Does photography affect biography?

<p>While I find that my biography -- my life experiences, my cultural milieu, the big cities I've mostly lived in -- affects my photography a great deal, lately I've been focused on how much my making photographs affects who I am and how I feel and act, even when I put the camera down.</p>

<p>Recently, in Arthur's thread, the notion of the "struggling artist" came up. Many tend to think, in almost mythical proportions, of the suffering artist. I wonder if we often assume that the struggle or suffering leads to the art, and I don't doubt that that's often the case.</p>

<p>But I'm asking something else. I'm asking how being a photographer or being an artist affects who you are, how you see the world, how you see yourself, how you interact.</p>

<p>I've noticed that the more I involved myself deeply in my photograph creation, the more disorganized I am in other areas of my life. I used to be the kind of person where everything was in its place and all bills were paid on time. In the last six years, I can't count how many times I've been late with a bill and misplaced the simplest of papers in the house. More significantly, I feel a sense of opening taking place. A willingness and desire to allow people to know me better, and on a less superficial basis. I'm dreaming more and remembering more and more vividly from my past. The story I recounted in that other thread about my mom's drawing is something I hadn't thought about or talked about in a very long time. Yet, I now feel quite close to it.</p>

<p>I imagine some of what I'm going through has to do with being in my mid-fifities. I don't doubt age and many other factors play a role in our changing relationship to who we are and how we feel. But, the way of seeing, and the desire/motivation I feel to express feelings through photographs, seems to really be moving me in a lot of intense personal directions.</p>

<p>I find there is a thing, for me, that I will call artistic openness. I think there are creative ways of viewing as much as there are creative ways of making. The more I make creatively, the more I seem to approach the world with creative receptors, seeing in people what I didn't use to see and in a way I didn't used to look, and seeing that in the world as well. I'm really blown away by these discoveries and by the effects my making, showing, and talking about photographs is having on me.</p>

<p>*I also think there may be a chicken and egg thing going on here. There's likely a strong reciprocal relationship between our photographing affecting our lives and our lives affecting our photographing, and it may be hard to draw clear lines of distinction.</p>

<p><em><strong>"I find there is a thing, for me, that I will call artistic openness. I think there are creative ways of viewing as much as there are creative ways of making. The more I make creatively, the more I seem to approach the world with creative receptors..."</strong></em><br /><em></em><br />I'm in my Sixties..more justifiably confident in what I'm about than I was ten years ago...</p>

<p>I identify "giving" and "generosity" increasingly with what you consider "art" or "creative." This isn't my idea, I read it somewhere and it clicked :-) I've been reluctant about your two words ever since someone (was it AD Coleman?) pointed out that photography was its own entity, apart from "art."</p>

<p>"Giving" and even "generous" seem non-egotistic by comparison to "creative." Generosity indicates no expectation of reward. I've talked before about what I'm learning from a few Navajo people...the idea of giving without expectation is apparently central to their tribal nature.</p>

<p><em><strong>"...seeing in people what I didn't use to see and in a way I didn't used to look, and seeing that in the world as well. I'm really blown away by these discoveries and by the effects my making, showing, and talking about photographs is having on me."</strong></em></p>

<p>OK. But for me photography is less of an external entity than it has been in the past...I have fewer illusions and my aspirations are more simple.</p>

<p><em><strong>*I also think there may be a chicken and egg thing going on here. There's likely a strong reciprocal relationship between our photographing affecting our lives and our lives affecting our photographing, and it may be hard to draw clear lines of distinction.</strong></em><br /><br />Sounds similar to my experience except that photography isn't my equal (chicken doesn't equal egg). It's something I do. I also write, sometimes make music, help a few people..and I think I'm becoming comfortable with the help of others and listening more to them.</p>

<p>...as well, I'm not creating a "biography," though I think sometimes that I should start to write one for my own utility. Instead, <strong>I'm creating a novel.</strong> My closest college friend gave me that idea in 1964 and I've kept it in mind ever since.</p>

<p>Your "openness" sounds similar to my "generosity."</p>

<p><strong>"I'm asking how being a photographer or being an artist affects who you are, how you see the world, how you see yourself, how you interact." --Fred</strong><br /> John, I wasn't asking for you to compare yourself to me or for you to make judgments about the things I say. I was interested in an honest, personal insight into whether and how photographing affects your life. "Generosity" would suggest your <em>giving</em> something personal about yourself here, rather than being reactive and picking apart the words or concepts I apply to myself. It is the kind of generosity you talk about but don't show that I was hoping for. A few personal tidbits about how photography has taught you to be generous or has affected you personally would suffice.</p>

<p><br /> <strong>". . . photography isn't my equal (chicken doesn't equal egg)" --John</strong><br /> <strong></strong> I wasn't saying that photography and me were chicken and egg. I also wasn't saying that chicken and egg are equal. And I also wasn't saying that photography and me were equal. I was saying that my photography's <em>effect</em> on me and my <em>effect</em> on my photography is like a chicken and egg. It's hard to tell which <em>effect</em> came first or has precedence. It's hard to tell which <em>effect</em> is which.</p>

<p><br /> <strong>"I'm not creating a 'biography,' " --John</strong><br /> <strong></strong> Neither am I. I used "biography" because it was used in the other thread. It's my way of phrasing "my experience" here. The question is "How does doing photography affect you and who you are?"<br /> <br /> _____________________________<br /> John, If you are tempted to respond to either the substance or manner of my response, I'd appreciate your refraining from doing that here. Respond only to the question at hand. How does photography affect your life?</p>

<p>"I'm asking how being a photographer or being an artist affects who you are, how you see the world, how you see yourself, how you interact." (Fred. G.)</p>

<p>Fred, I certainly notice things about me in my daily wanderings that I probably didn't notice to the same extent or in the same way before. Possibly that makes me a slightly fuller or more aware person. Looking at the works of others (photographs, paintings, sculpture, prose, constructions, comments, food on the table, ...), that are sometimes also in front of my lens, also forces me to think about their subject or their approach, which also adds to that experience and to my evolution. Why do I photograph what I photograph? That question requires of me some form of response and that response (or even only mere consideration of one) perhaps situates me better in the context of what is going on about my small personal psychological and social "habitat."</p>

<p>No doubt other things about photography and the act of photographing affect me in the sense your question suggests. I will sleep on this one. </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079"><em>Fred Goldsmith</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Sep 30, 2009; 05:06 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>I'm asking how being a photographer or being an artist affects who you are, how you see the world, how you see yourself, how you interact.</em></p>

 

<p><em>I've noticed that the more I involved myself deeply in my photograph creation, the more disorganized I am in other areas of my life.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, welcome to the world of art. No kidding. What I see happening here is quite normal for artists.<br>

Here's why.....<br>

I was born and raised in the world of art and music. It took me quite a while as an adult to realize that day to day things needed to be taken care of for me to function in the "real" world.<br>

Since you are already an organized person, it should be easy for you to put the daily stuff in its place in your artistic world.<br>

I don't know how art affects my world, since I have no other life to compare with.<br>

I DO know that it annoys me when I have to put down the camera to pay a bill, but to continue my art, my REAL life, I have to do those things.<br>

I never understood how anyone could NOT play a musical instrument, or had no interest in drawing, painting, photography, etc.<br>

So yes, photography does affect biography, and vice versa.<br>

That's part of maturing into a serious artist, when day-to-day life interferes with your art.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<blockquote>How does photography change you?</blockquote>

<p>This is less philosophical for me. As an amateur ... when I am in a "photographic place", even without a camera in hand I begin to see the world in the viewfinder of my mind. I see colors differently, begin to recognize the light, and even sometimes approach an object or scene from an odd angle (in essence composing). I seek locations that strike me with photographic beauty. it changes my vision and activity, therefore changing my biography.</p>

<p>Fred, you asked a scattered question that centered on misuse of an important word.</p>

<p>That begged many questions: You didn't get the precise answer you wanted. Discussions like this are rarely like "ratings" on P.N. </p>

<p>It's good that Thomas, Bill, and Arthur gave you the answers you wanted.</p>

<p><strong>I didn't see a simple question. I thought you had something subtle in mind.</strong></p>

<p>"Respond only to the question at hand. " :-) :-) :-) Hail Mary, full of grace...etc . Repeat 100 times.</p>

<p>That you see no relationship between "generosity" and "creativity" seems significant. That idea is espoused by a Stanford philosopher ...look into it.</p>

<p>By designating yourself "creative," as if it's a virtue, you seem to be defining your life for a biographer, hoping he'll say precisely what you want. Attacking me personally for seeing a relationship between "generosity" and "art" seems over-the-top. </p>

<p>By "creative," are you referring to pats on the back that somebody else gives you, gold stars? I've said many times that I admire your work. I don't know how that relates to "creative." You're a fine photographer, which is higher praise than you seem to recognize.</p>

<p> A light went on for me when I realized I valued and aspired to generosity. It helped me with life direction. It's easy to be generous, quietly rewarding. Doubts about the "generosity" of others are unusual in my world.</p>

<p>I do free stuff: free portraits, free prints, helping somebody else's kid through school etc. Seems generous to me, no thanks sought...a joy..inherently rewarding. No big deal. I mentioned tribal people: They assume generosity, sometimes produce "art objects", don't seem to need to be called "creative" .</p>

<p>I have no need to seem "creative" OR "generous" to anybody... and I derive joy from the same media you use.</p>

<p>"Biography" is somebody else's job. </p>

<p><em>"A few personal tidbits about how photography has taught you to be generous or has affected you personally would suffice."</em> </p>

<p>Tidbits: My growing awareness of the importance (to me) of "generosity" has focused my photo concerns mostly on portraits. It's harder, not impossible, to feel generous toward an object.</p>

<p><em><strong>"The question is "How does doing photography affect you and who you are?"</strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

Thank you for reframing your question. </p>

<p><strong>Answer:</strong> I photograph with intent because that's how I'm trying to live: intentionally. I don't do many things lightly. I don't go on walks to make photographs. Photography helps me connect with subjects: people, remarkable places, stories. Who I "am" is partially due to relationships with Minor White students. They took photography very seriously. I don't recall them talking about "art" or their own "creativity" but some were coupled with painters.</p>

<p>If they were guitar players I'd be a better guitarist.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am an addict. In the course of living for 62 plus years, I have been addicted to activities as well as things. To name a few things: chocolate (especially, dark), fruit pies (any fruit), prime, medium-rare, steaks, Belgian ales (mostly, Trappist), single-malt Scotch. Activities: listening to music (a healthy variety, with a bias toward blues and progressive rock), playing music (clarinet as a child, piano since age 10), watching movies (also a healthy variety, with a bias toward 1930s and 1940s B&W), weight training (since mid-30s), taking photographs, most recently, participating in photo.net. </p>

<p>What's the relevance? Addictions fade in and out of my life, almost seeming to keep pace with fluctuations in my weight and the levels of stress at my workplace. Indeed, photography intermittently has so infused my consciousness that I sometimes go to sleep thinking about a photograph I have taken, or would like to take. And, along these lines, it has come close to causing fights with my wife when I have a camera in my hand, instead of enjoying the moment with her. </p>

<p>It comes down to the fact that I have had some difficulty in finding balance and striking compromises earlier on. But, with photography, I have reached an uneasy peace with myself, having resolved to be a part-time, low-level amateur. Has this diminished my passion? Don't bet on it.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur--</strong><br /> Thanks for mentioning photographing others and the works of others. Photographing makes me pay attention in different ways. It also changes my appreciation for people and things, both in front of my camera and that I encounter without my camera. I recently took a photo while on a guided tour of the Paramount, a 30s art deco theater in Oakland. I acknowledged the architect/designer alongside my photo even though I created something very much my own using his own creation as raw material. Since I do mostly portraits, even when I am not shooting, I find myself being more in tune with people, wanting to know who they are, taking extra time to look, listen, and talk.</p>

<p><strong>Bill--</strong><br /> Though our paths have obviously been somewhat different, I can appreciate and relate to what you're saying. Having that perspective to look back to a relatively recent time before I started photographing allows me to draw some lines of demarcation between then and now, although even those are starting to become a bit blurry now. Honestly, I actually get some naughty school-boy glee when I miss an appointment, do something spacy, or forget to pay a bill. I realize now that it is liberating and even a bit thrilling to let go of some of my previous much more structured and expected behavior. I am constantly smiling to myself when I get a late charge, even though I hate paying it. I've played the piano since I was about six. There was a time in my twenties, at my apex, that I felt immersed in it, but never related to it like I do photography. I don't know if it makes sense to say this but with the piano (classical), I felt like I expressed the music and with photographs, among other things, I express myself. I've always had artist friends and, as I said, my mother was an artist, and I always sensed something bubbling inside waiting for an outlet. My love for movies/films probably played a role in my taking so well to making photographs.</p>

<p><strong>Thomas--</strong><br /> "Viewfinder of my mind" . . . nicely said! I feel more inclined toward getting to know and feel more about the people and things I come in contact with. Your mentioning light and color strikes a chord with me. People and objects seem to me so affected by, even sometimes determined by, their context. Where they are, what's surrounding them, what light is falling on them, what atmosphere seems present, even and maybe especially what's not seen or shown along with them, all goes into the mix of my relationships with people and stuff.</p>

<p><strong>John--</strong><br /> I am aware of a profound relationship among art, creativity, and generosity. I didn't acknowledge anything you said about it because you tied it to judging creativity as egotistical, in light of the fact that I had just used "creative" in talking about myself. Please don't mistake my lack of acknowledgment of your ideas as an attack on the ideas. I have no interest in your judgments of words I use to describe myself. I have no interest in engaging that kind of attitude or approach to these discussions, which I am doing now only to make it clear to you. I also have no interest in rephrasing questions or using words to suit you. For me, creativity is not about pats on the back and I don't come here looking for them.</p>

<p><strong>Michael--</strong><br /> See, that's the reason I've chosen not to have a wife, among a few other minor details! ;-) I like your description of the "uneasy peace" you have with yourself. I certainly understand that being a part-time, low-level amateur wouldn't diminish passion. Interesting that you bring up passion. As I was saying to Bill earlier, I sort of felt this pent-up passion for a good deal of my life and have found an outlet for it in photography, and along with that, have found some other good outlets for it as well. And, interestingly, that's kind of another chicken and egg thing for me. Having an outlet for my passion seems to have made me more passionate. It's not like the passion was some static thing or set quantity waiting to emerge (which is, I think, how I used to think about it). Passion and the expression of passion seem to be feeding on each other.</p>

<!--StartFragment-->

<p>? sorry, double post.</p>

<p>

<p>Bill P ".....photography does affect biography, and vice versa." Like Bill this has been my experience. Photography helped me get out of the streets at 20 years old and along with other mediums has been weaved into my life's fabric. It is inseparable from how i relate to the world and how others see me. Like a 2 sec exposure photograph of a dog chasing its tail, at times i cannot pick a starting point. I owe much to photography and for the influence it has had on my life. Good and bad. For better or worse, i don't turn it on and off. <br>

Like a filter, a flood gate, an insight or flavor, art has been the single most influential consistent force on a personal level in defining my biography. Unlike genetics, culture, history, nature, love, politics and the minds of others, art is mine. (a grossly simplified comment but the essence is intact for me). I set the parameters or not. But i have learned that creativity is not something that turns off when i set my tools aside. It continues to live beyond the moments i choose to manifest a product. The process is always moving on. It ebbs and tides and doesn't stop when i set my camera or pencil or my perspective down. I don't want it to stop. I like what it has given me. and i like giving back what it has opened my mind and eye to. What i learn in life often becomes my photographic subject at some point. And my subject teaches me something of my life and occasionally the lives of others. Creativity is at the source of my biography and how i am living it.<br>

I am one who fell prey to the starving artist stereotype. My stereotype. I became a stereotype. It colored my life with bold strokes. It skewed my perceptions and strongly influenced those around me. Sometimes even with contempt for my choices that favored creativity over their idea of practicality. It was up front in determining my attitudes about money and finaces. As Michael points to, it became a source of discontent that developed between my ex and I. Even when i made the decision to throw in the towel on being an artist, it clung to me and continued to be paramount to how i tackle any job. And how i relate to my place and time here, in this life... Still a dog chasing my tail.</p>

 

</p>

<p>Fred: Passion . . . I know that my earlier life experiences have helped my passion(s) evolve. Those experiences have also helped me to become more open as a person, and perhaps this is an important factor in a person's being passionate about anything. As for my "uneasy peace", it's nothing unuusual and certainly not unique to me. I suspect we all have to compromise for various reasons and under various circumstances.</p>

<p>Josh: I really appreciate the honesty by which you describe yourself in terms of a stereotype. But, in my humble opinion, a stereotype usually is a characteristic or set of characteristics others impose on a person. When you say you " . . . became a sterotype", it sound to me like you made the choice; it wasn't imposed on you. I think you're being too hard on yourself.</p>

<p> Like others here, I also grew up in an arts-centered family. It's in my veins, heart and brain. Looking back, the most basic and sizable influence art has had on my life has been to add an entire other dimension to it. Art added an exponential multiplier to my inner space (as did religion and science), even as a child.</p>

<p> I remember my first encyclopedia. I was five years old, and soon discovered the Flags of The World section. I was awestruck viscerally at first, dazzled by all the variations in a rectangular theme, by the designs, colors, and finally the symbols. I spent months looking into all this. As my parents tired of my endless questions, they took me to the University library so I could obsess at length on this. Little did I know what I was getting into. As with all things in life, anything looked at long enough <em>became everything. </em></p>

<p> The changes in awareness that art brings a practitioner are considerable. One example: When I draw and sketch this is evident in the way I see space, perspective, tones, line, etc as surfaces unto which metaphor, meaning and narrative are projected (and/or emitted from).... and the importance of this in my own work and that of others.</p>

<p> I sometimes draw from memory, which requires learning how to sensitize oneself and take in what one is seeing and feeling, like being a camera (one of the meanings of the word film is "skin"), and carrying it, gestating like a latent exposure until one can draw it, sometimes for weeks.</p>

<p> Art has brought close, sometimes intimate, sometimes extraordinary people and experiences, both terrors and marvels, into my life. It is <em>a way of life, of being</em> , allowing one to channel their energies in different ways (as we see here in the delightfully varied posts in this thread), to manifest them, pass them on, and make room for new ones.</p>

<p>It's like being an exercise rider in the Stable of the Muses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>One of the difficulties I have with this OT is</strong> that photography, a rewarding compulsion, hasn't been an agent of my change any more than has my enthusiasm for jazz or theatre or certain intellectual pursuits.</p>

<p>Photography's been an important medium. I've learned a lot from it, but I do that from everything.</p>

<p><strong>What changes me is mostly my volition, my intentions, goals...</strong> and relationships with peers, many of whom have been photographers and graphic designers and entrepreneurs...and with subject relationships (I photograph people with whom I'm developing relationships, I don't photograph people as graphic objects or local color).</p>

<p>The most idealistic photographers I've known were students of <strong>Nathan Lyons</strong> and of <strong>Minor White</strong>. Superficially different, but not at heart: their passions (Fred's word) were equally compelling. I started out with passions like theirs, shifted to be a professional photographer, then a happy snapper, now beginning another path. Volitional change. "Creativity" hasn't been part of my vocabulary and I've been around so many "artists" that I've come to think of them as "normal"...which turns out to be correct.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hey Michael. "When you say you " . . . became a sterotype", it sound to me like you made the choice; it wasn't imposed on you. I think you're being too hard on yourself." I appreciate the sentiment. In my clumsy way i was saying that i did make the choice, with eyes open. The label, <em>stereotyp</em>e that was originally imposed on me was by others was literally appropriate. I started to wear it with honor and in doing so, i made the label mine and became the label in my way. Much as i felt that you might be doing when i read your first line, "i am an addict." I think many creative people do become addicted, in degrees to the process, the insights and to the high they feel getting there. <br /> As Luis puts it "<em>It is a way of life, of being</em>...".<br /> I think of how many times i have heard someone say he/she lives for their children, or for their work. Frankly just being the boss or the employee will change how i interact with the world to some degree. If you spent most of your time pursuing sports or business or drugs .... isn't it likely to influence you substantially? "<em>It is a way of life, of being..</em>." <br /> Take it to the proportion of passionate obsession, addiction or even deep fascination and then commit and dedicate yourself and your time to it, it is bound to have a significant impact on your life. It becomes a reference point in your life. Impacting what you think about, how you think about yourself and others, relationships, politics, ... endless. Creativity, (using imagination/ingenuity) will supply you with additional information of a unique quality. A backboard and a springboard that you can choose to use or ignore. It obviously is not the one and only path and determination of who you are. But give enough to it and it will become you.</p>

<p>John Kelly typed: "<strong>One of the difficulties I have with this OT is</strong> that photography, a rewarding compulsion, hasn't been an agent of my change any more than has my enthusiasm for jazz or theatre or certain intellectual pursuits."</p>

<p> John, the above has nothing to do with the question, which was:</p>

<p>"...how being a photographer or being an artist affects who you are, how you see the world, how you see yourself, how you interact."</p>

<p> There were no hierarchies expressed or implied.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Josh--</strong><br /> I get much from your two posts. The emphasis (and passion) with which you say "art is mine" is moving. In Arthur's thread, Phylo brought up transcending the self and I added that art also strengthens and redefines the self. I think your posts show both sides of that. For me, that sense of ownership of my photographs and my grasp on photography and what I'm doing seems to be helping me assert myself, understand myself, strengthen my sense of self. Part of that is coming to really feel rather than just believe that I am able to change and be fluid . . . and still be me. The transcendent part comes in the way photography gets me out of myself, putting me into relationships that challenge and excite me, allowing me to feel comfortable getting to know others and establishing new kinds of intimacies. That is happening both with the people I photograph and with the people with whom I share my photographs, for the most part. The way I relate to what you say toward the end of your second post, about creativity, is to consider potential and again to remind myself of my own liberation through photography. Interesting that you and Michael both talk of the addictive side. I can understand that and have witnessed that side of it, though I haven't felt that too strongly myself. Right now I'm basking in the liberation that being and acting and taking things in creatively has resulted in for me.</p>

<p><strong>Luis--</strong><br /> I can really relate to your talking about art supplying another dimension in your life. I don't know why but this idea and your post lead me to think of my early Philosophy studies where we spent a lot of time on the difference between <em>being</em> and <em>seeming</em>, how things <em>are</em> and yet how differently they can <em>seem</em> to each of us. As I photograph more and more, I am more aware of this more personal world of seeming, perhaps somewhat similar to your other dimension. Because it's a world for me less grounded. It's why I have a hard time relating, even though I can speak that language, when people talk about photographs conveying reality. Yes, I know what that means and sometimes getting to a true reality is great. Phylo (thanks, Phylo, for supplying some of these great ideas), in the other thread, gave a good description of how the photographic medium seems closer to reality, and I agreed with him there. At the same time, photographic creation, for me, is often about the seeming. Not how <em>is</em> it, but how does it <em>seem</em> to me. A different layer. And sometimes that <em>seems</em> just really feels like an <em>is</em>, even in the most imaginative creative act. I can immediately drop the <em>seems</em> and the creation can express how it <em>is</em> for me, even if no one else would have seen or experienced it that way. My own dimensions or layers seem to do a dance of sorts.</p>

<p>Sort of, like abuse of controled and questionable substances.</p>

<p>I once was a reporter/photographer on a weekly newspaper in rural Virginia. I noticed that I would be in either reporter mode, with words, or in photographer mode, with images, and that switching quickly from one to the other was hard. What we do shapes us. When I was writing science fiction for a living (Rebecca Ore), I found I needed a manual craft as a balance (spinning, weaving, and sewing) and added photography as I became less enchanted with science fiction. I've decided not to worry whether writing or photography is a reasonable thing to do economically, and with photography, decided that taking snapshots of a trip was as valuable (especially to the conversation with the friend in the car as we went through Kansas) as trying to do deliberate art. Curbing the passion to be "an artist" in the high romantic sense (suffering for it) seems to be useful for me at 61. I worry about shooting too many stereotypically female topics, but I like my orchids as a technical challenge.</p>

<p>We are what we do, who we talk to, who and what we spend our time with or on. Time's finite for us; we make choices. The choice further influence our subsequent choices.</p>

<p><strong>Rebecca--</strong><br />I appreciate your thoughts about your snapshots. Thanks. I'm curious about the stereotypical female topics you're concerned about. Would you want to elaborate? I certainly have an awareness of stereotypical gay male topics and even moreso of stereotypical gay male approaches, styles, and sensibilities. Those have informed me but I don't actually find them influencing me too much because I never thought much of them. I'm much more likely to incorporate and build on what I've learned from styles that go deeper for me, like Expressionism, Avant-Garde . . . I like the transition you've made from the stereotypical artist type (that Josh had introduced) to the stereotypical subject or photograph. I especially appreciate that the stereotypical subject or photograph is here related to who you are, your biography. Those two sentences of yours about topics and about orchids seem to suggest a lot for me. The not wanting to be stereotypical, I see for myself as that desire and proclivity toward being creative. That is often accompanied for me by wanting to explore and hone technique. The technique part seems to allow for a little more familiarity, even stereotypical approach. We learn exposure settings and how to handle a camera and many before us have learned the same things. But even that can be approached creatively as well, I think. And I think your phrasing it as technical "challenge" suggests that. A challenge means going beyond, which is a creativity.</p>

<p>This is a great turn for the conversation. Rebecca has talked about female topics and I've talked about gay topics and styles. I wonder how others deal directly or indirectly with their own biographical issues as a subject matter or style and how that unfolds for them.</p>

<p>Josh: Addictions are not intrinsically bad. They're bad only if they lead to bad consequences. Most of my "thing" addictions have been bad. They led to my being overweight, to raising my choloesterol levels, to my bordering on diabetes. However, my "activity" addictions have been bad only to the extent that they have interfered with other areas of my life I care about. And when that's happened, I've had the good sense to moderate.</p>

<p>Fred: I love your reference to transcendence. In Maslow's terms, photography, music, film, painting, etc., etc. can be self-actualizing. But, in a more basic sense, I think you hit the nail on the head. Activities like photography allow us to move beyond boundaries that have been placed on us by human reality and by ourselves.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>or me, that sense of ownership of my photographs and my grasp on photography and what I'm doing seems to be helping me assert myself, understand myself, strengthen my sense of self. Part of that is coming to really feel rather than just believe that I am able to change and be fluid . . . and still be me. The transcendent part comes in the way photography gets me out of myself, <strong>putting me into relationships that challenge and excite me, allowing me to feel comfortable getting to know others</strong> <strong>and establishing new kinds of intimacies</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I like the way you're saying this Fred, giving indeed an equal value to both the transcending of the self and the affirming ( ? ) of the self through the means of photography, and with it affecting life experience / biography. There's the Lao Tzu/ Taoist quote : " When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be " which seems very appropriate in this context. I also like the sentence in bold since I have started doing some portraits of others, of " strangers". And yes recognize a very rewarding energy that comes out in getting comfortable in getting to know others ( like you said ), <em>through photography</em>, it's a momentarily letting go of the self almost, which is then regained ( although not quite the right word because nothing was actually lost ), but yes, "strengthened" perhaps, in the finished photograph of the portrait. But what I mostly sense in this regard IS new possibilities, for photography to also start affecting my biography, whereas before it was only the other way around and the same old same old. It still is maybe, but...possibilities are emerging. </p>