Reality and Fantasy

[kristina_kraft]

There are many levels of Reality. I don't believe in a Fantasy.

[pnital]

"If they don't work toward individuality, they miss the fun."

 

John thanks, I whole heartedly agree to that. A long road though...

[michaellinder]

John and Pnina:

 

Individuality is indeed at the very heart of photography. Fred put it interestingly when he suggested looking at a

photographer as a mediator between "reality" (quotes to avoid begging serveral questions) and a photograph. As I

have mentioned elsewhere, I think that photography is a relational process. There are three components of the

process: the subject of the photograph, the photograph itself, and the photographer. Without the photographer's

consciousness playing an active role in the process, the process is meaningless (and possibly nonexistent). The

photographer as mediator presupposes the photographer's consciousness.

 

The photographer's individuality becomes manifest in his/her freedom, and freedom in turn manifests the

photographer's style.

 

Let's play with this for a while, maybe?

[Norma Desmond]

Michael--

 

What if the photographer sets up some sort of automated shooting? Imagine positioning a camera in a certain location,

triggered to go off, for example, every time a door opens. Then the photographer leaves for a time period. He will likely get

candid and random shots of people entering and leaving. True, the photographer's consciousness was involved in the

process but s/he is not mediator in the same sense as when a photo is taken with more intention. You mention freedom, an

important -- of course! -- concept, but would this proposed situation suggest a more determined kind of photography, still

having meaning and not really dependent on a photographer's choice as we generally understand choice?

[mrraz]

Herd and pack cannot be used interchangeably. A herd is a group of prey animals that exists to perpetuate the particular species survival without regard to the individual. A pack is a group of predators, wolves specifically, that act in concert for the survival of the individual members of the group.

 

While humans may act with a herd mentality, the stock market, at times, they are much more pack like in behavior, us against them.

 

That being said, reality is an illusion, therefore, photography is an extension of the illusion. Whether that makes illusion a fantasy is a question that seems to require illogical supposition to answer. The individual creates a fantasy according to their own subjective requirements of the illusion. Photography remains part of the illusion, so it is only fantasy for the single individual employing it.

[robin_jones5]

Maris Rusis's reply was interesting but may not bring the clarity intended. Let's take a look at some of his points.

"The photons that were part of the subject matter are the very same photons that burrow into the sensitive surface..."

Well, in what way are the photons 'part of the subject matter'? The subject is a physical entity other than the photons which are merely the reflection of light from a light source by the subject. If you start by assuming that the photons are synonymous with the subject matter then you are confusing appearances (which change) with reality, whatever that is. This is the source of much philosophical debate (primary/secondary qualities, if I remember rightly).

 

Anyway, as far as 'traditional' photography and digital photography go, there is a precise concord between the photons hitting the film and photons hitting the sensor, is there not? After this, the presentation of the image in various media can vary according to the whim of the manipulator, as it always has.

 

I'm sure Maris is right that there is a physical relationship between subject and picture, if there wasn't it would be hard to argue that the image was a photograph, so that is a statement of the obvious. However, to argue that the process is a philosophically 'necessary' (I take this to mean a logical necessity as in 2+2=4) one is perhaps contentious. After all, the photograph is not the object, it is separate entity. The photograph can exist after the subject has disappeared or altered etc. The problem with arguing with necessity tends to leave out the subjective element of the viewer in their concept of what constitutes a 'true' likeness of the subject; indeed, what is a photograph and its relation to the subject. This same problem exists for digital photography as well. If we leave out the observer then the argument becomes trivial in that everything is 'just' a physical process. So what?

 

Maris says, "Picture making using digitally controlled electronic devices is not an ordinary physical process. There is no necessary or physical connection between subject matter and picture."

 

An extraordinary statement. Is something spiritual going on to make it something other than an 'ordinary physical process'? Somehow we've introduced the subjective into the digital process which didn't exist in the 'traditional' process. But surely traditional photography has seen manipulation in the printing stages since an early time. Never heard of dodging and burning etc?

 

I won't go on but to say that Maris has raised as many questions as he's tried to answer. Very interesting nonetheless.

[jtk]

Michael L: "The photographer's individuality becomes manifest in his/her freedom, and freedom in turn manifests the photographer's style. Let's play with this for a while, maybe?"

 

No, sorry. We've been making that careless assertion about photographers forever, and about "freedom," "style," and "individuality." Individuality doesn't exist without miraculous gifts (Iike Picasso's) , but we can move toward it if we try.

 

Most photographers are highly derivative: We tinker with Photoshop, depict clouds over trees, pose models, make redundant postcards etc.

 

"Derivative" is not as false as is pretense to individuality. "Style" is almost always a superficial accomplishment that's used in order to differentiate ourselves in some way. It's not "individual". I'm working on digital prints in two different styles at the moment.

 

Picasso worked in many styles, but his individuality (an almost-never phenomenon) was manafest in all of it. By contrast, I work in the hopes that if I put enough effort into it and avoid fooling myself, my work will begin to individuate.

[jtk]

Glenn, your distinctions between pack and herd are OK and fun, but you've imputed a purpose of their existence to them, \acceptable generally, but not scientific. Herd animals, such as elephants or buffalo, can attack as individuals and pack animals, like coyotes, can be slaughtered by cranes when they are discovered in isolation.

 

Packs and herds are similar in that they are comprised of animals that act together in predictable ways, essentially hard wired, abandoning seeming individuality (that doesn't mean packs and herds can't improvise). Wolves don't hunt as individuals when they can hunt as groups, cattle don't wander in isolation when they can bunch up (sometimes providing protection from wolves).

 

Soldiers are trained alike and dressed alike and plugged into badge-identified sub groups in order to move them away from thoughts of individuality.

[don_e]

"Is even documentary photography a kind of fictional reiteration of reality? "

 

To reiterate is to repeat. If documentary photography is fictional and it repeats reality, then reality is fictional.

 

I'd put it this way: reality has no narrative, no story, no beginning, middle, end; no soundtrack, no drama, no comedy; no protagonist or

antagonist, no meaning or

purpose; no point, no moral, no message. Reality doesn't consider us. It doesn't consider anything. But we do. We impose an order on reality

that suits us, cuts it down to our size, and

tells us stories, and documentarians often tell those stories to others. Those stories are fictions.

[muszkiet damian]

Who ever said that photography or any other part of art should give only reality?

It's rather some kind of ethiquete that artis are making to create such things - usually people call it "reality"

or "fantasy" even when it isn't...

[michaellinder]

John:

 

I don't want this discussion to degenerate into an examination of terminology. Otherwise, we will be deciding such

important issues as how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.

 

As one who engages in photography, I cannot, and I certainly will not, claim that my photographs are unique. That

would be both arrogant and false. I think what I was trying to say, and it came out badly, is that every time a

photographer takes a photograph, it presupposes a choice. Whether the photographer is shooting a scene from a

moving car or in a studio is irrelevant. The photographer chooses to click the shutter. The things that come before

that action- posing the subject(s), setting up the lighting and backdrop(s), setting aperture and shutter, opening the

car window, installing a filter, changing lenses, checking the flash settings, etc. - are important variables that, taken

together, go into a proper description of the photograph. But, without the photographer's choice actually to take the

shot, such items would be meaningless considerations.

 

At the moment I take a shot, I am in a certain location at a certain moment. No one else is occupying those

coordinates in space-time. Moreover, even another photographer may be taking a similar photograph of a similar

subject, he/she is not me. That person's choice is not mine, nor is my choice his/hers. Hence, the concept of

individuality . . .

 

BTW, Fred, you have an interesting point about mediation and intention. But, it seems you are talking about a

matter of degree, rather than of kind.

 

Finally, for whatever it's worth I am enjoying the heck out of this discussion. I haven't really had a discussion like

this with anyone for longer than I care to remember.

[michaellinder]

Don makes an excellent point. Whatever constitutes reality simply is. (Call me "Zeno".)

[aplumpton]

I think that the following two cases should be considered:

 

1. A camera sitting on a tripod in a public square (or anywhere) and actuated by a timer or (better) a random impulse

generator produces reality, insofar as a two dimensional representation qualifies as a moment of reality.

 

2. A camera in the hands of a person can partly achieve the objective of representing what is going on in front of it (a

measure of reality), but it can also accompany the photographer's creation of a non-reality, biased on his or her's

approach or perceptions at the time of the photograph. Deviations from "apparent (two-dimensional)" reality can be small

or great. I think that art tends to favour the latter, as art is a manner of creation, or change, or fantasy.

[michaellinder]

Arthur:

 

I suspect that distinguishing between reality and nonreality begs the primary question of what constitutes reality. To steal a word from my son, can we consider reality to consist of any thing (in the broadest sense) to have "isness"? This allows us to examine different "modes" of reality, different levels of reality, different kinds of reality, different perceptions of reality, etc., etc.

 

And, BTW, at one point or other, it still took a person's choice to mount a camera on a tripod and to have it operated by a timer or random impulse generator.

[Norma Desmond]

Michael--

 

Your description of the photographer and putative individuality (no one else is occupying that space in that moment) is a description of

the uniqueness of any and every human action. It does not seem uniquely photographic. (I think it's arguable whether such uniqueness is

also *individual*. Many of our actions, poses, setups, visualizations, are copyings of what we've seen others do. How much individuality

there is in that, just because *I* do it, is an open question? I think there is more furtive

ground in your thoughts about photography's relational character.

 

I don't agree with your claim that without the consciousness of the photographer playing an active role, the process is

meaningless or nonexistent. My example of the automated snapping camera and Arthur's repetition of that example

speak to a meaningful process and product without the active, and ongoing, consciousness of a photographer.

[Norma Desmond]

Michael again--

 

After posting, I see your answer to Arthur. I think, since you're talking about the relation of photographer to subject to

photograph (which I think has merit and possibilities), it's worth considering that, in the example of automated picture-

taking, there is no consciousness or choice directed at a particular subject, yet the photograph will still have meaning.

Since we're talking relationally, I don't think it's enough for you to assert a generic choice to photograph in the absence of a

conscious or intentional choice to photograph a particular subject.

[don_e]

"...the primary question of what constitutes reality."

 

For this thread, I take the OP's meaning, which seems obvious: reality is that which is photographed (or what is photographable) -- what is in front of the lens. Thus: "Is...photography a kind of fictional reiteration of reality?" The question: What is reality? -- as exciting as it must be for some people -- seems off-topic.

 

I think it is very interesting that no one has yet asked or proposed: What constitutes fantasy?

[nickjeftic]

Thats obvious Don... everything that is not reality. And since reality does not exist... the only thing that IS is fantasy. Life is just a beautiful dream!

[Norma Desmond]

Don--

 

If reality is what's in front of the lens (which is as good a definition as any!), fantasy is what's in the imagination. The mind's

riffs on reality.

[jtk]

Don E's questions seem closer to the OT's concerns than the OT does to itself :-).

 

"I don't want this discussion to degenerate into an examination of terminology." - M Linder.

 

Michael, your personal desire to avoid examination of your expressed ideas is of no concern.

 

Comfortable, unexamined assertions about "individuality" and "freedom" remind me of the "fantasies" referred to

in the OT. They are nearly meaningful, but without a grain of salt they beg for outright dismissal.

 

"Freedom" and "individuality" are not simply "terminology" to people who think about their implications. Few

regard examination of such ideas as "degeneration."

[michaellinder]

John:

 

I do apologize if the tone of my remarks came across as polemical. I really did not intend to sound like a jerk. Sometimes it just happens naturally!

 

I'll let it go at that.

 

michael

[jtk]

Michael, kumbayah etc.

 

I responded with self-righteousness, a tar-n'-feathers offense in my theology.

 

John.

[sobeystudio]

Lannie-

"Can any abstraction from reality be other than fictional?"

 

I don't know if something can be an abstraction FROM reality or rather an abstraction OF reality. Its all semantics really, and that is

what this is all about- perception. As a photographer who works in an abstract manner, I think I have a good grasp of the concept. Yes

many abstractions are fictional. Photography is like writing- actually it is writing- with light. In this respect, each photographer is a writer

and the photo their piece. Writers have varying perspectives and variable usages of language which they utilize and manipulate to

facilitate the work in a manner which they find suitable. Photographers too have a language - technical (concrete) or visual (abstract).

Generally, as with any writer/photographer, with more experience comes more ability to utilize the language and manipulate the work.

Example: a photojournalist tends to utilize the more concrete tools of photography to show reality the best they can (this is why

photojournalism strongly disagrees with post-production) - although "verisimilitude" takes over once anyone sees the photo, let alone

when the photo is taken- capturing the ephemeral- a moment stopped (IMO not real). Many "artists" myself included, use the visual

language to describe something- not necessarily reality- thusly we are writing a fiction- a type of fiction. However, because a photograph,

in essence, doesn't exist without having been created from something, it is not fiction but reality askew- literally or figuratively. In the

case of my work (like most "advanced" photographers), I consciously utilize both the technical tools of photography and the visual

language to the best of my abilities and therefore push them to the extremes of what it means to be a photograph. Abstract- definitely /

Fiction- maybe

[steve_swinehart]

Reality is everything you've chosen to leave out of the photograph and continues on. What is included inside the

framelines is a separate reality - the one you've chosen to see.

[antoniobassiphotography]

<B>Landrum</B>, photography is nothing but the representation of <I>our</I> reality, not <I>everybody's</I>. It

represents the border line between what we want to represent and what the viewer will see and personally interpret. That

image you posted has an effect on western people that doesn't have in a middle-eastern society. A nude photo sends a

message to one and a very different one to another, according to the cultures. <P>So, photography does <B>not</B>

represent reality, but only what we perceive observing the image. Photography is a <I>subjective</I> experience.