Fantasy

<p>Photographs are often talked about for their ability to capture reality or truth.</p>

<p>But I don't recall us talking much about fantasy.</p>

<p>Words that are used in the definition of fantasy: <em>imagination,</em> <em>chimerical, fiction, strange, improbable</em>.</p>

<p>I've been batting around a few questions. What role, if any, does fantasy have in making and viewing photographs? Does fantasy feel like something? Is fantasy at odds with reality or truth?</p>

<p>I think pictures can and do open up a world of make-believe. That doesn't mean there isn't truth to them.</p>

<p>The truth often seems familiar and that's why I respond to it when I feel like I see it in a photo. That might be the more universal and iconic truth we've discussed before, the kind of truth we recognize in symbols. But some truth is more improbable, and I seem to have an even stronger feeling about strange truths (also layered or slowly revealed truths). Perhaps the latter are more individual or personal truths, even more secretive truths we each hold.</p>

<p>The "fantastic" can be captured with a gesture, a color or colors, blur, a pose, a streak of lighting, a particular juxtaposition, even a particular subject or subject matter.</p>

<p>There often seems a sea-sawing aspect of "wish" involved, as if fantasies are about things we would or could want . . . even if we don't always want to make them come true. Do our photographs, or our acts of photographing, reflect wishes and desires?</p>

<p>Beethoven's Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor, Opus 27 Number 2 is commonly known as the Moonlight Sonata because that's how a music critic described it at some point. The only thing close to a title from the composer is more of a stage direction, "Quasi una fantasia" (<em>almost</em> a fantasy). It's a fairly descriptive suggestion to the player of the piece. Every pianist who tackles it has to figure out how to play like a fantasy. And with the <em>almost</em>, Beethoven likely makes his own point. Is there an "almost" quality to all fantasy that makes it a fantasy . . . almost what it is or could be?</p>

<p>I wonder about expressing <em>almost</em> in a photograph. Is "almost" already part of the nature of a photograph? Is it almost, but not quite, its subject? Is it a bit of fantasy about its subject?</p>

<p>What does a fantasy feel like and do you feel it in your own and in others' photographs or in the process of making them?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do our photographs, or our acts of photographing, reflect wishes and desires?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think so, Fred. I start with a given. That photographs do not or rather cannot capture reality or truth. Photographs to me, being partly the scientist, less so the artist, by temperament that is, are <strong>illusions</strong> mediated through the retina and the visual cortex. And then mixed with our cultural imprints and hormonal chemistry of our brains. Hormonal, powerfully in some, less so in others.</p>

<p>We see a posted nude in the critiques. Someone comments "wow, she is hot, I like those buttocks." Another says "I like the play of light." Another enjoys the contrast of the demure face and the ample display of what nature has amply provided. Another says it is a glorification of the goddess in all women. And so on as we all appreciate..</p>

<p>Sound in music is definitely all illusion. Sound engineers play with that electronically. Chords and major/minor keys are intended to play with emotions and elicit some kind of fantasy ( I define as an altered state in some cases) that more than one listener can relate to. Photographs are always reaching for some idea or feeling that one may or may not share but hope to capture. Some are so much individual fantasy or abstractions that we cannot begin to share, I mean without an explanation. To me, the latter denotes a failure of that communication that is lasting art, aural or visual.</p>

<p>In the earlier "Jung" thread I speculated that some dreams may inhabit an "<em>almost</em>" space, perhaps like yours: Am I awake or am I dreaming? As well, Goldsworthy (another recent thread) may inhabit that space... less obvious in his books than in the video, Rivers and Tides, thanks partially to its elusive, ambient-derived musical composition.</p>

<p>Just as your examples of "wish" and "fantasy" led immediately to your meditation on music rather than still photography, video may be more effective than stills in that fantasy realm.</p>

<p>I've been exchanging prints with someone who just realized he has for a number of years repeatedly addressed childhood memories...those I've seen are soft-focus (both 8X10 film and digicam), sepia... he's using "dreamy" "nostalgic" technique... their subjects are all children's vehicles (rocking horse, pedal car etc). Someone else exchange a photo of trick-or-treat-fairy-winged girls with heavy flare...lens flare/soft-looking, selectively sharp (think Softar #3 overall, with more defined detail here and there). Historic photographers resorted to classical greco/roman god-themes to evoke academic reveries that probably wouldn't work for non-academics. For non-academics interested in deity themes, with a bit more zip, there was a 40s-50s Los Angeles porn photographer whose name I don't recall. As well, there's Fred Goldsmith's work...</p>

<p>I don't find fantasy as poignent (as charged or operatic) as "reality"...my reality, when I'm alert, is full of cross connections and possible implications... my fantasies are more superficial, and I don't think my reality's implications live there.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I don't think "illusion" is a phenomenon as much as it is a judgement call. In other words, the use of the term doesn't suggest perception as much as the operation of the standard Freudian version of ego.</p>

<p>Interesting, to think about fantasy in the context of photography, which is viewed to be more tied to external reality. I do feel fantasy in my own and in others's photography but not in the way of a photoshop fairy-tale kinda fantasy, and not particular a wishful fantasy. But a fantasy that is as "real" as reality, being that I see it as a disguised reflection of outward reality.The fantastic photograph to me is a well balanced synergy between this internal reality, a fantasy, and external reality. From the moment something is conceived to be, it becomes <em>a</em> reality. The reality of a unicorn vs the reality of a horse distinguishes itself from the horse, not for it being not real, but for it being an internal reality. A photograph can show us both the horse and the unicorn. </p>

<p>see Joel Peter Witkin.</p>

<p>Michael J Hoffman</p>

<p>A number of people from Julia Cameron to Kyle Cassidy use fantasy in their work. Some photographers play off of media images, or particular rhetorics of how things are lit. Could giving an object more significance through the drama of framing and lighting be a form of fantasy?</p>

<p>I think all good photographers use fantasy in their work, by nature of looking at "plain" things differently, rather then showing fantasy things. Even a photographer like Jerry Uelsmann does this, looking at existing things ( internal or external ) differently rather then fantasizing about non-existing things.</p>

<p><em>"Could giving an object more significance through the drama of framing and lighting be a form of fantasy?" -</em> Rebecca B.</p>

<p>Yes: Like "empathy," fantasy can be projection of something internal to the photographer onto the rendition of a subject: Printing, I make the image appear the way I "wish" (Fred's term) it to be. My "wish" might reasonably be called be a fantasy...which I do usually realize as reality. The same might apply to lighting or framing, or selection of moments, like HCB's.</p>

<p>In that sense "fantasy" might describe all photography...which would make the term as useless as many other commonly wasted terms.</p>

<p>Some actually "wish" their photography to be inconsequential, mere factual rendition..."factual" being yet another fantasy.</p>

<p>Fred, what are your further thoughts on fantasy?</p>

<p>I think that fantasy is falling out of your self into a space/time that is discontinuous with your own space/time. You can jump or you can be pushed.</p>

<p>Fantasy that happens in other worlds (fairies, wizards, monsters, etc. -- probably not what Fred's interested in here) allows you to keep your self and this world separate from that world. Fantasy that happens in this world -- using real stuff and obeying real physics -- requires that your (real) self and your location/conception of your self in this world be stretched or reformed to accommodate it; to bridge the gap from your space to that Other. That can be disturbing. It's <em>supposed</em> to be disturbing.</p>

<p>In any case, if the art is good, rationality won't stop you from falling.</p>

<p><strong>Julie--</strong></p>

<p>Yes. I wasn't thinking of fairies and wizards or, as Phylo noted, the photoshop fantasy supposedly created by the push of a strange filter button.</p>

<p><strong>Gerry--</strong></p>

<p>I like your idea of "reaching" and that feels like it captures some of the essence of what I was considering. Both wishes and fantasies seem to have that idea of a reaching beyond. I'm glad you mention hormonal, and even your (somewhat) sexual example is relevant here. Sometimes, it's those sexual fantasies that may not be what our photographs are about but that may allow us some extra juice (sorry) in exploring for our photographs. I mentioned secrets. </p>

<p>How many photographers of the nudes you talk about allow themselves to actually fantasize erotically and admit to it, work with it? My sense is that there would be a lot more compelling nude photographs in the critique forum on PN if more freedom would be given to both honesty and fantasy and less emphasis were being placed on being taken seriously and finding "artistic" excuses to get a woman (or man) to strip off her or his clothes. I don't necessarily act on my fantasies when shooting nudes but I sure as hell have them, at least sometimes. If I were to say I always do nudes strictly for "art," that would be like trying to convince myself (or anyone else) that I browse through Playgirl . . . for the articles. </p>

<p><strong>John--</strong></p>

<p>Am I awake or dreaming? Yes. That kind of question. You mention making the image appear the way you "wish" it to be in the printing process. Sure, some kinds of wishes describe all photography. I agree, might be somewhat useless. I was thinking more along the lines of wishing my mother were still alive and that feeling guiding some of my photographs, especially the one I made recently of my dad. Even my wishes for him at the time. I was thinking about the energy sexual fantasies can play in a shoot. I've talked about theater a lot lately. "Pretending" (fantasy) to be on stage can really help establish a rapport with some people I photograph. Sharing fantasies (even to the extent of just pretending together and most often completely non-sexual) can create intimacy.</p>

<p>One of the pianists I studied with, at a pivotal moment, had me sit and listen to Joan Sutherland singing Casta Diva from Bellini's <em>Norma</em>. Partly to inspire me, which it did. But more importantly to talk to me about breath and about reaching (there's that reaching again) with my piano playing for the tone, line, and smoothness that the human voice can achieve. This was about the potential that piano playing has, not about its limits. I talk about music a lot because I'm more fluent in references to music than I am to photographic references. But I also think there's something to using metaphors (and practical applications) from other mediums to describe and explore making photographs. For me, it's not about what music can do that photography can't (clearly each medium has its unique aspects). It's about making richer the photographic creation and experience through nuance. Aiming for the kind of fantasy that Beethoven might have been talking about or that can be achieved in a film is not to mimic those mediums or compete with them. It's just a way of helping me find all there is to offer in a still.</p>

<p><strong>Phylo--</strong></p>

<p>You really hit on one reason fantasy can be so effective in relationship to photographs. Photographs are, in fact, more grounded to that external reality you talk about and that we've all talked about quite a bit. Yes, the inner. I keep coming back to secrets. Revelation. It's why I so often reject (for myself) the strictly representational aspect of photographs. I want something else out of them, often. </p>

<p><strong>Rebecca--</strong></p>

<p>Yes, I think it could be lighting and framing. I think it's how you would approach that and how that would feel to you that would be significant. As John points out, taking a photograph, by definition, means lighting and framing. So I don't think it's just that.</p>

<p><strong>Julie--</strong></p>

<p>I think there are, or at least can be, disturbing aspects to fantasy. How often have people said to us, negatively, you are living in a fantasy world (followed by "wake up")? And, I do think some fantasies actually wake us up to some things about ourselves (probably not unlike dreams) that might not always make us comfortable.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My own favourite fantasies are those exemplified by such as the Arthurian myths, or the Teutonic myths portayed by Wagner in <em>'Das Rheingold'</em> or <em>'Tristan and Isolde'</em>: a time and place which may or may not have existed, or which may exist even now at this moment somewhere. They myth is at once nowhere, yet everywhere, in a realm outside time. A fantasy, for me, must contain a stong element of parable, concerning, as George Steiner put it, the 'exploration and communication of great and final things' - life, death, love and transcendent possibility. <br>

I offer this as an example of fantasy in my own work.</p><div></div>

<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>, Nov 14, 2009; 11:34 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Photographs are often talked about for their ability to capture reality or truth.</em><br>

<em>But I don't recall us talking much about fantasy.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Words that are used in the definition of fantasy: imagination, chimerical, fiction, strange, improbable.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, My reality is my fantasy.<br>

Here's an example....</p>

<p>Bill P.</p><div></div>

<p>A photograph is anything but real. One instant in time that will never occur again, that hasn't been seen in that way before and which will never be seen in that way again. It always wears a cloak of fantasy, visible or nearly invisible, intended or not intended.</p>

<p>However, some images do this better than others. I enjoy photographing dying or dead trees for their expressiveness and their ability to evoke in me feelings of fantasy. In photographing someone I never feel that I have either the ability or the possibility of representing them as they really are. The result, intended or not, is part fantasy.</p>

<p>The last thing I wish to capture when photographing is reality. The strange or the improbable are greater drivers of my, albeit limited, imagination.</p>

<p>The following photograph comes from a vacation in October. The fantasy of the scene counted more for me than a hundred more common views of the seaside place we visited.</p><div></div>

<p>Fred- "I wonder about expressing <em>almost</em> in a photograph. Is "almost" already part of the nature of a photograph? Is it almost, but not quite, its subject? Is it a bit of fantasy about its subject?<br>

I think that any image, wether a photograph or painting or otherwise, does embody the "almost"- any media for that matter. Any product that seeks to create a facsimile of life is inherently off- not containing that reality- the wholeness of a moment- the human element, and that goes to something existential. On a more humanistic level, we as viewers only fulfill the potential of imagery, thusly the "almost" <em>must</em> be part of creation- even if intent does not include it. <br>

"What does a fantasy feel like and do you feel it in your own and in others' photographs or in the process of making them?"</p>

<p>Fantasy for me is a great part of photography. As a commercial fashion oriented photographer, fantasy promoted is essential to the imagery- any advertising for that matter. As an artist, especially someone working with an ephemeral type work as mine, fantasy is once again a large part of the work- 99.9999999999999% of people <em>never</em> see the actual installation, so the photographs of the works only serve to accentuate the fantastic.<br>

I think the greatest amount of fantasy however, is based in my reality. I look at my life and wonder where this fantasy of becoming a NY photographer actually happened. Its easy enough to see the reality of the situation and how I got here, but the fantasy actually exists too. There exists, in the world at large, a fantasy associated with being a photographer, and no matter how skewed that fantasy is from the reality of production, editing and hard work, it exists none-the-less...and I find myself squarely in the middle of it (although in my youthful version I was much richer:)) To that, my work (to me at least) always exhibits some sense of fantasy- not just the final image, but the whole production thereof. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Fantasy is, I think, an important component of the creative process. I travel about 25 Km (about 15 miles) when I choose to visit the local city, most of which takes me through pleasant farmland or close to busy river activity. When not engrossed in other thoughts, I like to visualize what I see in new and less usual ways. The subject may be a roadside cross (a local cultural icon), a farmer's roadside stand, Mexican part time employees picking strawberries, an old barn or chicken shack that resists fortune and time, the young teacher and her martially aligned pupils about to visit a local site or building...</p>

<p>Rarely do I want to mentally see what I see in realistic tones or forms or compositions. I can happily abdicate that (nonetheless important activity) for the myriads of postcards or local newspaper photos. A house and adjoining tree becomes more than its physical reality. In the springtime, apple blossoms speak of renewal. The stones of an adjoining old house once lay in a farmer's field, each one of different shape and volume, awaiting removal and the mason's trowel. What is the more permanent, a three hundred year old farmhouse, or a day's old apple blossom? I don't see the house as a piece of architecture, however compatible it may be with the aspirations or vocations of those who live in it, or an apple tree as a simple incubator of fruit.</p>

<p>Something more spiritual is apparent. The mental image is a fantasy of another vision. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Arthur, your image " Free Flight'' of deck chairs floating in the pool is a very evocative example of a fantasy inducing photo. We fill in the blanks to complete the scene as we choose. It allows the mind which <em>needs</em> that kind of fill in the blanks <strong>engagement</strong> to work to complete the scene, in its full dimension, all its imagined context. Nice semi- abstract play of light and surfaces all by itself too.</p>

<p>Some great responses here.</p>

<p>I want to offer something of a counterpoint to the well-formed ideas about fantasy (and lack of reality) seeming to be an inherent aspect of photographs. From Stieglitz:</p>

<p><em>"Photography is a reality so subtle that it becomes more real than reality."</em></p>

<p>There's a sense in which I can relate to this strongly as well. The photo is an object and a very real one. (We could get off on a tangent of the relative reality of screen images compared to the more tangible print but I'm content to consider the images on the screen a reality of the 21st century.)</p>

<p>It's only when we measure a photo against something else that we consider it unreal or by necessity a fantasy. In and of itself, a photograph is quite real . . . to me.</p>

<p>So, Martin, I agree with you that there are aspects and genres of photography that may be trying to render a facsimile of life, but I think there's also a sense in which some create new life with their cameras. Though, as Phylo often points out, "reality" is the raw material for a photograph, it may not be much a part of its purpose. Reality may be more of a material cause or aspect and less of a teleological or essential cause. I love your idea of the viewer only fulfilling some potential of the imagery. (Likely for the photographer as well because, as Rebecca has pointed out in other places, the work does indeed go beyond the maker.) Seen in that way, "almost" has a very dynamic quality. One that keeps us moving and continually reaching. There's a sense in which it's more process than product.</p>

<p>I, too, love Arthur's pool and chairs photo and there is a fantastical quality to it that moves me. For me, the second photo is a fantasy of a much different sort.</p>

<p>Myths are some of my favorite fantasies. I wish we could replace current Muslim, Christian, and Jewish notions of God and go back to Zeus, Apollo, and Athena. My guess is we'd all be a lot better off . . . but I digress.</p>

<p>William, I get a lot from your picture. Not as much from your words, in this case.</p>

<p>I am thinking also that there are two perspectives from which to look at fantasy. Seeing fantasy in a photo may, in some cases, be different from fantasies occurring in the making of a photo or being utilized to do so. It's too personal and dear to me to post here as an example, but the photo of my dad that I talked about above (in my portfolio if you want to have a look, the bottom middle picture in my portraits + folder) has a lot of fantasy for me associated with it, the making and the thinking about making, but I don't particularly think it comes across as a photo of fantasy or that would particularly induce fantasy-like imaginings in a lot of people. Actually, I think it's a very real photo, and captures something essential about my dad . . . and me, us. So, I think my fantasies go into the work but they don't read as fantasies, nor did I intend them to. I do sense a going beyond, however, but that feels distinct from fantasy, as I think about it now.</p>

<p><em>"I wish we could replace current Muslim, Christian, and Jewish notions of God and go back to Zeus, Apollo, and Athena. My guess is we'd all be a lot better off . . ."</em> - Fred G<br /><strong>Fred, just do it.</strong> I've promoted that for a couple of years and you've laughed it off.</p>

<p><strong>Athena</strong>, in particular, is a delight (relish Mandelbaum's "The Odyssey of Homer" ...I prefer it to the Fagles translation). How many other deities are delightful? How many other deities have beautiful grey eyes, lovely ankles, and are soulful enough to demand BBQ in their honor? The senior Judeo Christian deity abandoned meat for crackers, matzoh, etc... to understand what he's about, see <strong>"A Serious Man"</strong> by the Coen brothers :-)</p>

<p><strong>Please expand on your idea about theatre and portraits.</strong> In the "Jung" thread I commented on a relationship between dream and theatre... unlike static images (eg photo) and film, the theatrical audience can be near-tactile participant in small theatre productions, much the way we participate in our own dreams.</p>

<p>Unlike our arguably non-relationship with static images (unless we project empathy onto them), we are/should-be actively involved with our photographic subjects...making portraiture, rather than portraits, like theatre.</p>

<p><strong>In your fantasy theatre, are your subjects aware they're actors?</strong> Do you ask them to assume roles...do they know what you're playing at or is this all in your head?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Arthur's image with the chairs and the swimming pool has a surrealism to it, while the infrared and the image posted earlier by Chris also have a more impressionistic feel. Both evoke a certain fantasy. Intentional surrealism and impressionism though are not the only ways to bring about a fantasy ( or a reality of the mind as I see it ) in a photograph. The strictly representational in photography can trigger an "aura of wonder" or such feeling, as much as the intentionally searched and expressed non-representational. Atget as an example. The image by Martin is also, uhm, " slightly evocative ". But without taking anything away from this effectively evocative image, most fashion oriented photography doesn't go beyond the surface of fantasy, staying too polished, too clean, too predictable, too <em>unreal </em>even. A fantasy of the body and the strictly material, rather then the <em>piercing mind</em>.</p>

<p><strong>"What does a fantasy feel like</strong> and do you feel it in your own and in others' photographs or in the process of making them?"</p>

<p>When the mind's tentacles are reaching out, grasping for ultra-reality, it may feel like a fantasy. The doors of perception ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>John--</strong></p>

<p>I've laughed it off? Maybe context and/or misunderstanding played a role. Though I can fairly be accused of a lot, laughing off the Greek gods would be a new one for me. Likely some qualifying factor at play. You say Athena, I say Apollo, potayto/potahto :)</p>

<p>My own sense of portrait theater varies. I do sometimes ask people to assume roles. More often not. A lot of it is in my head. But even then, and even if we don't talk about roles <em>per se</em>, I don't necessarily hide the fact that I'm creating something, often a scene rather than just a likeness. Even if the eventual photo will be a head shot or close-up my creating a scene, overt awareness of storytelling and including them in some of the photographic decisions and thought processes seems to help bring something out. It feels good to me and seems to feel good to many subjects for us both to feel like participants, like together we are doing something. Even if I want something "real" I would be hesitant to lay the "reality" trip on anyone. Fine, be as artificial as you like . . . I'll show you I can find the "real" in that somewhere.</p>

<p>Yesterday, I was videotaped for a documentary. Fun being on the other end of the lens. I recommend it. I've done it before on several occasions. Without doing so intentionally, the videographer made me feel very much an object and very much not part of his process. I could see and sense his wheels turning but wasn't in on it. So I certainly felt a distance. He was clearly the craftsman and I the clay. Not that that can't work in some situations. But I tend to find it a bit limiting and even isolating. I haven't seen the results yet. </p>

<p>Since photography is what I'm doing, I don't hesitate to sometimes (often?) make the shoot about photography. We may talk about it and play with it. With the couple of actors I've worked with as subjects of portraits, I've talked a lot about voyeurism and exhibitionism (of the non-sexual, mostly, kind) and how much overlap there is in those two. Getting an actor to act has been, in some cases, the route to catching him not acting. There's that momentary lapse of facade that may come at some point that is such a contrast to the acting mode that it can sometimes be the one moment worth catching . . . I think there are moments, also, when the actor and the person acting come very much together in one look, glance, gesture. Capturing that blending of person and "character" can be magical.</p>

<p>I do want to point out that I have made some portraits I'm happy with where I didn't feel particularly actively involved with a subject. Stuff happens. Sometimes, a lack of involvement is just the ticket. Distance can be palpable and even distance can reach out and grab you. I sometimes genuinely feel and can express distance. Again, the key for me is the genuineness, not the specific emotion or quality.</p>

<p>I'm even still moved by some of my own early disengaged street shots, stolen moments. It's not something I would keep pursuing, more because of how I feel than because of how the photos look. Though I was disengaged, I don't think I was pretending to be something else, and I think that combination can work. I'm not even sure I knew or thought about alternatives at the time. It was just what I did.</p>

<p>I have net acquaintances in London who do photo stories and short films with ball jointed dolls. </p>

<p>This <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/BJD_modified_Cerberus_Project_Sleeping_Vampire_head_with_normal_Cerberus_Project_boy_body.jpg">is one of theirs.</a> I don't have at hand the urls to the stories. One of the student workers at Drexel found these doll photos way too creepy to look at, perhaps similar to what Julie is talking about, a fantasy that is eerie.</p>

<p>Photos that dislocate reality in other ways come to mind -- if they're too obviously posed, perhaps we are more likely to dismiss them. Maybe try to catch moments where reality dislocates itself?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"if they're too obviously posed, perhaps we are more likely to dismiss them." <strong>--Rebecca</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>My take on it is this. If it's obviously posed and it seems or looks like it's trying not to look posed, that could and likely will be a problem. But if it's obviously posed and is not trying to be something else, I'll take it at face value and proceed from there. Lots of stuff is obviously posed and brilliant.</p>

<p>Some surrealism feels too forced, some not. Some very obviously manipulated surrealist images work just fine for me . . . Man Ray.</p>

<p>This one of mine came about quite simply. Just a guy I was photographing sitting on my couch when I noticed his reflection in the glass coffee table. No muss, no fuss. As you say, in this case, reality did seem just to dislocate itself. When I come across it like this, I really appreciate it. Sometimes, it's just a matter of paying attention. If it feels posed, I have no problem with that one way or the other.</p><div></div>

<p>Duplicate post. I hate this system.</p>

<p>UGGH</p>

<p>"You say Athena, I say Apollo, potayto/potahto :)" :-) :-) :-)<br>

JK</p>