Why?

<p>Lately most of the serious discussions in this forum turned into discussions on artists, rather than what we do or think ourselves. If you do not mind me saying, I find that a pity. Not because of the fact that these discussions would be useless or anything, but because it does not seem to push beyond that which has already been said. While, frankly, to me, the litmus test of philosophy is whether one climbs on the shoulders of giants and looks further, or not. <br>

So, a bit what I already hinted at in the one of the last threads; what do you "get out of this forum"? How do the discussions here help you, and do they help you in taking better/other/different pictures?</p>

<p>In my case, discussions have helped me in putting my own thoughts in order; the need to verbalise them created a need to order them. It made me realise I should become more disciplined and aware while taking pictures, more open to the storytelling elements and the bigger and smaller pictures. THis in turn helped me agin in better looking at my own older pictures and other people's work to see why/what works for me, what not.</p>

<p>So, the most philosophical question of them all: why are we here? On this forum, that is.</p>

<p><em>Yes, obviously Fred is much better in starting a topic, but if I don't try I'll never learn.</em></p>

<p>Good question.</p>

<p>I am only an occasional poster here, but a very frequent visitor. I agree with your observation about discussions on artists.</p>

<p>I look at this forum because it is one (albeit relatively minor) reminder among many that I should not just focus on the 'how' of photography as an end in itself - though my modest skills do mean that the 'how' will remain a major focus for a while, its good once in a while to contemplate why it is that I am trying to acquire this skillset and what the broader issues are around its execution.</p>

<p>Plus I like abstract things so there is that 'natural inclination' towards the discussion here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5189561"><em>Wouter Willemse</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 07, 2010; 04:59 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Lately most of the serious discussions in this forum turned into discussions on artists, rather than what we do or think ourselves. If you do not mind me saying, I find that a pity.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Great point, Wouter. Shall I go <em>completely</em> low-brow, here, and make a Star Trek reference? Why yes, I think I shall! I'm reminded of an episode where our heros encounter (and have some friction with) another race that does all of its verbal communicating by referring to notable people and events in the past - because, <em>everyone</em> should know about those important people and the context in which they lived/acted, right? ... and so merely invoking their names was all that was needed to make any given point. And if you didn't grow up in their culture, their references aren't very ... constructive.<br /><br />Once in a while, discussions in this forum take a bit of a turn into that category. Sure, it can be good shorthand to invoke a person/school/period as a way of cutting down on lots of other exposition in a conversation. Hell, I use Monty Python quotes for that very reason. But philosophical discussions are at their best when an idea can be succinctly conveyed in words that describe it, rather than dropping the name of someone else who previously did so. This is especially true when part of your audience is new on the scene and don't have the secret decoder ring.</p>

<p>"<strong>Lately most of the serious discussions in this forum turned into discussions on artists, rather than what we do or think ourselves."</strong></p>

<p>Wouter, I agree, and especially with the second half of this sentence.</p>

<p>I have been trying in my humble way to influence the movement towards one's personal statements of philosophy (or rather, one's statements of personal philosophy) through a number if posts I've made in recent months, even to the point of suggesting that the best way might be to have two forums on philosophy of photography, one devoted to the development and enunciation of one's personal philosophy, and the other dealing with the history of or the discussion of trends in the philosophy of art and photography. To my mind, both would be useful, but my suggestion received a fair amount of flack from some or the simple closed statement of the status quo (the existing definition of the Forum).</p>

<p>If we can keep both approaches within the present forum, so much the better, but it is sometimes a bit of a cause to incite others to speak personally rather than from the third person or from an academic perspective (who thought or said what, when, etc.).</p>

<p>Why do many (but not all) shy away from statements or postulates on personal philosophy of photography? I hope you get some answers to an excellent question.</p>

<p>Bravo Wouter, no need to compare to Fred, you are one of the other bright spots on PN. You have established yourself as an original thinker in past forums. most Refreshing.<br /> "While, frankly, to me, the litmus test of philosophy is whether one climbs on the shoulders of giants and looks further, or not." "..why are we here?" Like you I think (?), just one more twisting avenue to explore along the way.<br /> Thanks for posting this one.</p>

<p>I'm here to work on my writing. More seriously, I like learning new things, finding out about photographers whose work I might find interesting, helping me articulate what I do and don't like about other people's work, feeling like a beginner in photography to a certain extent, not sure whether it's a trade or an art, not sure how much that should matter.</p>

<p>Talking about other people's philosophy of photography can be somewhat like the writing students who have one piece of work that they show to all the different famous teacher and then that becomes what they're doing in writing, figuring out how different other writers respond to their one piece, not working on anything more after several years.</p>

<p>I think photography tends to be something other than verbal, and am somewhat suspicious of attempts to frame it verbally, though not so suspicious that I don't hang out there. I also even have some reservations about the efficacy of words of one type of discourse to say vital things about works in another sort of verbal discourse, but then I'm very odd.</p>

<p>When I first started taking pictures seriously, I had a tendency to think of Philosophy and Photography as somehow being at odds. Having studied and loved Philosophy for so many years, I tended to think of art and of my own foray into photography as solutions to what I saw as the more intellectual and perhaps less personal approach that Philosophy often takes.</p>

<p>The more I photograph and the older and (hopefully) wiser I get, I realize I don't have to choose. This isn't a competition. I am by nature philosophical. It feels pretty good to me, though I don't stake many dogmatic philosophical positions. I like thinking and discussing, wondering and imponderables. The "answers" are less important to me than is the questioning, discussion, and search.</p>

<p>Photography doesn't have to be a solution for me or the next step beyond Philosophy or the replacement of my more rational and logical side. It can, in fact, reflect that side of me while also moving it forward and helping it to evolve. Photography also gets me in touch with a more passionate side of myself. I see photography as tapping into something that's likely been there all the time (passion), just not having found the outlet it needed until recently. I also see it allowing me to be comfortable in my own skin. I don't have to reject thinking or philosophizing in order to photograph. The great thing about photographs and about any expressive or artistic outlet is their adaptive nature and their ability to incorporate so many different methods and approaches. I don't have to give up being Fred in order to photograph. I can honor and respect myself and whatever proclivities toward rational thinking I have while also allowing myself the leeway to see and experience in different ways. I can wander a long way from home without having to burn down the house.</p>

<p>My more recent studies in Philosophy were mostly in the area of personal identity. What is a person? What are the significant factors about our identity (which, of course, does not have to be something stagnant, but can be ever changing)? Am I the "same" person I was when I was a kid? A different person? What is my potential as a person? My master's thesis, completed around 2004, was about the ethics of bringing new life into the world. What do we owe future people and future generations? Do they have the kinds of "rights" living people do?</p>

<p>As I age, I've become more aware of my passions, my prejudices, my tastes, and my physical self as it relates to my rational self. I am surrounded by aging friends and an aging gay community. I've also always liked people-watching. The path my photographing has so far taken me seems to be exploring these things. This was not a conscious decision on my part. It seemed to come naturally and seemed just to be where I went. Having realized the significance to me and how genuinely drawn I've been to the subjects I'm drawn to, I have thought about the aging process and my own and others' "physicality" a lot. So much of my work has a consciousness at play though I don't necessarily consciously set out to make statements with photographs or imbue them with messages.</p>

<p>My photographs are personal as is my philosophy. I find the two blending nicely for me.</p><div></div>

<p>What I'd like from this forum is something akin to the Algonquin Round Table or the communications among Dadaists I just got to see at a Man Ray exhibit at the Jewish Museum in New York or what I remember from my group of friends and acquaintances back in college, who liked to sit around talking about philosophy and art, how we did it, how it reflected who we were, where we were going. I'd like the discussions to be more constructive and stimulating than competitive. I'd like us to build on ideas put forth rather than to pounce on them. I thank Wouter for the willingness to discuss process. I'd like to see us self moderate more. I think, as a group, we should try to figure out practical and specific ways to rid these discussions of the often nonsensical noise that gets in the way of productive discussions. I'd welcome any ideas toward that end. I'd like to see less lengthy quoting. One thing I thought of recently was starting a thread on a specific topic and requesting that all posts made be NON-REACTIVE. That is, no matter what anyone else says, everyone would be asked to approach the subject anew and personally, rather than discuss what someone else said. Another thread might be one where we agree NOT to disagree, just as an exercise. That is, if someone says something we can build on and add to, we should. If someone says something we reject, we keep quiet about it. These would be mere exercises. Obviously, following such restricted guidelines would in the long run be stifling, but I think in the short run some threads along these lines might put us in a more productive and constructive mode here.</p>

<p>I try making the point once in a while that the philosophy of {an activity} is not necessarily the material professional philosophers discuss. Individuals can have an approach to a specific activity that does not define them as people or identify their role in the great scheme of things. It makes just as much sense to discuss a person's philosophy of driving a car as it does his philosophy of taking a picture. </p>

<p>How do you know this is the material requested? You ask simple things like, "What are you doing?" And "Why are you doing it that way?" Both of these questions should lead to a discussion of the activity itself, the practitioner's experience with it and the sense and meaning of the specific project at hand. What's going on at the moment I trip the shutter? What do I do about it later? What is there to say about the experience and the result when it's all done?</p>

<p>I commented one time that it strikes me as odd that a forum about the philosophy of photography should attract professional philosophers who practice the skills learned in the pursuit of their careers there. Anyone can like photography. And there's no reason to exclude anyone. I guess if there's no Philosophy.net to go to you find the next best thing. Well it DOES say philosophy after all!</p>

<p>What looks like wheel spinning to me is doubtless of some technical necessity to one who understands and follows the protocols and paths meaningful in the actual practice of Philosophy. It must be frustrating to a person who knows these ropes to have unskilled laypeople run roughshod over their observations with whatever whoknowswhat they press into their computer keyboards. It is the Internet after all, open to the large and the small and everything else as well. </p>

<p>I also agree with Wouter. I've thought many of the threads here, if they are not wrong-headed, are at least on the wrong track for the kind of material I think would be useful and interesting to me. I really don't know the best connection between photography and art considered as abstract ideas. This strikes me as one of those eternal questions that can never be answered. Does anyone think a person would actually seize up just before tripping the shutter to utter, "OMG is it really art? Should I stop to figure it out first?"</p>

<p>I can't help but wonder what a forum called the "Science of Photography" would attract.</p>

<p>As far as proposing ideas and names for PN forums goes "The Study of Photography" should be very satisfying to the academics past and present who want both abstract and factual discussions concerning the ideas they find embodied there. This suggests and invites the sort of thing they are trained to do. "Which school of Art does Photography represent most completely?" with it's 100 responses and three senseless circular discussions well off the mark (including my own humorous observations) would be right at home there! </p>

<p>The other forum could morph into something more like "The Photographer's Philosophy - A place for photographers to discuss the ideas and principles that animate their work." I think I might learn valuable insights into my own photography in the new incarnation.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think too that Wouter is right.<br /> I'm among those that often read the discussions on this forum but rarely contribute to them. One of the reasons is that I find the discussion too restricted to purely philosophical approaches and therefor too strictly respecting the very title chosen for this particular forum: <em>Philosophy of photography</em>. Not having much philosophical training as background myself and surely not mastering the rules of philosophical discourses, it is very difficult to contribute. I'm convinced hat the great majority of not only PN members in general but also the great majority of those that would wish to participate in some of the discussion on this specific forum are finding themselves in the same situation as me.<br>

<br /> This being said, or rather written, personally I don't believe that an philosophical approach is especially fertile for understanding photography - our own and that of others. I do however believe strongly in the role of science and some kind of academic approach in order to answer some of the questions related to the WHY?:</p>

<ul>

<li>why we shoot photos and in case why not</li>

<li>the role of photos in society,</li>

<li>the predominance of certain categories of photography (B/W, cats, babies, nudes...),</li>

<li>history of photography,</li>

<li>future of photography,</li>

<li>economics of photography,</li>

<li>relation between technics/technology and photography,</li>

<li>museumology of photography (the why of collections and purchase)</li>

<li>cultural diversity and photography</li>

<li>photography and law (<em>forbidden pictures</em>)</li>

<li>private photography / public photography</li>

<li>photography and age/gender/social status...</li>

<li>photography and private/collective memory</li>

<li>benchmarking photography</li>

<li>etc etc.</li>

</ul>

<p>Some of these question can surely be treated as philosophical questions but would clearly benefit from a much broader approach. <br /> Being a social scientist of training myself I find it much more gratifying to try to answer a broader <em>WHY</em> of Wouter by drawing on sociology, (social)psychology, anthropology, ethnology, economics as well as, in case, on philosophy.<br /> I would however also find it important that we do our outmost of not falling into the ditch of discussing any of such subject matters in a manner where only few and in some cases only the two to three that actually participate in the discussion can understand contribute. We need as a question of respect, make the effort of finding a way of communicating that is as inclusive as possible.<br>

<br /> I would therefor support those that propose to rename this specific forum into: "<strong>THE STUDY OF PHOTOGRAPHY</strong>".</p>

<p>To the suggestion that we who post here should stick to describing our personal philosophy of photography, or about why we photograph:</p>

<p>I will never do that.</p>

<p>Words, imperatives ("I do," "I am," "I always") about what one does with the camera are nails, commitments. They prevent, restrict, diminish, narrow ... (I said it or wrote it, so I must have meant it, right? Especially in this forum where one inevitably is driven to defend a position ever more aggressively.) Had you not said those words, taken that position, you'd be free to go ... wherever.</p>

<p>I want to be fluid, supple, acting and reacting to what I am finding/knowing in real time, not to what I found and knew yesterday, or five minutes ago or whenever I posted a personal philosophy, or took some stance in this forum.</p>

<p>... however ...</p>

<p>At the same time, I don't want to be reinventing the wheel. I don't want to fly blind. I don't want to spend a lifetime chasing an idea, a mystery that turns out to have been done better -- or proved ridiculous -- by some other photographer, artist or philosopher of long ago that I would have known about if I'd had a clue.</p>

<p>... therefore ...</p>

<p>I need a map. Philosophy is that map. What older, wiser (absent, often dead) people have said (quotes!) and made (pictures, art, writings...). Philosophy shows me the terrain -- over there are swamps, over here are dragons, in that direction are places nobody has been ... Knowing the history, the map, of ideas and of where those who have gone before me have already been makes me more free. Given a map, I can make fewer mistakes -- yet I am not directed or committed to go to any particular place or in any particular direction. I remain supple, fluid, acting and reacting in real time.</p>

<p>If I knew where I was going I wouldn't want to go there.</p>

<p>OK, this went places I did not expect... It's not at all my intention to see anything changed about this forum, I merely wanted to highlight a phenomenon I noticed in some recent threads. Sorry if I gave any other impression. That said, some of the suggestions sound interesting.<br />And to anyone who feels "restricted" in participating because of a lack in philosophical or art education, don't. Original minds and thoughts at play here, not known and trusted institutions. At least, that's how I feel and what attracts me to this forum.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I knew where I was going I wouldn't want to go there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Julie, great one, and your post was along the lines of what I hoped to hear (too) in this thread. And a lot of what you say resonates with my own ideas on the topic.<br />Fred, I like the idea of a non-reactive thread, though it will be hard to "moderate". But as a one time trial, it would be a nice experiment.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter - "</strong> So, the most philosophical question of them all: why are we here? On this forum, that is.<br>

<em>Yes, obviously Fred is much better in starting a topic, but if I don't try I'll never learn. "</em></p>

<p> A revealing statement there, Wouter. One that illustrates part of the problem with this forum. You're doing just fine here. You always have. Fred's a great guy but he's just another member here, on equal footing with the rest of us. Wouter, your thread has lead to unexpected places, and it's all to the good.</p>

<p>Why am I here? Primarily, to enjoy myself sharing exchanges with other PN members, particularly for the unexpected, and hopefully to learn something. I can't say that my photography has changed directly because of this forum, but some of the exchanges, and the rare glimmer of wisdom have increased my understanding, which is reason enough for me to be here.</p>

<p><strong>Anders - </strong> "We need as a question of respect, make the effort of finding a way of communicating that is as inclusive as possible."</p>

<p> Bravo! Yes, instead of dictating how and what others should be posting.</p>

<p>"<strong>THE STUDY OF PHOTOGRAPHY</strong> " sounds much more inclusive.</p>

<p><strong>Julie - "</strong> To the suggestion that we who post here should stick to describing our personal philosophy of photography, or about why we photograph:<br>

I will never do that."</p>

<p> Thank you. What's funny is, how those who carry on endlessly about themselves and their work, like a realtor showing a house, or an infomercial, convey far more self-serving noise than signal, while people like you, Clive, and others, saying next to nothing directly about your work, speak volumes. I feel I know infinitely and intimately more about either of your philosophies, and more importantly, why you do what you do. I don't think of this as a form of shyness, or reticence.</p>

<p> Sometimes the way to where flowers and nectar may be found can be best conveyed by dancing.</p>

<p> A plurality of approaches seems best on here. Dictating how one should reply, or cater to others, will leave this forum a desert inhabited by the same 3-4 people. Maximum degrees of freedom and inclusivity will guarantee maximum participation. Say what you want in your own way, and so will everyone else. This doesn't have to be an esoteric form of crossing swords, nor the photographic equivalent of Oprah magazine. If something/someone bothers you, it's quite simple to skip over the offending thoughts. To those that expect a catering service, get over yourselves.</p>

<p><strong></strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Wouter- "...I find that a pity. Not because of the fact that these discussions would be useless or anything, but because it does not seem to push beyond that which has already been said. While, frankly, to me, the litmus test of philosophy is whether one climbs on the shoulders of giants and looks further, or not."<br>

First of all, photography is ultimately about images, and image making. To say otherwise would be naive. Words don't do justice to the gravity of photography. Photographers, too, aren't the best of writers- we make pictures to "say" what we're thinking. Unfortunately we have to use verbal/written language to convey some of those extremely complex notions.</p>

<p>Secondly, being philosophical has nothing to do with looking further. The two things are mutually exclusive. You <em>can</em> look forward and be philisophical, but it ain't necessary. I look at all forms of philosophy and deconstruct or apply or whatever it is we do with different ideas. I think you may be mistaken about philosophy- isn't it built upon the shoulders of great thinkers? Without the ideas of the past to reference, what do we have to build upon? </p>

<p>I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I think the forum does pretty well. I personally have learned a lot. I am more informed, have better formed ideas of what I am creating and how photography in general is perceived. Even the bickering is good- the people here have a passion for this medium. What more do you want?</p>

 

<p><em>Without the ideas of the past to reference, what do we have to build upon? <br /></em><br />Reason. Objective reality. Awareness of what you, personally, are looking to say using photography as a form of communication.<br /><br />My point isn't that study and awareness of previous thinkers is time wasted, but rather that <em>concepts</em> exist whether or not their prior champions or best (or worst!) in-practice examples are known to you. It's nice not to have to re-invent the wheel, of course. But much like it's difficult to produce good photographs without personally understanding how the technology (and light) works, a world view that you can't build up personally from scratch could well be a philosophical house of cards.<br /><br />So whether or not you use earlier thinkers' works to grease the skids, it helps to excavate the foundations yourself, to better know you're not building on sand (and to make sure it's not turtles, all the way down). This also helps you, later, to avoid mixed metaphors. I'm still working on that part.</p>

<p>I come to this forum primarily because I am hungry for discussions of photography that go deeper, and cover different topics, than I come across on most photography forums. I have nothing against casual or technical discussions. But those can be found all over the internet. When I come to this forum I'm generally assured that I won't find a tutorial on how to clone myself in Photoshop, or make it look like I'm floating in air. I won't find someone touting their umpteenth lens acquisition, or positing that film/digital is better than digital/film.<br>

I will generally find some pretty interesting people possessed of varied and interesting opinions. I will sometimes be exposed to photographers I had not previously heard of, or I will be exposed to hitherto unknown writings/facets of photographers I have heard of.<br>

If I make a passing critical remark about a photographer or photographic movement, I can pretty much be assured that someone on this board will challenge me on it. Even if I make a researched critical remark, someone on this board will challenge me on it! And through those challenges I have learned, and, hopefully, grown. How often have I read some passage in some book about photography and found myself having a one-sided conversation with the printed page? In some ways, this forum is a method to have multi-sided conversations about more than just the commonly discussed aspects of photography. The discussions here, even in a thread whose title may sound simplistic at first, often reach to a deeper level than I find elsewhere. <br>

Many times I just read and contribute nothing. Often, by the time I formulate what I want to say in a particular thread, someone else has already posted it. Often, I want to thank someone for what they have said, or introduced me to, but do not do so because a simple "thank you" does not seem substantial enough to post. Often I find my own photography inspired or invigorated by something I read here, or some ancillary material it causes me to look up.<br>

I am rarely, if ever, bored by this forum or its contributors.<br>

As to whether there should be more discussions about "our" work and opinions, and less about known photographer's work and opinions: I tend to agree with the points previously made by Julie, Luis and Martin in that regard. That is not a criticism (though Luis G"s "<em>those who carry on endlessly about themselves and their work, like a realtor showing a house, or an infomercial</em>" brought a cruel smile to my lips) just a personal preference. And I think that our individual opinions, and the approach that we take to our work, can be revealed by what we have to say about the work and approaches of those who came before us.<br>

This is a good discussion, Wouter, and in its way has already revealed aspects of many of those who contribute here. I think Martin summed it up well: "the people here have a passion for this medium". </p>

<p> </p>

 

<p>Several appear to wish these threads were dumbed-down, for maximum participation. </p>

<p>... wishing we wouldn't frame ideas around the work of photographers whose relatively well-known work is in fact framed by their ideas. Seems an odd thing to wish for.</p>

<p>Me, I don't think all ideas are of equal weight, any more than that all photographers are equal...and what's the point of purportedly photographic ideas expressed by people whose photography is unknown?</p>

<p>...I benefit by thinking about how Salgado's work, or Arnold Newman's, or Phylo Darin's is different from mine, and about their similarities. The differences between these reference points and my own work aren't primarily technical or financial, they mostly have to do with photographic philosophy.</p>

<blockquote>...</blockquote>

<p>Three observations:<br>

1) Photography and art may overlap, but they are not similar concepts. Commercial photographers are often well-past thinking about "art" but may be more philosophic about their work than are putative "artist photographers."</p>

<p>2) Words are not ideas. Unfortunately, threads on this Forum often pretend otherwise, typically basing arguments around quirky, personal "definitions" of words.</p>

<p>3) I think it's often useful to frame "philosophic" thoughts and questions around the work of photographers some of us know (eg Minor White). That <em>most</em> of us may not<em> yet</em> know that particular photographer's work or ideas (also eg Minor White's) is an opportunity to learn, not an opportunity do dumb-down. For dumbing-down fans, there's always Fox.</p>

 

<p>I'm not sure whether my original first post raised the idea of more regulation, dumbing down, or insisting on specific types of answers in discussions. If so, that was not the intent, and actually in many ways quite the opposite. Anyway, since it seems to be recurring in several answers: I do not want to change this board, I do not want to dictate anybody anything, I do not want to get rid of specific types of discussions, none of that.<br>

But actually, the answers to this thread are giving much the type of discussion I do like.</p>

<p>John: I don't think these two things are mutually exclusive. It's perfectly reasonable to hope that - perhaps just a little more often - we hear one's personal take on matters. I <em>like</em> to hear what John Kelly has to say, out of his own experience and thinking - rather than "Well, Minor White said that..." almost to the exclusion of well-formed personal expression (not picking on you in particular, but you touched it last!).<br /><br />As for "others" and "some" and "dumbing down fans," it's OK ... you can refer to me by name. I have very thick skin.</p>

<p>"Several appear to wish these threads were dumbed-down, for maximum participation."<br /> John, I had a very different, contrary response to what I read. From the onset I took Wouter's original post and several subsequent posts to be looking to move the discussions beyond the shoulders of the 'masters'. As I see it the reward is in moving on from the masters into developing our own voice. Moving on beyond the work of the past, into our own voice does not mean ignoring the giants or preclude referencing the giants. Of course not. Standing on the shoulders and considering the journey over is stagnation to me.<br /> You started a compelling post, an exploration of Minor White. The dumbing down imo, was reflected in the resistance to building upon the ideas Minor White. What is the purpose of the framing ideas for photographers if not to learn and build upon the ideas being offered, to look further as Wouter suggests. "Words are not ideas." Clearly original ideas can be triggered, discovered by words, even quirky ones. The dumbing down is often found in the getting hung up on relatively minor quirks, or being repetitive ad nauseam about a personal viewpoint as if it hasn't been heard. The dumbing down is already an issue imo. It is not academic, it is the lack of original thinking.</p>

<p>even now I feel like I am dumbing it down.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Julie, my gut tells me we are probably not that far apart. Yet when I read what you wrote here, I just don't get it.</p>

<p>To me, the shoulders of others, the map (as you refer to philosophers' and photographers' words and deeds of the past) is just the beginning. When I hear a worthwhile or stimulating quote, it leads me to ask, "Now what?" If anything, for me, just leaving it there on the shoulders of the past, not taking it a step further, would be closing a door.</p>

<p>I can relate well to your not wanting to be nailed in, tied down, or otherwise limited. I don't understand why expressing your own relationship to someone else's famous quote and how it might reflect, effect, inspire, or relate to what you do would be to impose a limit on yourself. And all quoting aside, I don't understand how expressing personal ideas is limiting.</p>

<p>Having philosophical thoughts and personal ideas, fluid but expressible as they are, don't box me in any more than presenting one or a bunch of photos boxes me in. That's because I know tomorrow I will continue to evolve, continue to build upon what I said today or photographed today. Nothing I say is ever meant to represent a finished product or the totality of my potential or even my current state, just as no single photograph defines me. I may completely reject what I did yesterday or last week. My thoughts, my philosophies, my photographs are part of a continuing process. They would only box me in if I allowed them to. Personal expressions of ideas didn't shut anything once they were said for Minor White, Edward Weston, or Renee Descartes -- who continued building upon their own ideas and continued being productive even once those ideas were articulated -- and they don't shut anything for me. We quote their ideas precisely because they open something up. Why wouldn't our own ideas do the same thing?<br /> </p>