What's it all about, Alfie?

<p>The world we see is supposedly the equivalent of desktop icons that are convenient for handling the underlying quantum reality. In that construct, what is a picture? Can it help us peel the paint off an icon and see our iconification process at work, if not more of the namelessness beyond? Pictures do not normally call for action - there is no need to catch the vase that the cat is knocking off the table - but we can feel the impulse and connect with the beauty of the cat before putting the picture away. (The picture has no life, but still comes alive after the death of the cat. The vase was never alive, but we loved it.) Looking at a street photo of a woman I felt beautiful, I was stunned to have to puzzle out what hit me - somehow the perceived possibility of interaction and being seen blinds me to the mundane reality of the person. That would be one case of the photo showing more of the underlying reality of the moment, insofar as we trust recorders without feelings, but I want to see something really quantum and beyond what I'd see if I had no feelings and could freeze time. (Freeze time to what? Could there be a photo with 0 sec shutter speed? Technology gives incredibly short shutter times for exploding atom bombs, but still some time elapses to get a photo that we study at our leisure, like Proust but in English translation. Making sense of reality with pictures turns time to Tarot, collapsing meanings like shuffled and splayed cards, but to what end?) </p>

<p>Ok, I'm giving up on seeing more of quantum reality directly through photos, except insofar as my processes of perception and reaction themselves are part of that quantum reality, and I can study those by looking at pics. What I learn is partly what I naturally missed as I was taking the picture, but also from organizing the photos in various ways I see my own patterns of looking - how my interests condition my reality - and odd sensations arise in response, which are both scary, because I see my limitations, and intoxicating, because it feels like I'm getting deeper into my own circuitry, seeing my archetypes not in the pictures but in the spaces between. </p><div></div>

<p>I'm sorry but your post is loaded with too much artsy gobbledygook for me to understand. Perhaps if you could rephrase your basic point in simple to understand language for people of inferior intellect such as myself maybe I could see where you are going with it. In the meantime I'll take a stab at it anyway. One takes a picture and that's it. Life goes on. Whatever meaning it has for the photographer is whatever he/she endows it with. Same for those who view the picture.</p>

<p>How do you endow a photo with meaning? How much choice do you have and how much is hard-wired?</p>

 

<p>Can you enjoy a photo without having to endow it with "meaning?" It seems that some people just have to have "meaning" and others not. Just participating in Julie's recent post in this forum on "writing about a particular picture" was exhausting just hearing different people's attributions to meaning and how emotionally attached they are to their opinions. I believe we are very hard wired through genetics, and very soft wired through our personal life experiences to "see" what we are going to see in a particular photo. When I enjoy a photo, whether its a landscape or a street photo its pretty non-verbal, more intuitive than emotional even. Does that make sense? BTW just went to your site and love your photography. Very different from my vision but I liked it a lot. Again though, I can't say much about meaning, just liked it. If you are familiar with Jung's personality types, I'm definitely an "intuitive" type and less of a "thinking" type. </p>

<p>There are many types of people. Yes, there are intuitive types and thinking types. I think that's a genuine state of affairs.</p>

<p>I also believe there are people invested in being or claiming to be intuitive and non-thinking and there are people who use it as an excuse for simply not learning stuff or not becoming more informed. It's a delicate balance. This goes along with my own observation of a kind of rise of anti-intellectualism globally that I think is unfortunate, made obvious in recent current events.</p>

<p>Steve may have genuinely found Julie's thread too exhausting but I think many simply use this as an excuse not to think much at all and instead to simplify everything beyond reason, which so often is just a way to stick heads in the sand or make excuses for ignorance, which seems to have become something to value these days.</p>

<p>Bill's question, IMO, as simplified for the sake of Marc's professed ignorance, boils down to the centuries-old question of freedom vs. determinism, about which much of importance has been written but would probably be too exhausting for many to read.</p>

<p>It might be that art and creativity are born of the tension between those two things, freedom and determinism, which will never be resolved but still has interesting nuances worthy of discussion and supply just the kind of internal and external struggles artists historically have dealt with, until contemporary times where art has been reduced to a matter of likes and dislikes, where art is no more mature than kids coloring with crayons (not that there's anything wrong with kids, crayons, or naive art). But I do thank my stars painters like Munch and photographers like Nan Goldin produced work out of their struggles and not out of the sometimes more impotent comfort of wanting to like what they do and what they see.</p>

<p>Fred, I do respect your ideas and I think you are very informed and intelligent. I agree with much of what you say. I still think there are very different types of people who think very differently about such matters. For me, and just me, photography is not an intellectual pursuit. I do find it exhausting to analyze it to death verbally. I'm not the only one. Did you notice Ian's observation in Julies thread: "talking about photography is like dancing about architecture." I actually am a very intelligent and creative person in all aspects of my life and work and I am well recognized for it by others, and I work in the medical field where the people who respect my creativity are intelligent too. I just have a different way of pursuing photography than the more thinking types of people, like you. </p>

<p>Steve, I'm really sorry to hear that my thread is hard for you. I forget that art writing is not everybody's cup of tea.</p>

<p>I'd like to go against Fred a little bit and say that it's not a matter of being more intelligent or intellectual; rather it's that I love finding out what is going on in other people's mind(s). The only way I can find that out is by reading or listening to them talk. That's ultimately all it boils down to. What do other people see? What do other people think?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I want to add that, thinking I am not intelligent enough for this is actually an impediment to understanding much of art discussions and criticisms. I don't think it is about intelligence or that the writer has some hidden message that has to be deciphered. It is about approaching with an open undaunted mind and feeling, empathizing and resonance. I try and I fail sometimes and I move on. Other times I succeed, but I never paint everything with the same color of contempt or intangibility. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Did you notice Ian's observation in Julies thread: "talking about photography is like dancing about architecture."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. I thought it was foolish and juvenile. There are many dancers who've been inspired by other arts such as architecture. I attended a dance recital recently in a warehouse in Germany. The audience actually followed the dancers throughout the building and the dance moves were very much in harmony and tension with the architecture. Those dancers were very much dancing about architecture (as well as other things). All arts are able to comment on other arts and they often do. Do you think photorealist painters weren't commenting on photography? Do you think Pictorialist photographers weren't commenting on painting? Do you think Picasso's paintings don't talk about sculpture? Do you think Warhol's films don't talk about stills? Do you think Dorothea Lange's photos don't tell stories? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>For me, and just me, photography is not an intellectual pursuit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find it unhelpful to divide pursuits into intellectual/non-intellectual or intuitive/non-intuitive. I don't think it works that way. Every pursuit is a balance of the two and a lot more things. And photographers who intellectualize in forums about photography don't necessarily pursue their own photography intellectually. They may just be as intuitive and inspired when shooting as you are. </p>

<p>Steve, glad you liked my site. In one way endowing a photo with meaning is like reading the ingredients on your breakfast cereal - optional. On the other hand, when you see the pic or eat the cereal, something is still happening involving meaning from the pic or tasting the food. I'm after teasing apart the taste by comparing and contrasting different pics, to taste my taste. So the result is the live understanding you achieve, rather than some kind of verbal analysis, which is another fun room to hang in, as we are doing.</p>

<p>Fred, I relate to Marc's overload since I experience it myself when reading about deep learning. (Here's a cool quote I do understand.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Our focus is on reinforcement learning methods that involve learning while interacting with the environment, which evolutionary methods do not do (unless they evolve learning algorithms, as in some of the approaches that have been studied).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your reference to the political situation is apropos in my opinion but not constructive (not trying to be mean). To be exact, I didn't simplify my question, I am just trying to start a dialog with what's on the table, an opening socratic gambit. I think that is the best approach for dealing with folk who give up on their minds.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>talking about photography is like dancing about architecture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a former modern dancer on an art museum's staff, I will pass on this with a giggle and a confession that I skip a lot of such discussion myself. Aside from the lack of jobs, there is a reason I didn't stay in philosophy.</p>

<p> <br>

</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Can you enjoy a photo without having to endow it with "meaning?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>More like "motivation" as in being able to detect the motivation behind what aided the photographer in capturing a subject within a frame that makes it at least appear different from all the other images of the same subject captured with similar "copied" approaches or motivations. This creates an underlying random pattern of dialect that forms basic image language or an internal conversation sensed or directly detected by the viewer. </p>

<p>For example the current technical discussion on defining macro photography focuses on a motivation centered on rules for capturing fine sharp detail in small areas using a close up lens. Using the same rules the motivation can be altered in such a way to capture a subject that doesn't focus on capturing sharp as a tack fine detail but more on capturing unconventional subjects using composition, lighting and textural contrasts to speak a different image language to the viewer.</p>

<p>For example I shot at close up of a simple leaf taken at different times of the year and location. Can anyone tell a different motivation was employed to capture a macro shot of a leaf and what was that motivation?</p><div></div>

<p>BTW I think Bill Ross's cat picture conveys a longing for the love of a pet with a kind of light hearted sillyness in the image language reminiscent of Polaroid snap shots thumb-tacked to work place bulletin boards as a remnant of the working stiff.</p>

<p>Love the balanced modular composition and colors conveyed in the two separate pictures made to work as one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also believe there are people invested in being or claiming to be intuitive and non-thinking and there are people who use it as an excuse for simply not learning stuff or not becoming more informed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What are we to learn and become more informed about in the world of creative expression that's of importance? What does it serve or improve upon that needs improving?</p>

<p>I'm finding as the years go on that a lot of this intellectualism is sourced from an old world view of thinking that being informed through free expression will somehow improve society but there's never any evidence or an attempt to make a direct connection on how that's suppose to happen if that's even possible. How does being informed on this level of intellectualism improve society?</p>

<p>What is the purpose of balancing freedom vs determinism? Why is this necessary?</p>

<p>Phil, your Joel Meyerowitz quotation earlier on, is pure delight. <br>

I copy it below, hang it on my wall, not to be forgotten.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>when you're on the street, and, as you're walking along, a woman turns the corner going away from you, and for an instant you have a glimpse of the side of her face, of the gesture of her shoulder, the shape of her body, and you are <em>committed</em> ... You are in love for an instant, or your senses are <em>rocked </em>for an instant. That person then disappears and is lost to you forever. What you <em>feel </em>in that instant, that glimpse of something just out of reach, is what tells you to make a photograph. It is a <em>feeling. </em>That's my physical equivalent out there. For a moment she fills that place that is always open, a place where sensation can reside for an instant ...<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks !</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What are we to learn and become more informed about in the world of creative expression that's of importance? What does it serve or improve upon that needs improving?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, from having read your posts over the years, I suspect there would be nothing in it for you. I've talked about what's in it for me in a lot of forums. I suspect you don't read that stuff with much interest or depth or you wouldn't be asking me the question, and I won't waste my time answering you since I've done so before on this very subject.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What are we to learn and become more informed about in the world of creative expression that's of importance?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Creative expression is an inborn gift, but it is enhanced and enriched by wisdom and insight, which comes via learning and exchange of knowledge. Some may be pioneers, but most of us benefit from informed discussions and readings and relations with multiple disciplines of knowledge. The trick is to maintain an open mind and not be a bigot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your reference to the political situation is apropos in my opinion but not constructive (not trying to be mean).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bill, please don't ever worry about being "mean" to me. I can take it. As a matter of fact, I prefer honest responses even when they're tough. Gets my juices flowing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As a former modern dancer on an art museum's staff, I will pass on this with a giggle and a confession that I skip a lot of such discussion myself. Aside from the lack of jobs, there is a reason I didn't stay in philosophy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to be mean . . . LOL . . . but given your OP here, this is hysterical to read and kind of fails the hypocrite test.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How much choice do you have and how much is hard-wired?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Munch's and Goldin's work seems to show this struggle. Munch battled depression and psychosis over which he presumably didn't have all that much control. He chose to express himself by painting and drawing, to reach beyond these things binding him. Goldin was abused, presumably a state much out of her control. She chose to free herself or at least share something about it through her photography. I'm gay, which I believe is hard-wired but I also believe continues to be a choice. My work is inspired, in part, by some of that.</p>

<p>OP - "Making sense of reality with pictures turns time to Tarot, collapsing meanings like shuffled and splayed cards, but to what end?"</p>

<p>The end seems to be even more change and what's the point of all that change? I know that the answer is that "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."(MLK, Jr.). The currently acknowledged forces of nature are: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the Higgs force. The as yet to be acknowledged sixth physical force is love. Love, like each the other five, is a fundamental, an irreducible. Love doesn't boil down to anything else. Add to those 6 forces a sense of one's presence as a 'self of sorts' in the world and you have the 7th force of nature: that nature 'knows' it exists. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>kind of fails the hypocrite test</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do I have to read everything you write on any thread not to be a hypocrite? Is a dyslexic person hypocritical for trying to participate in society, to pick a simple analogy? I see a lot of repeated cycles and dead ends when I try to read a lot of stuff in general, and get rebuffed when I bring my project into the discussion, which you may gather is hard to avoid, so am staying on my own ground with what moves me forward with my life.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Add to those 6 forces a sense of one's presence as a 'self of sorts' in the world and you have the 7th force of nature: that nature 'knows' it exists.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I'm exploring: the knowledge of existence. My site has a complex personality that chooses pics also based on your dynamic behavior, so it is a first step toward synthesizing being, towards revolutionizing how we understand it. For the photographer whose pics are in it, it also lets you analyze your way of seeing and style, towards the deeper things discussed.</p>

<p>By the way, the slide show option in my pnet 'glued pairs' folder makes an interesting experience.</p>

<p>Re quoted Joel Meyerowitz "What you <em>feel </em>in that instant, that glimpse of something just out of reach, is what tells you to make a photograph. It is a <em>feeling. </em>That's my physical equivalent out there. For a moment she fills that place that is always open, a place where sensation can reside for an instant ..."<br>

<br>

Joel has a feeling of something being out of reach. She is out of reach yet she is seen daily. Our shadows follow us around. So does our anima. (I can't speak for the women who are the unfortunate objects of such attention.) Where ever you go, there you are. Where ever you go, she is there. You can count on that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do I have to read everything you write on any thread not to be a hypocrite?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Not what I was talking about. I was talking about your making an issue of not participating in philosophical discussions and not staying in philosophy while starting this thread off with what I think can be characterized as a fairly deep philosophical musing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was talking about your making an issue of not participating in philosophical discussions and not staying in philosophy while starting this thread off with what I think can be characterized as a fairly deep philosophical musing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, I cherish my amateur status on a variety of fronts. Put another way, the physical condition of the members of the Philosophy Department creeped me out as a dancer. I just don't have the brain cells to digest every philosophical issue, so I can sympathize with people who can't cope. And I often don't read deeply to participate here especially because I've been censored (including text selectively deleted from my posts), banned from posting for a month, and criticized for bringing in my project, in fact not sure what thread I'm hanging by now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Where ever you go, she is there. You can count on that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So far so good.</p><div></div>

<p>Bill I need more time to explore your site link.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And I stay away here especially because I've been censored (including text selectively deleted from my posts), banned from posting for a month, and criticized for bringing in my project</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry to hear all that. PN has become a place not conducive to free expression. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry to hear all that. PN has become a place not conducive to free expression.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That reminds me to save what has been written so far, offline. They don't tell you when they delete text, so it can be confusing.</p>