intimate

<p><strong>In another thread, Fred G used the concept of intimacy</strong> (not just the word) to depict something rare, that's typical in his photography.</p>

<p>Fred referred, I think, to multiple relationships: photographer with subject, image with multiple viewers. Intimacy is risky, not theoretic, analytic, solopsistic or internal. I wonder if there's agreement on that?</p>

<p>I hadn't thought to use the concept of "intimacy" as a goal (or result) in the photography that currently most concerns me, but now I will. Intimacy isn't easy: it seems, by definition, a rarity and a high value. Photography does sometimes work at that level (I thought about this today, looking again at Max Waldman's dance photographs, noticing his idea that success might be like capturing a fleeting bit of life in amber).</p>

<p>Fantasies aside, I don't think one has "intimate" relations with inanimate objects (buildings, rocks, moon-rises), or with objectified people.</p>

<p>Weston's peppers are powerful, but not intimate. His nudes don't seem intimate, but many of his portraits, even his most formal (eg of Bender, his patron) do. Or...some photographers make real contact with people they notice on the street, meet them and recognize a moment of intimacy, then photograph...others hide, "observe," avoid intimacy at all costs.</p>

<p><strong>Is intimacy a value in your photography? Do we see it in your P.N portfolio?</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>.</strong></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fantasies aside, I don't think one has "intimate" relations with inanimate objects (buildings, rocks, moon-rises), or with objectified people. --John Kely</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The concept of "relations" might be the catch here, but I can say that I do feel a sense of intimacy with certain places in nature, even though they are in some sense "inanimate." At such times I even feel that I am communing with the divine in such places.</p>

<p>Is that perchance just a fantasy, or have I actually communed with the divine in such holy places?</p>

<p>I am reminded of a song that we once sang in choir many years ago, "Green Cathedral":<br /> <em><br /> </em> <br /> <em>I know a green cathedral, <br /> a hallowed forest shrine. Where trees in love join hands above<br /> to arch your prayer and mine.<br /> <br /> Within its cool depths sacred, the priestly cedar sighs.<br /> And fir and pine lift arms divine<br /> unto the clear blue skies.<br /> <br /> In my dear green cathedral<br /> there is a quiet seat.<br /> And choir loft in branched croft<br /> where songs of birds hymn sweet.<br /> <br /> And I like to think at evening<br /> when the stars its arches light.</em><br>

<em> That my Lord and God treads its hallowed sod</em><br>

<em> in the cool, calm peace of night</em></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p><em>Lannie, do you see glimpses of intimacy in your photographs? Would I see those glimpses? </em><br>

<em></em><br>

<em>This is a Photographic Forum...</em></p>

<p>Lannie, I do see intimacy in your isolated-man-in-blue shirt (not gesturing)...as well, I see sweetness, smiles, moving scenes (eg beautiful women with and without infants, handsome preacher), fine things in themselves, but not intimate.<br>

The choir of birds, priestly trees, and wandering deity are not sharing anything with you, even to the extent that they exist...nothing is being risked...those are fine feelings, but there's no intimacy. Intimacy is something specific, not just a feeling of oneness with the universe. <br>

Again, your photograph of the isolated man seemed to be sharing something intimate with you/us.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>This is a Photographic Forum. . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a PHILOSOPHY of Photography forum.</p>

<p>What I said was not off-topic, and you will not censor me just because you do not agree with my metaphysics.</p>

<p>What I wrote was in direct response to this part of your own post:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Fantasies aside, I don't think one has "intimate" relations with inanimate objects (buildings, rocks, moon-rises), or with objectified people.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Like the song. Even though my name is not Kelly.</p>

<p>I once knew a person in Boston whose name was Keller, but in Boston everyone assumed it was Kelly, since they don't pronounce ultimate r's. You might say they couldn't find their Rs with both hands.</p>

<p>John Kelly, you ought to know by now it's hopeless to try to control the direction of these philosophy posts. This has to be the most unruly and least controllable forum on P.net ;) I confess, I came here hoping that the word <em>intimacy</em> promised more.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Intimacy is something specific, not just a feeling of oneness with the universe. --John Kelly</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why don't you define it for us?</p>

<p>I personally would be much obliged to you for enlightening us. While you are at it, perhaps you could demonstrate the myriad ways in which you have shown intimacy in your own photography.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>John, is this the photograph of which you spoke?</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/8489908&size=lg</p>

<p>Do <em>you</em> see intimacy there? I have never thought to evaluate my photos as to how much intimacy they conveyed. </p>

<p>That--to try to capture intimacy--would be an interesting project, I confess.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>It is not much of a wild guess to think "An intimate knowledge of the law" is an irrelevant kind of intimacy for this thread.</p>

 

<p>" Is intimacy a value in your photography? Do we see it in your P.N portfolio?"</p>

<p>As it appears to be defined in this thread, no and no. But I may be wrong. I may not understand what you mean.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lannie... the same man, standing without gesturing. </p>

<p>Fred first mentioned "intimacy" on another thread: it struck me. I hadn't thought to apply that term before, but have been looking for (trying for) something in my portraits to which the term probably applies... some evidence of a not-so-easily-appreciated story (eg not a smile, not a mask). Perhaps your Blue Shirt Man's story is one of loneliness, surrender?</p>

<p>I mentioned Max Waldman... he somehow depicted moments when a ballet dancer was achieving a peak for himself/herself ...sharing it with people who were lucky enough to see the actual performance or Waldman's photos, lucky enough to even barely recognize a bit of what they were seeing (makes me want to see ballet, something I've missed my whole life). </p>

<p>John , it is always difficult to have a focussed discussion on terms, the understanding of which probably is not shared. This is of course especially the case when non-natives like me with lower English literacy levels intervene. But anyway I'll try.<br>

If you look in what ever dictionary and try to be informed on what "intimacy" stands for, you get alternative meanings of the word like the following that all are right:<br>

<strong>1. Intimacy means: </strong>Marked by close acquaintance, association, or familiarity. I think you will find few on PN that do not have in his/her portfolio, pictures of places, buildings, landscapes that by acquaintance, association or familiarity are "intimate" subject matters for that specific photographer. For me too, apart from the many photos I have uploaded from my travels which do not fall into his category of intimacy.<br>

<strong>2. Intimacy means: </strong>Relating to or indicative of one's deepest nature: Following this meaning of intimacy I don't think that any of my photos, uploaded here or not, fall outside this. All photos I keep are intimate in this sense due to the fact that I use photography as one way, among others, of expressing myself. I deeply feel my photos. I would believe that I share this relation to my own photos with many others here on PN. This is one of the reasons why many have difficulty of accepting critics. <br>

<strong>3. Intimacy means: </strong>Essential; innermost. This is maybe the more difficult meaning on intimacy to explain and give examples of in our photos, but I believe this is maybe the most relevant for photography. Personally, most of my photos of cities fall into this category. I'm especially looking for scenes and subjects that illustrate the specificity of places (their inner soul - if one accept such a concept). Some cities have such specificity, others not - or at least I cannot see/feel it. Whether I manege to show this "innermost" of specific places is for others to appreciate but surely this is where the term "intimacy" fits best to what I'm doing with photography when it comes to cities. It is much less the case in my landscape and nature photos.<br>

Other meanings of intimacy ( informality, privacy, private etc) are more obvious meanings that fit with some portfolios here on PN, but not mine.</p>

<p>As always, a lot seems to depend on what we read into a photo. We might be more likely to read intimacy into a photo if the photo evokes in us the memory of a moment in which we felt a sense of intimacy <em>qua</em> closeness, not necessarily vulnerability.</p>

<p>I thus feel no sense of intimacy in viewing my own photo (of my neighbor) to which you allude:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/8544361</p>

<p>I might feel a sense of pathos or even of empathy with my neighbor in the blue shirt as I, too, likewise age, but "intimacy" is not the word that comes to mind.</p>

<p>Perhaps you are indeed referring to nothing more than "emotional closeness" or even simply "identification." I am not sure what you mean by "intimacy" in the context of photography.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Don E..I understand your puzzlement. I don't fully understand the idea myself, but it rings bells for me. I think that like photography itself, it's more substantial than "art." Maybe a moment in which the subject drops her/his mask, isn't attempting to convey anything. Dropped "mask." Actors know about masks: I should contact some.</p>

<p>A passing moment when the person isn't self-aware, has surrendered to the photographer. It probably implies some kind of trust. That's not like "candid." This answer may be helping me more than you :-)</p>

<p>I don't claim to have made many intimate images, but I hope my odds increase. It begins with a human subject and may surface after the smiles stop. I've been asking acquaintances, people I have just met or barely know, if I may make their portrait. I think intimacy occurs when we understand something fragile and existential about each other, and I don't find that easy.</p>

<p>When we speak of persons who are intimate, we typically presume that, at the very least, they are sharing something. If we feel any kind of intimacy with anyone, we feel as if we are touching the soul of the person. (I use the word "soul" as one of Vilfredo Pareto's "residual categories," categories into which we dump the unexplained.) In other words, there has to be some sense of commonality, even of communion, with the person (and I am not speaking of some religious ritual in so speaking).</p>

<p>Since we cannot actually be intimate with a person through viewing a photograph of them (or at least I do not think that we can be), I am back to the idea that the photo must evoke the emotions that we have felt with that person--or another person like them in some significant respects.</p>

<p>By extension, I can indeed speak of "intimacy" in the context of nature photography if the photo can somehow make me remember what it was like to be in nature, especially if I was at some special place, a place that by virtue of its beauty or other qualities makes me think of it as special, just as a lover is also someone special, in a way that a casual encounter would not be nearly so special.</p>

<p>Thus do I not think that it is vacuous at all to think of "communing with nature" [or nature's God, to quote Jefferson out of context] in "reliving an experience" of "closeness with nature" through viewing a photo.</p>

<p>Surely you are right, however, that we most commonly think of that kind of special closeness as occurring between persons, and perhaps it does not even have to be shared. Perhaps we can feel a sense of being intimate with a person without actually being intimate with them, if the sight of them makes us identify with them. In such a case intimacy grades off into empathy.</p>

<p>This is complicated territory, and I have not given it much thought in any context, much less in the context of photography.</p>

<p>Have I contradicted myself in my musings on this post? Perhaps, but, as Emerson said, "Do I contradict myself? Well, then, I contradict myself." Ultimately, of course, one wants to be able to offer a coherent theory that has had the contradictions worked out. On this topic, at least, I am not there yet.</p>

<p>Good thread, John. It makes me think.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I said Emerson. I meant Whitman.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I don't think this is "complicated." It's mysterious. Explanations don't often do well with mysteries. Explain Bach. Is his music "complicated?" Much isn't. Mysteries do sometimes make themselves clear over time and in practice, rather than verbally. Intimacy seems to photographically available to Fred G, but I'm lucky if it sneaks up on me. I'm surprised to look back at old images and find that intimacy did sometimes happen photographically, but I didn't notice it at the time. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think this is "complicated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, linguistically and conceptually it is complicated, and I think that we are still trying to clear out the conceptual underbrush. Even the definitions are still unclear. Are we all talking about the same "thing"?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm surprised to look back at old images and find that intimacy did sometimes happen photographically, but I didn't notice it at the time.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Are you saying that intimacy inheres in the image itself? How does intimacy "happen" in a photo?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Intimacy. I used to photograph all new doctors for this hospital. They called me and made an appointment for this psychiatrist. Now the only people I had trouble getting response out of were a couple of mental health professionals who took themselves inordinately seriously. So I was schocked when this absolutely stunningly lovely women in red walked through my door. She sat down and I began to pose her. As I looked through the lens on my Bronica I saw this appealingly sexy look on her face. Without thinking I said to her with tongue in cheek, "the look on your face is far too sensual for what I am trying to do for the hospital''. She exploded into laughter and the next picture I got was of her wide open mouth and tonsils. I still have it. The session lasted for about a half an hour and about thirty pictures of her in various poses, stages of laughter, seriousness, and actually something for the hospital. What a wonderful sense of humor. We had a hell of a lot of fun. I never saw her again but she got a lot of free pictures. That, in my mind, was intimacy. I don't think she stayed at the hospital very long. She was definitely major league. Intimacy, rapport, friendliness, a dynamic personality whatever you call it. I tried to form a little bond with all whose picture I took. I had to work harder though usually than I did that day. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>That, in my mind, was intimacy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes,<em> </em> Dick<em>, that</em> might well have been intimacy. Getting pictures of it is quite another thing. Seeing the intimacy in the pictures is yet another thing entirely, even for you, much less for those of us who were not there--even if we could see the pictures <em>ex post facto.</em></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>John, I would submit to you that we cannot photograph intimacy. Intimacy is surely some private, personal phenomenon that neither film nor digital sensors can capture.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I've done some mountain photography on long hikes when I was sure of a spiritual oneness (intimacy) with the mountain environment. A hiking guide once warned: "If you don't properly hydrate and you wander too far off the trail and get lost, and if you must spend one night or longer until someone happens to find you, you could die in the meantime. <strong>The mountain doesn't care."</strong> Yet my photos of favorite places do invoke a sense of intimacy with those subjects. I don't like to admit that it's probably brain chemicals simply giving me a momentary spurt of pleasure.</p><div></div>

<p>-Wrote "invoke" when probably should've written "evoke".</p>

<p>"Don E..I understand your puzzlement. I don't fully understand the idea myself, but it rings bells for me."</p>

<p>What led me to write to your quesions "no and no" is your identifying intimacy as "risky", and your exclusions of relations you think unrelated to your meaning by labeling them "fantasies".</p>

<p>If I don't think intimacy is risky, and I think that the excluded might be intimacies, then I have to answer "no and no". My understanding of intimacy is that 'familiarity' is involved rather than risk.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think the notion of intimacy ( or perceived lack of intimacy ) in photography, photographs, is more recognized true an interpretation of it by the viewer then true a representation of it by the photographer, whether or not the photographer specifically sets out to represent intimacy in his / her photographs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fantasies aside, I don't think one has "intimate" relations with inanimate objects (buildings, rocks, moon-rises), or with objectified people.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since you are a photographer yourself it surely is not a fantasy to think and to know that photographers have, should have, almost by default, an intimate relationship with the world around them, including buildings, rocks, moon-rises, rays of light,...And, it is photography, done by photographers, that's being discussed here, not ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Weston's peppers are powerful, but not intimate</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be yours and/or anyone's interpretation of the peppers in the photographs and while Weston's goal might not have been photographing intimacy thrue his peppers, I'll bet you that he valued, being a photographer, an intimate relationship with a. the peppers and b. the light surrounding the peppers, just by having spend hours photographing and looking at the peppers. And, at the end of the day, he made a nice salad out of them...-- Come to think of it, the most intimate relationship we have might very well be with the food we choose to eat, not with the people we choose to meet ---</p>

<p>"My true program is summed up in one word : life. I expect to photograph anything by that word which appeals to me." Edward Weston</p>

<p> </p>