Dharma Art/Phototography

<p>Has anyone ever explored/applied the concept of Dharma Art to their photography or way of life? Also has anyone ever taken an art class at the Miksang Institute. Their courses seem to be based on the concept of Dharma Art.<br /><br />The concept of "Dharma Art" is described by the great Buddhist teacher Chogyam Trungpa as "any creative work that springs from an awakened state of mind, characterized by directness, unselfconsciousness, and nonaggression."<br>

The concepts are very basic and universal. They can be applied by anyone religious/non religious, spiritual/non spiritual.</p>

One of the characteristics of Dharma Art is that the boundary between subject, artist, and viewer are dissolved and become one. One way to achieve this is through cultivating a spontaneous approach to creativity - w/ the "first thought best thought" view of creating art.<br />

 

One important aspect of the creative process is the hesitation/slight nervousness the artist may feel when he/she looks at a blank canvas or though a viewfinder and thinks "oh no, what am I going to create" This nervousness helps cut through preconceived thoughts and desires, and brings the artist's mind directly to the present. This is where the "first thought, best thought" view is then applied. The goal of creating master piece is irrelevant, the main focus is awakening you mind to the present.

 

Personally some of my favorite works of art enable me to feel that direct connection with the subject through the artist. The photograph of the young Afghan woman by Steve McCurry comes to mind.

 

 

These are some of the characteristics of "Dharma Art"

•  Direct, Basic interaction with self, and surrounding environment/subject.<br />•  Peaceful<br />•  Unselfconscious, Spontaneous<br />•  Non Agressive

( not only non violent, but also not trying to impress, or persuade the viewer)<br />•  Embodies Subject, Artist, Audience

• Spontaneous, First thought, best thought approach

• Absence of attachments/desires

 

 

You can read more about this method in the book "True Perception: The Path of Dharma Art"<br />by Chogyam Trungpa. He also has some really interesting photographs, I will post a link when I can find them on the internet

<p>I'm not sure I understand how being "self conscious" is at odds with being peaceful, direct, spontaneous, or directly involved with the subject. Likewise, isn't being without desire going to rule out the desire to communicate through a photograph?<br /><br />It strikes me that being self aware, and having a desire (to produce a photograph) is rather central to the entire process.</p>

<p>Matt, flypaper catches things just by offering itself.</p>

<p>Perhaps, Julie - but flypaper <em>can't</em> offer itself - it has to be made, and someone conscious has to choose whether, where, when, and how to deploy it ... just like a camera. I'm not sure that a process requiring more than being adhesive (like ... choosing a focal length, deciding on an aperture, etc) can be thought of as being so passive. What's the flypaper equivalent of photography ... a fixed surveillance camera out by the loading dock?<br /><br />I'm not sophisticated (or unsophisticated?) enough to make a photograph - however trivial - without at least minimally thinking about the process, the tools, the composition, and the rest. Making even a snapshot is a non-passive <em>act</em>.</p>

<p>Evolution made your eyes.</p>

<p>The way I relate to it is turning off that internal dialogue (to the extent I can), which is certainly good for me on occasion.</p>

<p>For me, it's not a way always to photograph, but it's a way worth exploring as one of many different approaches. I appreciate your saying they can be applied by the non-religious as well as the religious which, to me, means that the approach wouldn't be applied religiously, or as if it is the only or best way, which is the awful side of so many religions.</p>

<p>This method is a tool that will work in some instances and that can teach me. It is not a blueprint, a guide, or a secret sauce. Though I may benefit from giving up desire (to the extent I can) in some instances, it would be false and detrimental for me to do so in others. There are times I either need or want to be aggressive but it's certainly good practice (an important word as I understand it as it relates to Dharma) not always to be. There's nothing wrong with persuasion when it's appropriate and there's nothing wrong with avoiding it. Spontaneity is great, but it's not the antithesis of thoughtfulness. They can co-exist. Catch phrases like "first thought best thought" bug me a little if they get treated like Bible verses. One can learn from them but I wouldn't want to depend on them. Because I know that sometimes my first thought is far from my best, and I'm not always looking for my best anyway since, as you said, the masterpiece doesn't have to be the goal.</p>

<p>Ah, Matt...yes, I have zero doubts that what you describe is your universe. Believe it or not, other people's experiences vary from yours, and are no more or less valid.</p>

 

<p>Actually, I find Matt's description very reasonable.</p>

<p>I'm genuinely curious, Luis, to hear if you make photographs in "flypaper" mode, and how you elect to get the camera out of the bag at one moment, vs another moment. Isn't the very act of reaching for it already you being aware that you want to make a photograph, and choosing when and how to act to that end? How is any photographer's experience at (meaningful) variance with that? I never said the word "valid" (that's <em>you</em>), I am instead questioning the entire premise that making a photograph is or can ever sensibly be considered a passive, flypaper-ish thing - certainly in the way that it's practiced by any here.<br /><br />The inner dialog that Fred mentions - that can definitely be noisy and a distraction. But I'd contend that the inner dialog can be thought of as a conversation you've had with yourself so many times and for so long that it's eventually possible to make a photograph without so <em>consciously</em> having it. Much like any other complex chain of decisions and actions that become, with practice, nearly reflexive. Like the difference between operating a car and going for a drive.<br /><br />Certainly there are some subjects that I can now successfully shoot with riding-a-bicycle-like unconscious ease, technically/craft-wise - and that allows me to simply be in the presence of the subject and to experience it (while, conveniently, choosing to make photographs of it, with only conveying the subject on my mind). But I'm not kidding myself that "I" am not there or running the ship - I'm simply on familiar enough ground that the inner dialog is more like whistling while I work, and moments can unfold in as nearly a spontaneous-ish way as they might. But I don't confuse that with passivity, because it's not.</p>

<p>This forum has carried some absurd stuff but this is a strong contender for the crown.</p>

<p>See something, raise camera, frame image, release shutter. There's nothing more to it than that. Why would anyone want to make it more complicated?</p>

<p><<<<em>Why would anyone want to make it more complicated?</em>>>></p>

<p>Because some of us might want to think about what we're doing and plan for it or in some way anticipate it. Some of us might want to post process. Some might want to shape a body of work that goes beyond each individual photo or instance of seeing. Simple is fine. It's simply not the only way. Very few photographers whose work we all know and love reduced photography to seeing something, raising camera, framing image, and releasing shutter, though there's nothing at all wrong with that if that's what you want to do or choose to do or just do.</p>

<p>Philosophy isn't about nonsensical assertions or just plain silliness. It's about applying logic to the understanding of the world. It's a tool that should be used to simplify and clarify, not as a form of obfuscation.</p>

<p>So far, this comes across as a bunch of clowns trying to impress one another with their erudition. If you really want to learn things, cut them down to the bone.</p>

<p>Work out why certain pictures work for larger or smaller audiences. I liked the bit in the original quote: "Non Agressive ( not only non violent, but also not trying to impress, or persuade the viewer)" Get it down to that level of sparseness, then cut it down further.</p>

<p>Well, H.P., if you're "see something, raise camera, frame image, release shutter" was an attempt to do that, in my eyes it failed. I haven't minded reading anything written in this thread. To each his own.</p>

<p><<<<em>But I'd contend that the inner dialog can be thought of as a conversation you've had with yourself so many times and for so long that it's eventually possible to make a photograph without so consciously having it. Much like any other complex chain of decisions and actions that become, with practice, nearly reflexive. Like the difference between operating a car and going for a drive.</em>>>></p>

<p>Matt, I think this is part of what the OP is precisely trying to say. For some, it may not be as easy as for you, so they need to consider ways to operate the camera as reflexively as operating a car. The differences between operating a camera and a car, however, are legion, which I don't doubt you know. So it may be harder to make the operation of the camera as fluid and second nature and immediate as operating a car. A car gets you from A to B. You are not producing something or creating something with a car. That one's camera use ends with something new, a photograph, tends to put all kinds of pressure on people that driving a car doesn't usually come with. </p>

<p>Matt,<br>

You are not holding your tongue properly -- works with computers too.</p>

<p>I quit poo pooing da Buddha and such things fairly late in life when I figured out that spirituality <em>isn't </em>all transcendental. OK ,that's an oxymoron! It is based on measurable changes in the brain. Most artists have known this forever but leave it to a nerd with an EEG to <em>prove</em> it! The Dharma are on to something perfectly human in a sort of, cultish , so too <em>special</em> way for me. (I refused to join the Boy Scouts.)<br>

The work to me is often <em>gift card-ish</em> (with "Spirituality is not all Transcendental" inside) and not what I want to do, but wish I was as good as they are at it -- if you know what I mean.</p>

<p>Matt, I don't disagree with anything you've written; I just think there's more IF you're interested in finding out about what you don't know (or what I don't know). How can you do that? For me, it means making myself available -- welcoming, receptive, (think of a sensitized emulsion). Unoccupied but listening. To me, listening means being quiet -- I have to stop making noise so I can hear/receive that which is unexpected, new, strange. Novelty, creativity arrives from the outside, IMO.</p>

<p>Think about how it is before your children were born. You don't know what they will be but you're ready to love them as they *will* be loved.</p>

<p><<<<em>Novelty, creativity arrives from the outside, IMO.</em>>>></p>

<p>For me, novelty is not in a location or, if it is, it's within you without you, to echo a phrase. Imagination gives birth to novelty just as much as a street scene unfolding before me. Photographically, the street scene isn't novel unless I see it and show it that way. Even the most novel of street scenes often makes a trite and very not novel photo.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, H.P., if you're "see something, raise camera, frame image, release shutter" was an attempt to do that, in my eyes it failed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Good. Now tell me why. If this is really philosophy, let's get to the bone. Was it <em>too</em> sparse, or not sparse enough? What needs to be added and <em>why</em> does it need to be added? What needs to be subtracted and why?<br>

<br>

BTW, "you're" is short for "you are". I think you meant "your", the possessive of "you". Yes?</p>

<p>Yes, I meant "your." Thanks for pointing that out. I'm a grammar nut so I absolutely hate making those kinds of mistakes!</p>

<p>If you read my post of 10:50 am, you should find answers to your other questions. In short, for me photographing is more a process than an act, a process that can start long before I pick up the camera and continues well past the time when I put it down. And it's often not about individual photos.</p>

<p>Matt: "Isn't the very act of reaching for it already you being aware that you want to make a photograph, and choosing when and how to act to that end? How is any photographer's experience at (meaningful) variance with that?"</p>

<p>It is a conceptual difference, which you (not to mention HP!) seem to be already countering with "meaningful". It may not be meaningful to you (or me), but if it works for someone else, Godspeed. The issue here is <em>integration. </em>Is the act/experience whole, or divided into clearly discernable quanta? It is the difference between saying "love", or putting the word together using wood alphabet blocks.</p>

<p>Matt: "I never said the word "valid" (that's <em>you</em>), I am instead questioning the entire premise that making a photograph is or can ever sensibly be considered a passive, flypaper-ish thing - certainly in the way that it's practiced by any here."</p>

<p>I never hinted that you used "valid". *I* did to make it clear that I am not making a hierarchy about the many different approaches. Flypaper is Julie's construct, not mine, and I have nothing to say about it.</p>

<p> While I may very consciously plan and think about what I'm going to be photographing, sometimes to the extent of doing drawings/sketches/notes in my notebooks beforehand, during the event, the internal dialogue stops and things flow wordlessly and unself-consciously. Almost autonomically, like breathing. I am sure that many of our brethren in the SP forum are no strangers to this.</p>

<p><br />Matt: "It strikes me that being self aware, and having a desire (to produce a photograph) is rather central to the entire process."</p>

<p>And so it is, for a huge number of people, not for every single photographer. There really are other ways of being.<br>

______________________________________________________________________</p>

<p>HP: "This forum has carried some absurd stuff but this is a strong contender for the crown."</p>

<p>It is. </p>

 

 

<p>HP: "See something, raise camera, frame image, release shutter. There's nothing more to it than that. Why would anyone want to make it more complicated?"</p>

<p>If that is so, why are you here? To convert others to your Gospel? Or do you feel at home among the Clowns? <br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>HP: "</em>Philosophy isn't about nonsensical assertions or just plain silliness. It's about applying logic to the understanding of the world. It's a tool that should be used to simplify and clarify, not as a form of obfuscation."</p>

<p>Obfuscation. I like the tones of that. </p>

 

 

<p>HP: "So far, this comes across as a bunch of clowns trying to impress one another with their erudition. If you really want to learn things, cut them down to the bone."</p>

<p>Clowns? No one is coming across more erudite (and absolute) than you. Almost like a Solipsist's game of Simon sez. All this, and now the one way to learn. Damn, I love the Clown Forum. </p>

<p>HP: "Work out why certain pictures work for larger or smaller audiences. I liked the bit in the original quote: "Non Agressive ( not only non violent, but also not trying to impress, or persuade the viewer)" Get it down to that level of sparseness, then cut it down further."</p>

<p>To what?</p>

 

<p><em>__________________________________________________________________<br /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>What is happening here is that a PN member asks a question, a legitimate and specific question, and those who openly admit to not knowing a thing about his original topic, come in and totally derail the thread dominating it with their ignorance while denying the post's validity and preventing discourse. <br>

<em> </em></p>

 

 

>>> So far, this comes across as a bunch of clowns trying to impress one another with their erudition.

 

Erudite clowns. I like that. Stirs an interesting image...

<p>The topic of this thread seems to me like a continuation of Fred’s thread. I do think we all have somewhat different processes that we use and or are aware of when we make photographs. Some of us do a lot of conscious thinking about what we are doing and what we want to achieve, and others, like myself, tend to be more spontaneous and just react to the visual world that we’re observing. I have mentioned many times in other threads that for me the act of photographing things is a process of seeing something and recognizing that it is a complete photograph and all I need to do is get the camera and take a picture. Many times I don’t have a camera with me so the opportunity goes by the wayside. So, for me, the photographs are already there I just need to identify them and have a camera. As to why I see certain things as potential photographs I’m not sure. I think it has a lot to do with graphics because I’m thinking about a final two-dimensional image. I also think that a certain energy has to be there is so that any person viewing the finished print will also feel this energy. This also implies that I am thinking about someone else seeing this photograph later on, because if I wasn’t, I wouldn’t be worried about capturing the feeling of energy. What creates this energy is again something I’m not quite sure of. You just know when it’s there. It’s really hard to describe a process in words that is meant to be viewed as a two dimensional visual image. In other words, the best way to understand what I am talking about is to look at some of my photographs.</p>

<p><<<<em>Some of us do a lot of conscious thinking about what we are doing and what we want to achieve, and others, like myself, tend to be more spontaneous and just react to the visual world that we’re observing.</em>>>></p>

<p>I understand the distinction your drawing and it's certainly valid, up to a point. When I say I think about my photos in advance it can be in either a specific or non-specific way. I may think about the location I want to shoot a portrait in and what the light will be like that time of day and nothing more than that. I may think about the person I'm shooting and what I might want to do with them photographically, what I might want to draw out of them in a shoot. No matter how much thinking and planning I do, however, that doesn't exclude spontaneity. So, for example, on the way to a chosen place, very often another place catches my eye and that's where we'll shoot. And even if we get to the place I had in mind, the spontaneity will come in how I interact with the person I'm shooting, what expressions will move me to shoot or how my shooting will affect the expressions of the person I'm shooting. I do want to emphasize that thought and planning are not mutually exclusive with spontaneity. </p>

<p>In a way H.P is right except he forgot "take a deep breath and then let it out slowly". Zen archery may not be any different than our everyday photography. Being focused on the moment is what we’re good at. The bit about "first thought" is a practice we already do. It can be honed. It doesn't have to culminate with any <em>too precious</em> style . I think that is where the objection's come from. It is a "way" of centering the mind that is perfectible. The <em>found</em> objects in our cigar box resemble "first thought" photography. The Dharma method reminds me of children collecting shells, innocent of motive, in the moment.</p>

<p><<<<em>Being focused on the moment is what we’re good at.</em>>>></p>

<p>I happen to think way too much is made of "the moment." I understand I may be in a minority on this. IMO, "the moment" is a vehicle carrying much more important things. I actually think one of the big mistakes of most photographers is being too focused on the moment and not focused enough on other aspects of photos (i.e., the visual, the narrative, the expressive). Moment stresses time, and yet photography is so significantly visual. Getting over Bresson may be photography's long row to hoe much like getting over Descartes was (is) philosophy's.</p>