Passion, Ecstasy, and the Heart-o-meter: The Way of Dionysus.

<p>We lean towards the Apollonian here. Rational, logical, evidenced, framed in fact, justifiable, etc. Yet the photo world is glutted with well-crafted and lit, perfectly dull, lifeless pictures devoid of any apparent passion, let alone ecstasy. Mud that hasn't been breathed on is just mud. I am talking about passions and ecstasies of all kinds, and of the photographer, subject(s) viewers and reviewers. Passion and Ecstasy can be metaphysical, intellectual, sensual, sexual and more. They can emanate from their opposites and also some very dark places in the recesses of our existence. For the record, I am <em>not</em> advocating the abandonment of everything else.</p>

<p>Do you value passion in your own work? Ecstasy? How do you achieve, and/or impart it? Do you know when it's happening? Can you see it in your own work? That of others? Its absence? Can you link to images you think are passionate?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You bet your ass I do Luis. I don't show people here on PN but for the years I have done portraits and weddings and head shots trying to breathe life in every picture I do. My most abject failure was a wedding I did years ago when the whole wedding party showed up so hung over they could barely stand for the ceremony. It was a dour group when I previously met them, anyway. I got no joy because there was none only mild hostility that I tried not to capture among the principles until they later got to the reception to get a liquid recharge. Then I got a bunch of recharged fuzzy feeling, drifty people. It was out of doors by the sea on a beautiful day but I got only a bunch of somber, pained faces in all of that sunshine. I failed. I thought I could make anyone react but on that day I could not. But outside of that I think I do pretty well with people. I do a little street stuff that I don't show and I have a forlorn but colorful woman outside a coffee shop on a ten degree day freezing while trying to drink her coffee and smoke while through the window there was a non-smoking couple regaling themselves in that very close warmth but oh so far away. I like that picture and someday I might post it. I used to take great delight in photographing local politicians at their very worst when I could capture. That was my passion. </p>

<p>I think we have to be careful here. It's a great subject but also a specific one. Not everything human is passionate or ecstatic. Not everything intimate shows passion. And most importantly, just because a photographer may approach his work passionately doesn't mean he will show, convey, or his photos will embody passion in any way, nor should they. I think passion is incredible when found in a photograph or painting, sculpture, etc. I also think it's extremely rare. I think many photographers are quite passionate about their work but not really trying to and certainly not succeeding in showing passion. Not to dump on Ansel Adams again but I'd guess he was extremely passionate about his photographing and darkroom work and yet his photos come across as passionless, though because of the level of craft he achieved we can imagine the kind of passion with which he must have done his work.</p>

<p>I strive toward it but haven't yet achieved it, I think. I associate passion and ecstasy with something religious/spiritual/transcendent. In a sense, it's where the spiritual and sexual (maybe sensual) meet. For me to achieve what I'm after in the way of passion will require more <em>abandonment</em>. That will require more comfort with my tools, for one. But more importantly, it will require getting out of my head, and a kind of letting go. It's more about orgasm than foreplay. It's less considered and less of all the things Luis mentioned. The only thing I'll say there is that I've wondered, being somewhat philosophical and logically bent myself, if one can be passionate about those things and, not just feel it or be it, but SHOW IT photographically. </p>

<p>Sorry Fred. I am obviously in over my head. I don't think I am on your level. What I have felt is a passionate commitment to many of my brides and a strong emotional bond that allowed me to fall in love for one day to get expressions of real emotion from them that truly showed in their pictures. I don't post those.. I will leave this discussion to those more qualified to discuss it. </p>

<p>I recall nodding my head while first watching the 1984 film "Amadeus." The villain (not counting Mozart's own self-destructive rock star ways) is Antonio Salieri. A workmanly classical composer, he's enthralled by music and can identify passion and greatness in others' works. But he finds he's not been equipped with the spark, the skills, or whatever inner vision and ability it is that allows his ridiculous, punk-like peer, Mozart, to - with a breezy lightness of spirit - whip out masterpieces like a casual burp after a gratifying dinner. Salieri notes this irony (Mozart does not appear to appreciate his own DNA and circumstances) with a sarcastic thank you to capricious divine providence. <em>Grazie, Signore.</em> He's cursed with knowing passion and easy ectasy and great expression when he sees it, and with being observant enough to know he doesn't himself have it, nor will.<br /><br />This is why I never have nor <em>ever</em> will personally dance. But I sure like to watch when it's done right.<br /><br />But I think I can see some light at the end of a very long tunnel. It's the germinating, inkling beginning of an awareness of what it will feel very good (perhaps even ecstatic) to express, via photography. But like Salieri, I know my artsy limits (even if I think they will expand, yet). And so I for now still deliberately avoid what I expect would be a sourly disappointing stumble in the direction of publicly seen, passion-driven, ectasy-minded expression that would surely fail my own standards. So I stick with the more workmanly stuff, and it sticks with me.<br /><br />But unlike the film's fictional-liberties-taken Salieri, I make no attempts to bump off those young punks who come by it all so naturally. :-)</p>

<p>As Fred was saying, there is a difference between being passionate about your work and showing passion in the work. I can say that I have always been very passionate about my photography. When I am working at it I try to achieve a balance between the “craft,” which takes conscious thought and deliberate decision-making, with letting the creative, inspirational part of me control what I’m doing as well. I find that when I work this way I get the most satisfying results, at least for me. This means I also have to “trust my unconscious” because I’m letting that part of myself into the equation, so when I press the shutter it is often during moments that precede any conscious recognition of what I’m doing. Its just part of the "flow." This whole process feels very spiritual to me and for that reason, passionate as well. I don’t know if people see this in my work but that’s the way it works for me.</p>

<p>Passion is important in the creative person, I think, because it acts to disrupt the rational cognitive process and effectively drives the person, often against a pre-defined will, in directions that he might not otherwise take. It may be a component of making a work that embodies passion or ecstasy, but I believe that that result can likely also be created by someone who is not particularly passionate yet may have a particular talent and insight for creating passion in a work.</p>

<p>I don't fully know how a work embodying passion is created. It is probably not just the result of showing persons in passionate disposition or displaying the emotion of passion in some common way. I think the passion or ecstasy has to arrive by a much more subtle and powerful route. I see some passion in Boubat's photo of the little girl draped with fallen leaves in the Jardin du Luxembourg of Paris, or in his photo of his girlfriend (Léla?), or in Capa's falling soldier in the Spanish revolution, or in the photo of HCB near the end of his life with his favorite little granddaughter by his side (I forget the photographer). These are just quickly remembered examples that may be superseded by others more powerful, given more time to think about it.</p>

<p>I think we may be more apt to produce the quality of passion or ecstasy in images that are of people or places that are closest to our experience, if only because that familiarity can lead us more decidedly to explore in greater depth and curiosity our chosen subjects. Yes, exploration and the desire behind it is probably key in the quest of some images exhibiting passion, but I don't also ignore the wild and non-Cartesian approach of a highly passionate person as leading to a similar result. In one of Moravia's books, a spy acting counter to his supposed allegiance, in betraying a girl from his side, is overcome with uncontrolled desire for the girl and cannot take his eyes off her, prompting the girl to think "he never took his eyes from my bosom...I think that those two dark spots at their end were enough to make him forget Tsarism, revolution, ideology, political thoughts and betrayal. Such sexual passion is but one of many types of passion, physical or intellectual, that can also be integral to passages in a book, poem, musical score or picture. Probably very few images or their creators can achieve that, or may do so occasionally by improvisation or accident. </p>

 

<p>I've been searching my mind for photos that are passionate/ecstatic. Not coming up with anything right away. My storehouse of photographic references isn't nearly as clear to me as with music and painting. So, I'll offer <a href="http://www.michaelarnoldart.com/Goya%20painting.gif">THIS</a>, by Goya.</p>

<p>I wanted to add, and I'm sure this isn't universal, but I would tend to look at color work for passion.</p>

<p>I think we lean towards the Apollonian when discussing here - I'm not sure whether that extends by definition to our actual photos or intents in making photos. Or, for that matter, describing how one experiences a photo (or any piece of art) - it's still considerably different from the actual experience.<br /> Though, in my case - I think the Apollonian applies. Passion and ecstasy ring bells which for me do not find their way to my photos. As Fred, I think colour, but also a richness, dynamics, lightness, abundance, joy; something that radiates a lot of energy. While I tend to end up with solitude, austere, mathematical and structured, frequently dark and not overtly happy, I think.</p>

<p>Would I value it, if it was there? I think I would - if one manages to transmit that passion, the exstatic feel, it would be incredibly powerful communication. I do not see myself arriving there any time soon, though, and not a lot of photos come to mind. But I think I see it in <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg/220px-Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg">this photo</a> (exstacy, that is). And <a href="http://www.chrisdenengelsman.nl/Kunst%20kolom/Bosch%20Jeroen/Visioenen_uit_het_hiernamaals_detail.jpg">a non-photographic example</a>.</p>

<p><em>Eeek</em>!</p>

<p>... clutching my pink chiffon nightie to my neck at the sight of Luis right outside my window with a <em><strong>HUGE</strong></em> ...</p>

<p> .</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>... pair of binoculars.</p>

<p>Well, I suppose a lame, sexually tinged visual, the likes of which uttered by a male to a female would be grounds for claims of harassment, is better than a quote from Barthes.</p>

<p>Probably not a good copy, but here is one of Boubat's photos that I think exudes passion (for life, freedom and individuality, beauty, and how he viewed his then girlfriend). Most of his impressive images are in black and white, although he might well have used color with the passion of Haas or others.</p>

<p>And his photo of the little girl with the string of dead leaves (1947), where the out of focus background is of little importance to the subject and the feeling exuded by the image (in my opinion). I think these two images are also the result of instinctual and not a rational process, like I think are many of Boubat's photos. </p>

<p>"Without passion, all the skill in the world won't lift you above craft. Without skill, all the passion in the world will leave you eager but floundering. Combining the two is the essence of the creative life." -- Twyla Tharp</p>

<p>Having started this post, I want to clarify something. Under definitions of 'passion', one of the meanings is "strong desire or devotion to some activity" or "strong enthusiasm" for the same. Under that, we could be snowed under with testimonials by individuals asserting their own passion for photography. Without narrowing down this too much, I want this thread to go further than that. Further than my initial questions of: "Do you value passion in your own work? Ecstasy? How do you achieve, and/or impart it? Do you know when it's happening? Can you see it in your own work? That of others? Its absence? Can you link to images you think are passionate?"</p>

<p>____________________________________________</p>

<p>Passion and Ecstasy are to me, a form of intense psychic energies. Like all energy, if its flow is contained or interrupted, it acts on that vessel or obstacle, and/or cools off, becoming a forgotten dream. As an analog, the pressure in a pipe when the flow is at/near zero is at its highest. The faster the flow, the lower the pressure gets to zero. If we think of ourselves as a conduit, by allowing these energies to pass through us, and using/channeling them (and letting them use and channel us) the flow continues. I think this is what makes it seem easy, or the product of luck, the right DNA, etc. But if one assumes this is the result of practice, effort, intelligence, etc., then we have to acknowledge it is not simply being born to the right parents, or other form of luck. This may be one of the more difficult things to do in art.</p>

<p>_____________________________________________</p>

<p>I also want to say that if we only mention the work of geniuses, we'll fall into the trap of the spectacular. This ends up being a self-defeating gesture, because things are hard enough without comparing oneself to people of a very rare brilliance, which should be a different thread. </p>

<p>_____________________________________________</p>

<p>We are talking about at least four different aspects here: 1) The passion of the artist/photographer, 2) Possibly the passion/ecstasy being depicted in the subject itself, 3) The encoding of passion into the work and 4) The ability of the viewer to see it in the work. Numbers three and four are the most fascinating to me.</p>

<p>Plus there are different kinds of passions and ecstasies. From throb-lust to intellectual passions to those on the Cross and many more. Anything looked at long enough becomes everything, but this is one thread on an internet forum, which imposes limitations on the breadth of the discourse.</p>

<p> ____________________________________________</p>

<p>I do not think the expression of passion in photography is rare. There are bits of it to be found on a regular basis. It's a matter of degree.</p>

<p>_____________________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, I wasn't going to because I am hoping to achieve more, but the one photo I've made that I would say has the makings is this. Now, there is a literal aspect here, but I don't necessarily think that's a disqualifier. And interestingly, it is black and white.</p>

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

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>Please do not upload images to photo.net that you yourself did not make.</p>

<p>I have yet to see a situation on photo.net where a link to another photographer's work would not suffice.</p>

<p>Thanks, Josh. I have to remember how to do that link (not so much putting an http reference, which is easy but sometimes fails, but the practice of associating a link with a word, like "here").</p>

<p>Very glad to see Luis' essay/guidelines on passion, especially the types 3 and 4, which I wholly agree with. Fred, an interesting and creative image, but not one that I get any perception of passion or ecstacy from. Passion can be quite narrowly defined as a personal perception (which doesn't make it any less valuable), but it is hard I think to create one that speaks in that manner universally (or to many viewers). Some of my personal photo examples speak of a certain passion to me, but I think also that they may well not not convey that embodiment universally. This is partly why I suggested that a photo that embodies passion (other than the common case of a subject that is expressing passion or emotion) is, if not rare, not very typical.</p>

<p>As I said, Arthur, it's not there. I see elements for potential, that's all. I think the tear against the cross, the upward angle move it toward passion. It's fine if you don't see it. It can still serve as a guidepost for me. What's lacking for me is that I think passion requires some sense of movement, and the photo I posted may be too still. Both Luis's pipe metaphor and my reference to orgasm suggest a bursting. That, I think, is missing in the photo, but perhaps if the tear seemed more emergent or were even caught blowing in the wind, that would help, perhaps if the head were suggested to be rising up . . . I'm not suggesting this should be a different photo. I'm quite content with it as is. It was simply an honest attempt to find what I consider to be my closest attempt toward what we're discussing.</p>

<p>Yes, I would agree that out of Luis' four aspects the third and fourth (and really, aren't they the same? if a viewer doesn't see passion in a work, is it really encoded there?) are the important ones.</p>

<p>The first one, photographer's own passion -- if it does not carry over into his work -- is basically his own business. It's hard to talk about it because unless you know that photographer personally you don't see it. People might claim that they have it, but people claim many things...</p>

<p>The second one, images *of* passion, are easy to find. For example, if you look at pictures of porn, sports, or war. They are not all good images of passion, but attempting to represent (not express, but represent, capture) passion and/or ecstasy is part of the brief of these genres.</p>

<p>But the real thing -- when a spark jumps at you from the image and stuns you, when the energy sweeps out and buries you -- that is very hard to do. One can pull on very basic hardwired emotional triggers, but these are mostly tied to negative emotions -- pain, grief, loss.</p>

<p>Maybe one reason why transmitting passion is hard is because the photographer is typically an observer, not the doer. And if you're just an observer then your own passion is necessarily limited and curtailed, you're constrained to attempting to transmit the passion of the doer, the subject, and that gets us back to number two -- images of someone else's passion. Could it be that for a really passionate photograph the author needs to be the doer himself? and be intimately involved in whatever happens in front of the lens?</p>

 

<p>Arthur,</p>

<p>If you just paste in the URL, the photo.net system should automatically make it a link. Go mess around a bit in the testing forum until you feel comfortable, if you like:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/test-posting-forum/</p>

<p>While I, too, am more interested in passionate photos, I think there is a correlation between the photographer's ability to be passionate and a passionate photo emerging. I don't necessarily think it works both ways. In other words, a photographer may be extremely passionate about what he's doing and not make a passionate photo. But I think it's likely that if someone makes a passionate photo, it's because they've been able to achieve a kind of passion* in life and in their photograph-making.</p>

<p>*Here, I think what Luis said is very important. It's more than just a kind of enthusiasm. It's that pent up bursting energy he described so well with his metaphor. I've always seen it as religio-sexual, though I imagine others may not.</p>

<p><strong>. Kaa</strong> - "Yes, I would agree that out of Luis' four aspects the third and fourth (and really, aren't they the same? if a viewer doesn't see passion in a work, is it really encoded there?)"</p>

<p>I think it is possible -- and commonplace -- for viewers to not see things that are encoded in the work (and this sometimes includes academics and connoisseurs), for viewers to see things in a print that they project onto it that aren't there, and for viewers to see things in the print that the photographer hadn't noticed. To me, these are not identical.</p>

<p>I once showed a close-up image of some vibrant green shoots emerging from the blackest soil in a slide show. A young woman in the audience audibly gasped, held her hands to her chest, and rose out of her seat, mouth agape, then sat back down. Later she told me she thought that was one of the most erotic things she had ever seen. I had read the things in the frame as being strongly about the life force and incarnation. Did something else encode itself into the picture on its own? Did I miss that interpretation? Did she project her libido onto it? I'm not sure, but think it is good that images manage to exceed their makers' imaginations and have secrets of their own.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think it is possible -- and commonplace -- for viewers to not see things that are encoded in the work (and this sometimes includes academics and connoisseurs), for viewers to see things in a print that they project onto it that aren't there, and for viewers to see things in the print that the photographer hadn't noticed. To me, these are not identical.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, this is true, of course, but then I'm not sure about the "encoding" part. When you say that passion is encoded in an image, do you mean that the author consciously and deliberately imbued the image with passion? or that some of his energy bled through to the image and stuck to it without him necessarily controlling or even recognizing this process? Must there be intent in encoding?</p>

<p>It still seems to me that in order to claim that there is passion encoded in an image, at least *some* viewers, other than the author, must recognize it. If no one feels it, well then, the author has failed and nothing is encoded. On the other hand, I am sure that there will also be some viewers who will see and feel nothing, who won't be able to access this energy for whatever reason.</p>

<p><strong>. Kaa - "</strong>When you say that passion is encoded in an image, do you mean that the author consciously and deliberately imbued the image with passion?"</p>

<p>Not necessarily. A lot happens subconsciously.</p>

<p>"...or that some of his energy bled through to the image and stuck to it without him necessarily controlling or even recognizing this process?"</p>

<p>That's possible.</p>

<p>"Must there be intent in encoding?"</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p><strong>. Kaa - "</strong>It still seems to me that in order to claim that there is passion encoded in an image, at least *some* viewers, other than the author, must recognize it."</p>

<p>Not necessarily, at least not in the present. If the artist is sufficiently ahead of his time, it may take a long time before someone does.</p>

<p>A few quickly chosen images from memory I see as passionate...</p>

<p>http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/beltran/2009/07/24/Tina_modotti_wires447x625.jpg</p>

<p>http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/3909819651_4a41372a95_o.jpg</p>

<p>http://www.sevensevennine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/dougie7.jpg</p>

<p>http://www.bobdelevante.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/eggleston2.jpg</p>

<p> </p>