with the intent of creating one) accompanied by some text, I view that as an integration of photos, text, and serial presentation. The slide show, therefore, has its own imaginative challenges and fulfillments. I don't see the text as distracting from or competing with the photos. My imagination has to work overtime to consider the relationship between the text and the visual imagery and to come up with a rhythm and line to the series presentation.</p>

<p>In a documentary, text and/or music accompanying photos can make for less ambiguity which other types of photography may seek. Often, text and music make stuff more explicit. In that case, it may be more a desire for the creator to communicate something coherent and direct, even rather concrete, to his viewer. In that case, the creator may be using a wealth of his imagination while not necessarily wanting the viewer to go off into imaginative territory as much as he may want the viewer to get his point in a powerful and poignant way. Of course, this may also be accompanied by a viewer's imagination being stimulated. Directing a viewer's imagination won't necessarily undermine that imagination.</p>

<p>When I think back on some of the slide shows I've made over the years I realize, as I sit here this evening, that how I take photos has changed, and is continuing to change based on thinking about how the photos might be arranged and what music or effects I will add. That has only begun in the past couple of years as the tools to do put these presentations more effectively, and the ability to share them more easily have become available to me. So, from my personal experience I am moving more toward merging the media, and I guess I consider some of my best outcomes are related to these merged presentations. </p>

<p>Certainly that does not happen every time I pick up the camera, but especially if we're off on a special weekend, or I'm out shooting a auto racing event I'm thinking about a sequence of shots and how to tie it together, and even what music or approach I'd like to use. Hadn't even put together this notion of the merged media until this discussion.</p>

<p>When it comes to reading vs. the cinema, I feel that I have to read the book before seeing the movie. I want my imagination to have built the scenes, and then see whether the director and actors agree. I'm wondering now if that's a generational thing - having grown up in the 50's and 60's.</p>

<p>Fred, Julie, sorry for replying a bit slow. I think both your replies are about something else than I was thinking about. My point isn't about the imagination of the creator alone, nor the imagination of the viewer alone. It's about how your imagination as a viewer sharpens the imagination you use as a creator. So, your own internal loop - not an external viewer, but you, as a viewer, and what you take with you from those experiences as an artist.<br>

Julie, I like the description of the high voltage conversation. Sounds very much like what happens indeed.</p>

<p>David, thanks, indeed what you describe is part of what I am trying to get an idea on. Shooting with the end media in mind. I'd love to understand in which ways your photos become different? Are they more already made to be part of a storyline, rather than being 'their own entity'?</p>

<p>I was just thinking that we've all been doing this for years just in a different format. Albums of pictures especially if it's a vacation or family event. You take those sequence pictures that add a story line such as the shots at the airport, pictures of the departure and arrival display, getting your baggage, as well as the sights of the places you visited. Of course in the album you'd write as to where you where, while today this info would be imprinted on the slide show screen. Music and voice narration is relatively new of course for amateurs, but the process and creativity thinking is very similar. You're telling a story. Whenever I'm out in these kind of situations, I'm always thinking of a story and take filler shots. Otherwise I find the pictures are incoherent and boring and you tend to duplicate shots and include bad ones. </p>

<p>I don't bother with story lines if my specific function however, is just to get a landscape shot. Then the creativity is in the light and composition and effect. You have to work harder at these where as the former storytelling ones move too quickly and the other senses are engaged.</p>

<p>The multimedia approach is nothing new. Think of when people showed slides back in the 60s. Often music would be played (unsynched) and there would also be a verbal narrative going on simultaneously. It's just within the reach of a lot more people, and the means to create an integrated presentation are readily available. There's a lot more college grads being turned out with a multimedia background/degree as well.</p>

<p>Alan, I consider the GPS coordinates to locate where the photograph was taken an interesting spatial narrative, particularly for landscape pictures.</p>

<p>Wouter,</p>

<p>Integration. I integrate my experience. (As I said, I experience opera as something greater than the sum of its parts, which are music, singing, drama, theater.) In this example, by appreciating the interrelationships of the various elements comprising opera and simultaneously experiencing the distinctly unique and singular medium of opera itself, I as a viewer/listener advance my imaginative capabilities which help in creating photos, series, and slide shows.</p>

<p>Very few media are singular. There is a consistent shuffle back and forth throughout history. As a viewer, I appreciate that film combines still photos and literary narrative, utilizing music significantly. Painters have used photos in a variety of ways. Ceilings of cathedrals have been used as canvasses, walls present murals. Sculptures are used architecturally. As a viewer, I try to maintain a keen awareness of a wealth of interrelationships and even some dependencies while simultaneously appreciating the new and distinct results produced.</p>

<p>Photos can emerge out of a cacophony of activity. Is a barrage of media an impediment to imagination? No, one can wallow in it, bounce back and forth within it, and form from it. The Greeks called it χάος (chaos). It preceded creation.</p>

<p>Wouter, it's a good question to have brought up and I sense you are struggling with it to some extent. Do you feel it impacting your photographing, this apparent encroachment of music and text and other media upon photography? If so, can you photograph it somehow (or perhaps create photographs inspired by this dilemma)? Might be an interesting challenge. Or maybe you seem some evidence of its impact already in your work?</p>

<p>Fred, the struggle I have it does not directly reflect myself. For me, photography is much just photos. I have personally no need, want or intent to integrate my photos with something else. If anything, I want them to stand more or their own.<br>

While reading some book recently, a nice page turner which had my imagination revved up, this question more came to mind. For me, this type of imagination where you are free to fill in gaps and make up big pieces of the "movie in my head", is an important clue to creativeness. And all around me, I only see less and less words written to be only words, less images conceived to be just images. It all integrates, but the sum isn't always bigger than its parts. And even if they are, the audience may have little room to fill in the gaps. Just imagine how hearing a story teller phrasing the Ilias would spark your imagination, versus a movie like Troy.</p>

<p>Maybe I'm chasing a big white whale, could well be. At times the brain sprints off in some direction that essentially ends nowhere :-)</p>

<p>To rephrase the whole. Let me use opera as an example to better underline (hopefully) where I feel I stand myself.<br>

So far, I've never seen a performance of Madame Butterfly, not on video/DVD, nor live in an operahouse. But listening to the recording I have, brought me close to tears. It did not need faces, staging, lighting - the music was more than strong enough to make me see a movie in my head. And now, I actually don't think I want to see Madame Butterfly "for real". The magic of what happened in my imagination could possibly degrade following that (like the average film after a good book does...).<br>

I love these worlds, these private personal worlds inside a book, music, painting or photo. The high voltage conversation, to quote Julie. I love being there, letting my fantasy colour the walls, paint the faces and sketch the environments.</p>

<p>Not only do I love being in those worlds, but it feeds me, energizes, and inspires. On the best days they happen while staring down my viewfinder - my imagination fills up what I see within the frame with a lot of made-up events. What happens inside this imagination is much more "mine", and feels closer. If I can take these imaginary worlds inside a photo, I've got a photo I can personally be happy with.<br>

So, for me, it's the link between what I take from art I admire (or that fascinates me) into my own work. It's not a direct link, not an attempt to copy, but it's those little sparks that carry over.</p>

<p>For me, these high voltage conversations happen only with rather "pure" expressions (sorry, a very tainted choice of words, but no idea how to paraphrase it better). A book without pictures, a photo, a painting, music without a staging. It triggers me more, and engages me more. And as a result, I get more out of it. So, part of the fascination is the part that I get to bring in more, more room for my imagination (or, at least: my perception of that).<br>

What I see, is less and less work created to be such a "pure" expression. And this is where the first post basically starts.</p>

<p>To be clear, I am not against integrating experiences, nor do I want to say that such works deny the viewer their imagination. Nor that in the creation, there is less imagination put in - not at all.<br>

But deep down, I have this nagging feel it does make (to me as a viewer) the width and depth of the space available, free for imagination, smaller and smaller. This affects my creative thinking, and not for the better.</p>

<p>Hope this way, it's a bit less vague where I come from in asking this question, it's not easy to describe so I hope it makes some sense.<br>

To get rid of my negative perceptions present in the OP, let me then try to rephrase my query accordingly: which role does the such imagination play for you, and how do these experiences (as "consumer" of art) affect what you try to do as an artist? So, is my experience as I tried to describe here one you can relate too?</p>

<p>The other/second media is your freedom? Your "envelope" (I'll think of a better word by tomorrow)? In other words, if I understand you, you feel that a silent visual leaves you room to roam in your own imagined inner music, and music without pictures leaves you room to roam in your own imagined visuals. The "unused" media should be, is necessary "space" for your mind?</p>