Two interesting philosophical essays

[mike butler]

Hi all,

 

I haven't been to this site in a while:

 

http://www.naturephotographers.net

 

But this month features a fascinating piece by Guy Tal on cynicism and another one on existentialism and

photography.

 

Thought you might be interested.

 

But what I really wanted to ask is what you all thought about this digital thing? Do you think it'll catch on?

 

;-)

[mike butler]

That link could cause a little confusion, sorry. These will get you right there:

 

http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1106/dm1106-1.html

 

http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1006/gt1006-1.html

[beeman458]

Mark me down as the cynic who knows the price yet realizes nothing has value.

 

Not sure the point of the question.

[mike butler]

Thomas,

 

I'm glad you picked that one. I was hoping that some philosophy forumers might read

those two pieces, reflect, and maype posit some questions of their own.

 

But let's branch off into cynicism in this thread...

 

I liked that essay.

 

It scares me to think that someone might be scared off from taking a picture because he

or she goes on the internet too much and hears "that's been done before."

 

It occurs to me that people have had sex before, too, but that doesn't doesn't stop them

from dabbling in it again from time to time.

 

Maybe we should recognize that photography is an experience...and an art?

[k5083]

Cynic: "That photo has been taken a million times before."

Earnest: "Yes, but not by me."<p>

 

Earnest is reaffirming the joy and individuality of the photographic experience. He's also being narcissistic and self-absorbed. It's important to be Earnest because of course everything has been done by someone, likely better than you could do it, so the serious pursuit of originality leads only to paralysis. But taking the same picture that millions have taken just because one enjoys the experience that led to the picture and wants to have one's own record of it is essentially a private indulgence. One can show the picture and add one's voice to the million-voice chorus if one wants, but don't be surprised if it goes unnoticed.<p>

 

There are those who sit through performances of the same symphony by the same orchestra night after night and pick up nuances, slips, and moments of brilliance from night to night that are inaudible to those who don't. Connoiseurship has its attractions and rewards. The aspen specialist knows better than anyone how overdone aspen photos are, yet is likely to be the most able and willing to look at yet another new aspen photo and perceive exceptional qualities in it. <p>

 

Shortly after I joined this forum there was a <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FiMv&tag=">POW discussion about a nude</a> that contained a good deal of cynicism and it occurred to me that there are three levels of familiarity with a genre of photos, one of which leads to cynicism. First is neophyte (which is me, when it comes to nudes); the ones in the thread said, "nice picture." Second is the jaded, but not especially expert type, who gave the cynical "done a million times" comment. Third is the connoiseur; those who were the most familiar with this particular pose as used in nudes had the most to say, bad and good, about its qualities. It comes full circle. Some degree of familiarity breeds contempt (cynicism); still more breeds new interest and appreciation.

<p>

August

[beeman458]

Some of my thoughts below.

 

From the article.

 

"Does the world need another aspen image?"

 

Does the world need another view of anything? The most trite image among us today, another naked lady pic but it seems the photographic world falls over themselves to see how many naked lady pics can be made in a day, an hour, maybe even in a minute or second. At some time and point, the word cliche comes to mind on pretty much everything.

 

Does a tree falling over in a forest, a picture make?

 

"By the same token, does the world need another performance of Mozart?s Requiem or Vivaldi?s ?Four Seasons?? Does the world need another sentimental love story, another action movie, another apple pie, another Tour de France, or another Superbowl?"

 

No, the world doesn't but somebody is going make sure it happens anyways.

 

My misgiving is that I'm not some brain rotted crankster, crazy on drugs with a wacked out mind in which to produce psychotic views of life:) In the meantime I'll just have to suffer the indignities of being blessed with a pedestrian mind of no import taking snaps of life the world has seen a thousand times before, cause I go no place else to go.

[calebcondit]

except for our experience. We are individual and the way we shoot something that's been done will probably be slightly different than the last 1000 people that have shot what we shot. Maybe the light is different, maybe the fstop...maybe not. But what's important to remember is that postmodern thought in regards to art tells us that there is no artistic genius but all is rather a rehashing of old ideas...all the neo(insert style of artmaking here) are based on this concept.

 

It applies very well to photography as we are photographing something that already exists and putting it in the light we prefer, in the reference that tells the story we have to tell. It's likened very much to Djing music with turntables...the music is there, but adding one song to a new beat with our own personal scratching to mix things up or dropping out the bass everyonce in a while can make a familiar song into a new heartstopping anthem...and inspiration for yet another rum and coke...

[beeman458]

A new urban sunrise. Just trying to keep it fresh because Lord knows we don't need a picture of just another overly saturated pretty sunrise/sunset in a beautiful non-descript mountain valley somewhere.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5174947&size=lg

[h._p.]

Good points, Caleb.

 

As a dyed in the wool cynic, I still think the world needs more pictures.

 

Most cynicism (at least, around here) is a riposte to excessive adulation. So if you want to see less cynicism, quit telling us that [insert name of object of adulation here] is so truly wonderful that only an idiot would disagree with you.<div></div>

[snapshot1]

Nothing but a red cardnal sitting there. YOU have to do better. Stock photos are so boring.

[bloodnut]

No,i don't think this digital thing will catch on,you just can't beat film,what goes around comes around.

mick the luddite

[mike butler]

I didn't expect my post would be at the top of philosophy after all this time. Things have a

way of disappearing on pnet, don't they?

 

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion.

 

Thomas, I think you got to the heart of the matter, as usual. Your "Taco Bell Sunrise," and I

think you should call it that, was very existential--artistic even.

 

Allow me to wish blessings this week on all of you who shoot and share, and think and

care.

[beeman458]

"Things have a way of disappearing on pnet, don't they?"

 

Not quite as bad as Stalin's 30's or the reeducation camps of Pol Pot but definitely like the Soviet Union of the 60's.... quietly and without fanfare; struggle, muffle..... silence. :)

 

"Anyway, I appreciate the discussion."

 

I do also. I'm disappointed that folks didn't try to tackle the first article; must have been scared off by "existentialism." All that intellectual egocentricity must throw folks. :)

 

"Thomas, I think you got to the heart of the matter, as usual."

 

Thanks! That's kind of you.

 

"Your "Taco Bell Sunrise," and I think you should call it that, was very existential--artistic even."

 

Thanks. I've come to the conclusion that I'm a pedestrian artist in an avant garde world in that I just don't seem to be able to get things off the ground. :)

 

This from the first article:

 

"We must freely project our own influences and emotions into the photograph. If we do not, the act of photography can become merely a worthless documentation of the objective reality around us."

 

Most "just" go through the steps of recording their universe, clicking away freely with abandon and can't define the what's what with the who's who or even know the why of what it is they're recording. Do they even know who they are as a person, or what of themselves they're injecting into the image?

 

The first article you cited, was mentioned the least and yet to me, spoke the most to photographers here as the audience was painfully silent. Go figure.

 

Quote from the article below:

 

------------------------------------------

 

Freedom of Choice

 

Getting back to existentialism and the fundamental theme of ontology or the study of being, the human being's existence is set out as the first and basic fact; he has no essence that comes before his existence. As a being he is nothing. The human being has liberty through the decisions that he makes himself in order to solve his problems and live in the world. This liberty of choice is a central tenet of existentialist thought.

 

Consider the parallels with the photographer ? free to choose to photograph any aspect of the world. As photographers we all set our own photographic schedule and we choose to photograph what we alone determine (unless of course you are shooting for commercial assignment but then that is merely a job, not the process of making art).

 

I would argue that these choices are what define us as human beings, perhaps also as photographers. Our photographs can define our existence and shape our view of the world.

 

------------------------------------------

 

Photography, on the serious side, comes with a mandate of intelligent thought (autodidact) as described above. This was one of the key issues in Susan Sontag's "On Photography." To me, sans a thought or purpose, one is just blindly firing away, no more and no less than one would as a drunkard or a blind person but hey, give the Orangutan a camera or brush and you have salable art. Go figure. There are those who'll hold out these acts of serendipity as being fine examples of well thought out randomness worthy of note. Ohhhhhhh, the irony of it all. :)

 

Most photographers don't see or realize they even have a photographic responsibility as they're still out there tripping the shutter wondering why there's air let alone wondering where existance came from.

 

"Indeed, the great surrealist Henri Cartier-Bresson once said that ?the condensed form of thought that is the language of photography has a great power, which is that of making a judgement on what we see and that implies great responsibility.?"

 

The above implies a responsibility on the part of the photographer to learn what their personal responsibility is to themselves and to photography.

 

"Allow me to wish blessings this week on all of you who shoot and share, and think and care."

 

Those are kind and thoughtful words. I hope the thread continues as folks weigh in with their thoughts on their photographic responsibilities. Thanks for the links to the two articles. I hope folks realize what a good thing you did. :)

[dipu_k]

>Does the world want another one?

 

Sure, "world" does not want anything. But as individuals in world, each of the living being will want to do something which will be similar to somebody else has done. World will be fine if you do it, World will also be fine if you do not do it also :-)

 

So should I do or not? I believe that its upto each one of us to decide as it makes a difference only to the decider.