On what you see

[jukka_lehmus]

"If you want to make some kind of existential photographic record of the world

around us, I wish you well, but I hope that you have a thick skin!"

 

The above quote is excerpted from a comment posted in reply to one of my

photographs on

an amateurs' photography site on the Internet. My first thoughts upon reading

this, "This

guy has totally missed my point, how can my stuff be perceived as existentialist

when all

the time I'm attempting to evade references to the self and try to concentrate

on the view

itself." In other words, I'm trying to record the view as it is, without

commentary. The

difference between recording and receiving. One presses the button, having

decided the

framing, the moment et cetera.

 

While seeing the view/picture as some kind of protean tableau, frozen and

mechanically sucked into my black

box at the push of the shutter button, I now reckon that this notion may not be

the only

one that's possibly valid. I've got a copy of a paper on the history of the

understanding

of the physiology of human vision, somewhere (cannot find it), and I think it

describes the concept of vision

held by Pythagoras or Aristotle (or some other Antiquity big names), being basically

that the human eye emits a set of light beams that are somehow capable of

lighting up the scene

that lies forth, in the daytime at least, and then being sensitive and equipped

with a memory in

some way, or in some other manner that now escapes me, relay back the

information of what they (the beams)

encountered out there and then in their little voices recount it to the eye (or

mind), thus

reporting back the findings from the field. Now, my idea is this: OK, we know

how a camera

works, trapping the light beams, but before that act of trapping (before the

recording)

comes the luminous eye which, as a direct projection of the self, sends out

those beams

(of light) that are then reflected and returned.

 

It might be so. That's why we have viewfinders on our cameras.

[saskphotog]

Have you taken into account this facta/

 

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/5599/dark_sucker_2.html

[jtk]

"possibility of escaping the tyranny of fixed visual messages"

 

Since there's no such tyranny in any visual message, you're more free than you know. But there may be tyranny in blocking messages (as you have...see below).

 

Since you're obviously less into visual messages than typed messages, perhaps it wouldn't be difficult for you to reconsider the message venue you've blocked: sound. All of your images were enveloped in sound, and it would have been easy to include ( www.soundslides.com ).

 

Why did you exclude sound? What did you intend with that tyrannical decision?

 

Are you committed to a deaf world?

[Norma Desmond]

"when all the time I'm attempting to evade references to the self and try to concentrate on

the view itself"

 

This is precisely the point at which a good existentialist will come along and tell you

you're kidding yourself.

 

The view is NOT some kind of protean tableau, it's your perspective.

 

You don't record THE view, you record YOUR view. There is no THE view. There are only

views.

 

What you're attributing to Pythagoras or Aristotle sounds like a foreshadowing of the

Heisenberg (or Uncertainty) principle, which is a good principle to keep in mind here (and

anywhere):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

 

We don't attend to things without affecting them. In other words, we don't get to see or

record them as if we weren't there. Which makes a lot of sense, when you think about it.

Because we ARE there.

[Matt Laur]

<i>OK, we know how a camera works, trapping the light beams, but before that act of trapping (before the recording) comes the luminous eye which, as a direct projection of the self, sends out those beams (of light) that are then reflected and returned.</i>

<Br><Br>

I'm not sure how it helps to visualize something like that when you know that's not what's actually happening (you do know, right, that that's not what's happening?). You and your camera are both passive receptors of reflected or emitted light. Unlike your camera, you perceive things about that light, and make choices about whether a recording of it - modified by what the equipment does to it - might be useful or in some way expressive. But if what you mean is to say that, before releasing the shutter, you are visualizing your finished work... well, say that! It's easier!

[maris_rusis]

I think I photograph in a way that coincides with Jukka Lehmus' proposition. The ideas and notions come first and the challenging part is to find the subject matter that carries those ideas into visual form. Subject matter is largely uncooperative and I accumulate a lot of spare mental templates, ideas that have not yet become photographs, that I "project" onto the real world to see if they fit. If they fit I shoot.

 

The classic example is the way a photograph of a Gothic castle at night during a thunder storm can make a visual equivalent of drama, violence, and foreboding.

 

I suspect most folks work the other way around. They look at stuff and if something triggers enough cerebral activity their shutter finger goes "click". I have even been told by photographers that they did not know why they took a picture until they saw the final result; then they knew.

[don_e]

The light you refer to I've called "Thomist light" or "intellectual light". Some painters, such as Fra Angelico, painted that way. It is not something you can photograph although you could attempt it in the studio. Good luck finding decent reproductions. I can recommend the book on the restoration of the San Marco frescos. My stuff is in storage so I can't give you a cite. It is probably pricey being 100$ back in the late 80s or early 90s when first published.

 

"I'm attempting to evade references to the self and try to concentrate on the view itself...I'm trying to record the view as it is, without commentary."

 

This notion will bring out some here who find that idea heresy. You did not expect the Spanish Inquisition, did you? You are offending egos with that. Don't try to figure it out. A waste of time an energy. Your photos speak for you.

[jtk]

Shutter fingers don't "go click" any more than guns "go off."

 

"Evade reference to the self" is identical to pretending to hide one's privates from sailors with a fan, while prancing on stage. The kind word is "coy."

 

By the way, who are these "most folks" from whom you're struggling to distinguish yourself?

[vrankin]

The one who makes the photo and the one who sees it both bring their own perceptions to

the processes of taking and viewing. They don't necessarily coincide. Enter a photo

competition sometime, or send a photo to a photo or art editor and see what happens.

[steve_dawson1]

You choose to take the camera. You decide where to point it. You decide when to press the button. You can't avoid 'references to self.'

[jukka_lehmus]

Thank you for the comments, I didn't expect so many.

<p>

Don E, I will try to find some literature on Fra Angelico and what you call "Thomist light" — this all is very interesting. But first that history article on the physiology beliefs need to be found, it must have something on Da Vinci's ideas of vision, for example.

<p>

Re the Dark Suckers text, it treats some of the basic characteristics of darkness in a similar vein to the fictitional scientist De Selby, quoted in length in <i>The Third Policeman</i>, a novel by Flann O'Brien. Also William Burroughs wrote something (in one of his 80's novels, I think) concerning the "economy of light" and the gradual loss of light (as a limited natural resource) due to photography and other light-capturing activities, hilariously absurd.

<p>

John Kelly, please note that I'm also blocking, or it might be more appropriate to say, altering, the messages from the different wavelengths of light, abstracting the picture to a monochrome image. So it's not just sound that's missing, but colours as well.

[don_e]

Fred "The view is NOT some kind of protean tableau, it's your perspective.

 

You don't record THE view, you record YOUR view. There is no THE view. There are only views...

 

We don't attend to things without affecting them. In other words, we don't get to see or record them as if we weren't there. Which makes a lot of sense, when you think about it. Because we ARE there."

 

I open the front door of my house and see the view: the porch, the steps, the sidewalk, the street, the far side of the street and the houses there. Did opening the door to the "view" conjure it into existence? When I close the door in front of me, does the "view" cease to exist? When the door is open how am I "affecting" the "view"? And if I should open the door and raise a camera and release the shutter, how has my perception or thinking affected the "view"?

 

I may know some things about it, that Ms Jones catches the bus at the stop across the street at 6:30, and Mr Smith arrives on the bus then. In the morning the view will include the daily paper on the porch. I anticipate there might be passersby on the sidewalk. And sometimes unanticipated things occur. Do my expectations affect the view?

 

If all you mean is that I choose to open the door or not, that I choose to release the shutter or not, then it hardly seems worth mentioning.

[Norma Desmond]

When you close the door in front of you, "the view" does not cease to exist because "the

view" (in my view) did not exist to begin with. "A view" exists. The one you (you) see when

you open the door.

 

Your neighbor would see "a view" as well. His view would be much the same and there

would be differences.

 

You could both say you're seeing "the view" and I'd understand what you mean. But, the OP

was speaking existentially of getting rid of the self. I think there is a meaningful sense in

which my "self" is present in "the view," making it "my view."

 

God has "the view," the one that's left when all the neighbors close their doors, the one

that somehow escapes perspective. Since I don't believe in God, I don't believe in that

omniscient view. Yes, I believe it's there when I'm not looking. I also believe the light in

the refrigerator is off when I close the door.

 

(I'm not sure "view" doesn't imply vision which implies, by definition, the presence of

someone or something that has vision. Similarly, "sound" may or may not imply received

waves and that's why whether or not a tree falling in the forest makes a sound isn't

dependent on any great metaphysical insight as much as it is dependent on the definition

of "sound.")

 

So "my view" is the one that gets imbued with the various meanings I give it. How the

lighting feels to me, whether I've had my morning coffee and gotten the sleep out of my

eyes and have to squint when I open the front door. What I might be expecting to read

about in the paper I assume will be on my front porch. How I'm going to feel about that

darn porch when I see the crack in the surface that I should have fixed a year ago.

Whether I want to avoid seeing another neighbor or not on that particular morning.

 

How that relates to photography. If you set up a camera on a tripod in the doorway and

have the members of your family come along one by one and push the shutter, the

recordings will seem, for the most part, the same. Of course, they won't be, because we

know the lighting will have changed ever so slightly (or perhaps a cloud came by and it

changed more dramatically).

 

I suppose how robotically (not meant negatively) we approach photography will influence

how much of that nebulous self we're putting into taking the photo and therefore will

influence the images that result from the process. I assume it will always be on a

continuum from a lesser to greater degree, not at 0 and not at 100 per cent.

 

If that big cloud comes by, we can either say it's the same view with different lighting or a

different view. No matter. Regardless of where we place the modifier, the modifier will be

in there somewhere. And it will be in there somewhere when we're talking about you and

your neighbor or you and yourself the next time you open the door.

 

I have a feeling it's often a difference of emphasis with you and me, you emphasizing the

noun or the object, me emphasizing the modifier (?)

[jtk]

"John Kelly, please note that I'm also blocking, or it might be more appropriate to say, altering, the messages from the different wavelengths of light, abstracting the picture to a monochrome image. So it's not just sound that's missing, but colours as well."

 

I directly addressed your earlier error about "tyrrany," but you're trying to abandon the sharpness of that decision: offering the softer "altering" as a trial balloon to replace "blocking"...as if that's less "tyrranical."

 

"Appropriate" is more coy dancing: What do you mean? You're blocking comprehension. More "tyrrany."

 

When you blocked color, leaving a specific version of B&W, you made an ego level decision. I do that too.

 

If you were consistent (you aren't, I'm not, and we need not be) you're earlier temporary iteration would call that "tyrrany".

 

Your B&W is tonally flat and every shot centers on one obvious, cute detail...nothing wrong with that of course...just another coy expression of ego. Your photos work as a group, not as individuals, and that's perfect IMO.

[cooltpmd]

Humans are finite beings located in time and place. It's less philosophical than simple reality ... we are the only ones who see what we see, from the exact perspective We see it, at the exact moment We attend it.

 

We can speak philosophically about it for fun ... that IF for some reason more than one set of eyes were to view the same image at the same time, they would likely see something a bit different, because of uncommon expectation & understanding, differences in anatomy and physiology, and differences in mentation.

 

It does seem to me that THIS is the very philosophical exercise that Photographers try to emulate. We present A picture caught from one perspective at a singular moment in time, to be viewed by many eyes. We are limited because the commonly viewed photo was 1st filtered through the photographers choice, the limits of his/her technique and technology, and the influence of proccessing.

[don_e]

Fred, what is 'really there' -- if the physicist can be made to speak and not write equations -- may be a gradient of radiation, perhaps a 'dimensionless' one, too. But it overdetermines the argument to sink below the human percept system, I think. If "Heisenberg" is relevant then candid photography is impossible. It is not...ergo...

 

"But, the OP was speaking existentially of getting rid of the self. I think there is a meaningful sense in which my "self" is present in "the view," making it "my view.""

 

He used "evade" ("evade references to the self") which might not be colloquially the right word. I am present to the view, not "in" it. I have to consciously insert myself into the view. I am not in it to begin with. No one objects to that. No one says it is "impossible". Someone posts about their "creative vision", their "passion" and their "obsession" to express their vision, which is to say, themselves, in their photographs. No one finds that objectionable. Yet it is impossible. You cannot turn the lens against your forehead and photograph your mind's eye. You can only try some things, some process or technique, and perhaps succeed somewhat against the inevitable failure of 'self-expression'.

 

It should be no more controversial to do the opposite, for the photographer to step back, so to speak, and let the subject, the frame express itself, instead. You can only try some things, and perhaps succeed somewhat against the inevitability of failure.

 

Whichever is chosen, it is a matter of aesthetics, discipline, philosophy, not ignorance.

[Norma Desmond]

Don-- Even considering Heisenberg, I can still recognize the difference between what we

commonly call a candid photo and a posed one. Extreme difference for sure. When I am

shooting candid photos -- hell, when I shoot most photos -- I at least try to be in the

moment and not in my head. Which doesn't stop me from thinking about them later or

earlier, and that thinking, I imagine, has an effect on my later shooting even if I'm not

doing the thinking later when I'm shooting. When I consider the idea of candid

photography, I consider the possibility that even if it doesn't feel at the time like my

presence is having an effect on the situation, it is having an effect. To me, that means a

lot. To others, it's nonsense.

 

As for the rest, my post was meant to give my perspective. That's why I included the

parenthetical qualification in the first sentence "(in my view) . . ." If I came across as

suggesting that this is a matter of brilliance or ignorance, I apologize. I realize my

somewhat academic writing style might suggest otherwise, but I only discuss philosophy

for two reasons: 1) To clarify my own often muddled thoughts on matters and 2) to let

others' ideas be absorbed through my thick head, even while I may need to argue

vociferously with them in order to get clarification and understanding. (One thing I just

now became conscious of is that I use "you" instead of "one" or "I" meaning it in the

generic sense -- when I say "when YOU open the door," I mean "in my opinion, when ONE

opens the door").

 

I thought the way I ended my post . . .

 

"I have a feeling it's often a difference of emphasis with you and me, you emphasizing the

noun or the object, me emphasizing the modifier (?)"

 

was saying just what you've said in your last two paragraphs. I find it fascinating and

perfectly valid that you approach photography from the stance you do. At the same time, I

do find quite often that, when some people (PJs and documentarians, for example) claim

objectivity or distance or neutrality or that they are keeping themselves out of it, they are

sometimes in denial of a bias and sometimes simply lying. At the same time, to be fair I'd

have to admit that many who think they are putting themselves into the picture don't have

a clue to the extent that they are not.

 

As far as "I am present to the view, not "in" it. I have to consciously insert myself into the

view," I simply don't see it that way. I think one is in it whether conscious of being so or

not. I see the view not as an object but as a relationship.

[don_e]

Fred, I did not mean to imply anything regarding "ignorance" as referring to your post. It was a general observation.

 

"I see the view not as an object but as a relationship."

 

That relationship is worth discussing...perhaps here. We'll see.

 

Regards

[saskphotog]

A long time ago, I watched a video on a "news" broadcast. A guy had poured gasoline on himself and was going to set fire to himself as a protest against something (I can't remember what right now, isn't that interesting).

 

Anyway, before he flicked the Bic, he phoned the localTV station to come and film it (what good is anonymous protest?) and then waited for them to arrive and set up the camera. The photographer caught the whole thing on videotape.

 

Now almost everyone will agree, that photographer had obviously crossed the line between being an observer and being part of the action. It is closely related to the fact that several students at Columbine phoned CNN while they hid from the shooters in closets.

 

There are no circumstances where photographers/observers are not a part of what they are photographing/observing. There are degrees of "involvement", but there is no such thing as objective photography from the view of either pure physics, or metaphysics.

 

I have irritated many environmentally concerned people who love to hike into the back country and observe animals like grizzly bears while using elaborate "no trace" camping styles. They see themselves as more mindful and appreciative of wilderness and it's value. I argue that a major 4 lane highway through an area probably does less to destroy grizzly bears than a constant stream of grizzly lovers wandering through their territory, and that the only way to save grizzly bears is to set aside large areas of habitat and then not allow anyone to go there. Backpacking campers do as much to destroy habitat as loggers.

 

The act of observing always alters what you are observing.

 

All duality is falsely imagined.

[don_e]

"The act of observing always alters what you are observing."

 

The photograph alters what is observed, but the act of observing or photographing may not.

[Norma Desmond]

There are two considerations here.

 

1) Can one record the view without commentary?

 

2) Can one record the view without affecting it?

 

Number 1 seems to be less invasive. In other words, will the view always be seen from a

perspective? Can (complete) objectivity be maintained?

 

I don't think complete objectivity can be maintained. It can be maintained to varying

degrees. The reason I tend to emphasize this is that a lot of people think they are

maintaining objectivity who aren't and a lot of people think they are looking at some sort

of objective representation when they view a photograph when they are not. One concern

is news footage. Unsuspecting consumers of documentary and nightly-news vids and pics

assume that that they simply are "accurate" representations of what occurs. One man's

embedded reporter is another man's cheerleader for war, even if unwittingly (and not, of

course, in all cases).

 

I also agree with Number 2 above but think it's more controversial.

 

Don makes an interesting distinction between the product and process. (I think it would be

more precise not to say that the photo alters what's observed but that the photo is an

alternate view of what's observed. Photos don't act upon their subjects unless perhaps you

throw the photo you've printed at its subject and even in this case it's the thrower who's

really acting.)

 

Two (perhaps more) kinds of alteration might take place by observing it. I might directly

affect it. Someone knows I'm observing them, they get self conscious and it affects their

expression. I take a picture of a flower and cast a shadow on it. I ran across this but

there's no source or verification and I couldn't find anything to back it up:

http://www.getodd.com/stuf/treefall.html

 

For the more metaphysical sense of how observation is an alteration, at this point I can

recommend reading someone like Richard Rorty (Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity), even

Wittgenstein or Donald Davidson. Because these philosophers don't buy into Descartes's

language of subject/object, inner/outer and Truth as a matter of language corresponding

to facts, they are very hard to explain in a few sentences. I'll try a couple of quotes, but

they may only make sense when the fuller context is understood.

 

From Rorty:

 

"About two hundred years ago, the idea that truth was made rather than found began to

take hold of the imagination of Europe."

 

"What was needed, and what the idealists [e.g., Kant] were unable to envisage, was a

repudiation of the very idea of anything -- mind or matter, self or world -- having an

intrinsic nature to be expressed or represented. For the idealists confused the idea that

nothing has such a nature with the idea that space and time are unreal, that human beings

cause the spatiotemporal world to exist."

 

"To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common

sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include

human mental states. . . . Truth cannot be out there -- cannot exist independently of the

human mind -- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there

but descriptions of the world are not."

 

"I shall be describing [this philosophy] as a manifestation of a willingness to drop the idea

of 'intrinsic nature,' a willingness to face up to the CONTINGENCY of the language we use."

 

"To drop the idea of languages as representations would be to de-divinize the world. Only

if we do that can we fully accept the argument I [offer] -- the argument that since truth is

a property of sentences, since sentences are dependent for their existence upon

vocabularies, and since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths. For as long

as we think that 'the world' names something we ought to respect as well as cope with,

something personlike in that it has a preferred description of itself, we shall insist that any

philosophical account of truth save the 'intuition' that truth is 'out there.' This institution

amounts to the vague sense that it would be hubris on our part to abandon the traditional

language of 'respect for fact' and 'objectivity' -- that it would be risky, and blasphemous,

not so see the scientist (or the philosopher, or the poet, or somebody) as having a priestly

function, as putting us in touch with a realm which transcends the human."

 

" . . . t is essential to my view that we have no prelinguistic consciousness to which

language needs to be adequate, no deep sense of how things are which it is the duty of

philosophers to spell out in language. What is described as such a consciousness is simply

a disposition to use the language of our ancestors, to worship the corpses of their

metaphors. Unless we suffer from what Derrida calls 'Heidegerrian nostalgia,' we shall not

think of our 'intuitions' as more than platitudes, more than the habitual use of a certain

repertoire of terms, more than old tools which as yet have no replacements."

 

"I can crudely sum up the story . . . by saying that once upon a time we felt a need to

worship something which lay beyond the visible world. Beginning in the 17th C we tried to

substitute a love of truth for a love of God, treating the world described by science as a

quasi divinity. Beginning at the end of the 18th C we tried to substitute a love of ourselves

for a love of scientific truth, a worship of our own deep spiritual or poetic nature, treated

as one more quasi divinity. The line of thought common to Blumenberg, Nietzsche, Freud,

and Davidson suggests that we try to get to the point where we no longer worship

anything, where we treat NOTHING as a quasi divinity, where we treat EVERYTHING -- our

language, our conscience, our community -- as a product of time and chance. To reach

this point would be, in Freud's words, to 'treat chance as worthy of determining our fate.'

[don_e]

What does language have to do with the fact of the photographic image? I mean the photographic image itself, not how "the viewer" describes it.

[don_e]

To clarify: I refer to the Rorty quotations about language, sentences, and descriptions. I'm out for the afternoon, Fred. Be back this evening.

[Norma Desmond]

Photography is a language, a description, a vocabulary (among other things).

 

A photographer doesn't capture the world or herself. Photography is part of our human

vocabulary, which is contingent upon our perspectives, cultural and historical location, and

other unfixed considerations. Photography speaks.

[jtk]

Photography is NOT a language, it's a medium. As a medium it may carry messages but they're not in any language, though we may read things into them. What we read into a photograph is not in the photograph.

 

Photography neither describes nor does it have a vocabulary. Photography is inherently non-verbal.

 

Asserting that it "speaks" is like asserting that it wiggles its ears.