"The scent of an unseen flower - news from a counry we haven't visited" (C.S. Lewis)

[jtk]

<p> "Still doesn't one's drive come from something more than just their level of familiarity with a subject?" - Martin Sobey.</p>

<p>OK. But I think that "something more" is personal... like a Guardian Angel... :-)</p>

<p>My own particular drives aren't exclusively photographic, but photography tries to meet a need. Some recent drives have surfaced, perhaps on on their own, and I've been encouraging them. I leave cookies and milk out for them each night...something like the offerings Confuscians leave (tobacco, coins, whiskey).</p>

<p>By Shakespeare's time philosophers were forgetting that Muses and Virtues were personified deities (as they were to Greeks like Fred Goldsmith's)...not mere intellectual markers. Shakespeare didn't address Virtues or Muses directly, but the oldest of his actors may have...actors have always been closer to truths than most.</p>

<p>Drives (Muses?) make themselves apparent to different people in different times and different ways...or... drives come to some people but not to cursed people (they are marked with a character flaw: lack of curiosity). Discouraging curiosity is a Mortal Sin: Moses may have missed one of those famous tablets...I wonder what other commandments were on it?</p>

<p>Drive seems like a Virtue or Muse, and Curiosity is certainly one (maybe like the conflicted entity Native Americans call "Coyote.")... I'm pretty sure Curiosity engenders Drive but I don't know where Muses come from. Maybe the North Pole? Ho ho?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There are many who will look at Anders's photo above and not see past the Eiffel Tower. They will call it a picture of the Eiffel tower and not really see what they are looking at. Probably as many will look at a Leibovitz photo of Jonny Depp and Kate Moss and not see past celebrity. They, too, may not be seing what they are looking at because they are stopped by the subject matter, which they feel has been overdone or is somehow beneath their loftier tastes. They will miss the capture of a certain truth about persona, a more modern version of what the Hollywood masters (Hurrell, Von Sternberg) were doing. They will miss the nuance of extending a tradition with one's own stamp. They might have rejected Leger and the Puteaux group in favor of Picasso and Braque, who were the "true" innovators. But sometimes we miss in the "innovators" the kind of personality that drives other less innovative artists to explore traditions and to do it with their own nuances and visions. We might fault, for example, Beethoven for writing yet more fugues when Bach pretty much exhausted the repertoire. But we'd miss Beethoven's deepening of the genre and the personal flair he gave to it. In looking for "new" subject matter we might miss what's right in front of our faces and that would be a shame. Nevertheless, if we can find that new subject, more power to us. Originality comes in many forms and in all kinds of faces. It also comes to those who reach within and who approach the world with two things John has astutely recognized and talked about: curiosity and individuality.</p>

<p>What I'm getting at above is that it's important to consider how we look at photographs as well as how they are made. How open are we? Do our preconceptions get in our way? And importantly, do our tastes get in our way? Can we get something out of a photograph that we do not like? I often do. What's that about?</p>

<p>I suppose talk of Muses and Virtues and Shakespeare's century and intellectual markers is relevant to the discussion of Philosophy, although I admittedly get a little lost reading the post. Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations is a 20th-century collection of his own aphorisms. It's a rejection of metaphysics and his own prior Russellian views, written intentionally non-linearly because of his own understanding of the difficulty of narratively expressing some of these non-traditional ideas, and his own desire, late in life, to be suggestive rather than direct or dogmatic. He's had a major influence on contemporary philosophy (as has a guy named Sartre, who wrote plays and novellas). But as important as those few more contemporary philosophers who have broken with the linear approach of their predecessors is the way we read philosophy (just as it is important how we look at photographs). If the fact that it is linear keeps us from approaching it with the same transcendence with which we might approach a poem or a simple portrait (which is just a face?), we will not understand it. If we don't see poetry in ideas as well as in grammatical and rhythmic structure, we will not nearly "get" many of the ideas themselves. Philosophy requires meditation and transcendence. If we stick to the references and footnotes, we miss the point . . . and the joy.</p>

[laurent-paul]

<p>What else than the sky is there to see past the Eiffel Tower ?</p>

<p><strong>Anders Hingel : </strong> Are you really expecting for people to see the exact same thing as you see on your photography ? And is what you see still the same thing that you saw at the moment you took the photo ? Or is your question "just" curiosity about how we are reacting to your work ?</p>

<p>I wouldn't certainly have the pretention of understanding what was / is your intention and what you see, as this understanding, may be impossible to dissociate from my own experience and culture.</p>

<p>For example the fact that I saw the Eiffel Tower in Paris for real, may provoque different feelings and understandings than for somebody who never saw it.<br>

What if somebody only saw the Eiffel tower in Las Vegas and look at a photo taken in Paris, and what would your photo tell me if you shot it in Las Vegas for me who only saw the Paris's one ?</p>

<p>And as for the photo in itself, if my knowledge and interest is more about composition, I could look at your photo in a pure visual way, analyse only the the structural composition and may not be able to spot a possible narrative which could be created by the two couples that we see.</p>

<p>Perhaps that the strengh of photography resides in the fact that by fixing time, therefore meaning one single observer at one single place at a single moment in time, a photo will always be like "The scent of an unseen flower".</p>

<p>And mentioning the Muses, it is interesting that none of them is attached to any visual kind of expression ( only during the Renaissance one was more or less attached to Geometry if I remember )</p>

<p> </p>

[don_e]

<p>"Why would Claude Monet paint more than 40 oil paintings of the Gothic cathedral in Rouen, Normandy between 1882 and 1884, if it was not because he, by the painting, tried to express something that went beyond showing the church."</p>

<p>It was Mont-Sainte Victoire for Cezanne. Did Monet or Cezanne ever write about their fascination with these subjects or are we left guessing? This seems to be more common among painters than photographers -- in fact, one would gather from reading discussions here, that fascination is quickly extinguished among photographers so completely and quickly that they become bored, lose their interest, and need to have their creative juices gotten flowing again by seeking out the unusual and rare in order to counter the odds of photographing the same thing again.</p>

<p>Consider Vermeer, who, except for one allegorical painting, and, I think, two urban views never made a painting of anything outside his house (the allegory though might be excluded, too, since it is set in his house).<br>

.<br>

<br /> <br>

<br /> <br>

<br /> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Laurent, I don't expect anyone to see the same as me. What I hinted at was whether the photo I uploaded was a modest example of a photo of a known object where the first impression is that something else is going on. For me it is the case.<br>

No! it was not curiosity about how you react to my work in general. I get that curiosity satisfied elsewhere.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Some great comments! In particular, thank you Fred.</p>

<p>"And mentioning the Muses, it is interesting that none of them is attached to any visual kind of expression..." </p>

<p>That's a mistake. Dance and theatre, which classically benefitted by Muses, are both visual as much as is photography. <br>

As well, recording an instant does not lead to this: "a photo will always be like "The scent of an unseen flower". A scent usually shares itself (we share it together). Photographs usually have so little to convey that they cannot share. It's harder for a photograph to convey anything like that ephemeral scent, but some of them do.</p>

<p> </p>

[longrider]

<p>I take a photograph because i want to capture a moment in time of a place or of something,that is one thing.<br />Another thing is that i have images in my imagination or images from somemwhere else which i create out of several different photo's in photoshop.<br />They are unseen to others because they are only known to my imagination or come to me from somewhere else..haven't figured it out yet,lol.<br />But they are unseen to others until i find a way to bring them to life and will most likely look unusual to others cuz they are not from here.<br />they are images ,created out of photographs from places and things which are not visual on earth,so i cannot capture them here,so i have to find another way of bringing them to life..<br />my 2 cents.</p>

[jtk]

<p>We have not shared anything if someone else has not perceived it. </p>

<p>A miss is as good as a mile. A photograph is pregnant or it is not pregnant.</p>

 

 

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Should photographs show or share...? Should we wake up and smell the roses and quit wasting time sniffing around for things we'll never see...? Are history and reality mutually exclusive if you choose them to be...? Is philosophy an ill-conceived comfort blanket for the terminally confused, or a band-aid for boredom, or both...? Should we lift up the covers and rip it off for a laugh...? :)</p>

<p>The answers to all these questions (and many more) are, of course, readily found in a beer of your choice... :)</p>

<p>Merry Christmas to one and all.</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>"Should" is a loaded concept :-) </p>

<p>Merry Christmas or equivalent, or beautiful quiet times, to all.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Thanks John, Merry Christmas to you too.</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>I'm glad you clarified what the 'unseen' refers to Arthur. I agree it isn't just about something "new" that has yet to be seen, but also what has yet to be realised, whether through the lens (at that moment) or through the eye of the photographer (be they an artist or a graphic documenter in post production work). As Starvy has posed the question, I would suggest that the "unseen" 'CAN be found in the mundane and previously seen, so long as it is presented in a new light through this medium'. Like John K, I too photograph because I hope to make some significant images, stemming from my hunger to capture something special. That unseen hunger is a manifestation of the time and place I am (at that specific time) in my mind, my life, and my questioning of the world around me. It's not necessarily based on trying to photograph something new but rather photograph something that will help feed that hunger even if it means photographing the mundane (in a previous forum posting I make the point that for me true and ethical photography is about capturing something with meaning to the photographer above and beyond the aesthetic appeal it may have to the viewer. I guess that to me is the unseen). It may mean capturing the same scene and subject 6 months from now, yet capturing it from a different perspective and manipulating it in a different way. It shines new light to existing scenes and subjects or subject matter. Like Anders H, what interests me is creating something new by shooting something known rather than something unique (like a "5 legged pig"). It is very much a question of philosophy expressed through the lens. Pnina makes a very good point : "It is a journey, an unending one, It is a quest with many stations on the road, I don't think a real artist will ever arrive to the last one". Even the photojournalist and documentary photographer take this unending journey, not just the artistic one, and for the reasons that Martin S points out: 'that its about the moment' and not necessarily the end result (although I'm sure photojournalists and documentary photographers alike may question me here). What eventually makes the unseen, seen, is in fact the "trip that occurs in the mind of an artist" (as Arthur points out). It is the subjective approach to which we present our version of the world to our audience. There is no right or wrong, just truths and lies</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Art--</p>

<p>Interesting post. Thanks for the thoughts. I'm curious, what is your distinction between right and wrong and truth and lies?</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>Before I answer that, let me make a quick footnote that the distinctions made here are for my own purposes, to help me categorise and identify photos. I do acknowledge that my distinctions can apply on many and various levels and intertwine with each other.</p>

<p>That said, I see "right" and "wrong" as a<strong> technica</strong> l (although some technical aspects can also present truthful and deceitful images such as use of cropping and lens perspective) aspect of photography i.e. exposure settings, tones, clarity etc... In this sense I can forgive the photographer for just about anything and attribute "right" to their technical expertise and "wrong" to mistakes in camera settings or abilities.</p>

<p>What I see as "truth" and "lies" is the purposeful use of the lens and post production manipulation to deceive the viewer. This is more of an <strong>ethical</strong> interpretation of right and wrong I guess. When a photographer captures an image that omits or manipulates certain aspects of a scene or subject (examples of this are frequent in fashion photography where human models, clothes or food are portrayed in 'perfect' presentations and in so doing sell an illusion that women need to be a certain look or that fast food isn't really as greasy but rather fresh and healthy) in an attempt to show us an aesthetically pleasing image, I interpret this as "lies". Btw look through any real estate magazine or advertisement and you'll see many more examples of lens perspective helping to create these illusions. Post production work (and therefore a level of technical expertise) exacerbates this lie. To an extent I can forgive the photographer for this as well, since they are often hired to create images designed to sell a product. </p>

<p>The "lie" that I cannot forgive is that of a photographer who purposly points their lens to capture an image that may stir emotions in viewers to which they do not subscribe to themselves. Capturing the misery of the homeless or desolate because it may make for a great image rather than because they want to bring to the forefront the injustices of the world are immediate examples I can think of here. Let me clarify my point here. The 'lie' is not in the image presented, but in the <strong>perception</strong> the photographer wants the viewer to have of <strong>them</strong> . This is the distinction of whats "wrong" and what's a "lie" for me.</p>

<p>But I also see examples of truthful photography in the images of photojournalists in PN. Documenting events, as they happen, is the "truth" I refer to. Sometimes placing themselves in harms way to take the images they do because they have a passion for the subject-matter they are conveying. I also see it in the portraiture presented in PN. All those faces telling a story of a life lived. That to me is "truth" through a lens.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Art--</p>

<p>Thanks for the explanation.</p>

<p>There seems a fine line between deception and creation. I, too, am concerned about self aggrandizing shots of the homeless that are more about cheap pathos than engagement, yet I think there are a lot of "lies" or "deceptions" that might often go into a significant photo.</p>

<p>Intent is probably a key for me. For example, "day for night" shooting is, literally, a lie or deception yet may help the photographer or filmmaker realize her vision more effectively. I have "deceived" my viewers often in my photographs, perhaps making a situation look much more ominous than it would have to others viewing the same scene, because that's what I saw in my mind's eye or that's what I wanted to express. Some very kind-hearted people, in my more expressionist approaches to some portraits, wind up looking menacing in the final product I come up with. Those examples for me are meant to get at a core emotion or feeling, not through accurate representation but through a different kind of seeing. So, are these deceptions or are they truths of what I am feeling or want to convey? (As a side note, many of my subjects are thrilled when I "create" something that they wouldn't otherwise get to see when they look in the mirror, and it's most often far from a sanitized view of them.)</p>

<p>If we "pose" as documentarians and alter scenes to elicit a certain social or political response, I can see "deception" as an issue of concern. If we purposefully omit the information that a particular image is really two images post-processed into one and then sell it as one image, there is also room for ethical concern. But the ethics involved for those of us making pictures in order to tell stories, convey feelings, etc. seems much less clearcut than a distinction between truth and lies. I think "art" at its best is often founded on "artificial." Great photos can be staged (don't have to be candid or spontaneous), manipulated, non-representational, possibly seeking greater truths through smaller lies.</p>

<p>I also think the viewer bears responsibility as well as the photographer. If one looks at photos of fast food in an ad or models in a clothes catalogue and doesn't realize that manipulation is taking place, one hasn't done their homework. Very few portraits that hang in family libraries, whether painted or photographed, haven't omitted blemishes here and there. I always view them as idealized remembrances. "Truth" in relationship to such portraits takes on a more emotional and less forensic meaning for me.</p>

<p>Like you, I think there is overlap and these are personal distinctions, and I think the difference between ethical "truth" and aesthetic "truth" is a fascinating subject for discussion. Thanks for your thoughts.</p>

[don_e]

<p>"To an extent I can forgive the photographer for this as well, since they are often hired to create images designed to sell a product."</p>

<p>Is it always the photographer who 'dresses' the food or the model? If not, it is what the art director, for example, has presented to be photographed.</p>

<p>"The "lie" that I cannot forgive is that of a photographer who purposly points their lens to capture an image that may stir emotions in viewers to which they do not subscribe to themselves."</p>

<p>Looking at the photo, how would you know?</p>

<p> </p>

[pnital]

<p>Art<br />I think that the ethics approach has to be first between the artist and himself.<br>

"It is the subjective approach to which we present our version of the world to our audience. There is no right or wrong, just truths and lies"<br>

In the modern life and media, selling items like fashion, food and other products is a commercial task that wants to present the item in the best way, and it always will be between the seller and the buyer to do a consumer research to find if what was presented is the truth. Sometime it will be and sometime not, but it is the consumer responsibility. I think that all photography modes nowadays with all the developed technics can be subjects to manipulation of the truth. The Al Dura child photojournalism famous story, that was manipulated , broadcast all over the world, and arrived to the court, and found a lie, is a good example. I think it is different when a photographer has the intention , approach, meaning to create his inner world , photographing feeling and perception of the way he/she feels and sees the world around him, in a way unique and personal to his own world, and it has a meaning that transcends (at least in his own eyes) the moment captured. As I said it is a long road to find the way, and as Fred wrote:</p>

<p>Fred<br />"I also think the viewer bears responsibility as well as the photographer"</p>

<p>I think you are right Fred, each of us that upload his work will have to deal with his viewers, but I think that it is important for the photographer to know that each step is only one step in a long way of "trails and errors" to find, if ever the " scent of an unseen flower". The serious ones will not stop creating and trying....</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Pnina--</p>

<p>Regardless of what the photographer is doing, the viewer, if he is going to make ethical and critical judgments, has a responsibility to approach photographs within context and with an understanding of history, culture, etc. Judging works from a standpoint of truth and lies, right and wrong, can be tricky business. Knowledge, in such cases, is power. So is openness.</p>

<p>"I think you are right Fred, each of us that upload his work will have to deal with his viewers"</p>

<p>I brought up the viewer's responsibility not to talk about the relationship of photographer and viewer. It was about the viewer's understanding of and relationship to the photo. If a viewer wants to call the commercial photographer's product a lie because he airbrushes his model's skin, he may, but it really doesn't reflect much, if at all, on what the photographer is doing, which is a job. When I, as viewer, understand the context in which that commercial photographer is working, "lie" is not the kind of word that would come to mind to describe what he is doing.</p>

[pnital]

<p>Fred<br />"Judging works from a standpoint of truth and lies, right and wrong, can be tricky business. Knowledge, in such cases, is power. So is openness."<br>

I agree with you about the viewer's responsibility while judging from an ethical and critical point , taking in his judgment context history, culture, yes it is for sure an additional power .. But I talk as well on the other side, as there are impressions and feelings that are based on the viewer's understanding, openness connected feeling to a photo attention to what the photographer is telling in his work ,without having all the required knowledge ( and I think that there are enough, that don't have it) and still can do a good judgment evaluation.<br />As I have told you before you are always cursive( eloquent) in your expression ;-)) I still have to develop mine.</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>

<p>Fred: 'I think "art" at its best is often founded on "artificial." You have hit the nail on the head here Fred. I agree with this statement and therefore make the comment that I can forgive the artist who manipulates an image for creative and artistic reasons (but not the one who photographs the misery of others just because it makes for a great photo and doesn't necessarily care one way or the other what happens to them). I'm as guilty of manipulating an image and making a situation seem more ominous as you and the next person. I try to express something beyond the immediately seen in the real world, something with meaning to me (1st and foremost) and hopefully something that the viewer will enjoy as well. Fred, you ask whether these are deceptions or truths of what you are feeling? My answer is that they are truths you want to express as long as you create them from your "mind's eye" perception and are expressions of what you are feeling . I think there is manipulation and then there's manipulation. The 1st is easily recognisable by most viewers as artistic expression (the intent isn't to deceive but to express the photographer's feelings and thoughts), while the second has, what I think, a more sinister intent of deceiving the viewer. As you said "intent is the key for me" too. If, at a certain point in my life, I come to the realisation that certain injustices in the world can no longer be ignored (as if any really can!) and I have the means to bring them to the forefront (that is, they are not geographically challenging), then I will photograph them as a way of expressing my feelings towards those injustices (one topic I hope to photograph is the socio-economic tragedies our indigenous communities here in Australia have faced, continue to face, and I suspect, will continue to face for some time to come)</p>

 

 

 

<p>The photographer who's doing their job for commercial reasons can also be forgiven and yes the viewer does share some of the responsibility.</p>

 

<p>Don asks the question, "Looking at the photo, how would you know?" (if the photographer subscribed to the emotions they try to stir in others) The answer is you don't and probably never will. The tragedy is that most deceptions go uncovered both in photography as in every other aspect of life. But to paraphrase Pnina the 'ethics approach has to be first between the artist and himself'. As I mentioned earlier 'The "lie" that I cannot forgive is that of a photographer who purposely points their lens to capture an image that may stir emotions in viewers to which they do not subscribe to themselves.' and not the photographer who's job it is to make a product seem commercially appealing or the one who manipulates an image to make the unseen, seen</p>

 

 

 

<p>I see no contradiction in artistic manipulation to make the unreal seem real. It may even be a necessary evil. I've always claimed that, for me, the deceit the photographer makes first and foremost to his/her self and then to the rest of us is the reference I make to "lies" (in answering Fred's original question of my distinction between 'lies' and 'truths')</p>

</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"Looking at the photo, how would you know?"</p>

<p>I will look at the portfolio or overall body of work and try to get a sense of the photographer's intent. I can usually get a pretty good read of whether someone is shooting the homeless as documentary, heartfelt empathy, or decor. Context helps and there are symbolic and visual cues to rely on as well. These are, of course, not foolproof methods of reading intent, but they work pretty well for me. How the photographer approaches the subject, whether there is a feeling of sneakiness to the shot, distance vs. openness, whether there is more objectivity or more humanity, etc. Do you not pick up on such things in others' work?</p>

[don_e]

<p>Fred and Art, I was thinking of a stark, dramatic example -- perhaps I misunderstand the subject (wouldn't surprise me 8-)).</p>

<p>Consider a photo of a lynching (there are a number on the web). Was the photographer a racist shooting for the delectation of other racists, or was he a humanist documenting the dreadful consequences of bigotry and hatred? Whatever the motive or intent, the impact of the photo on me would not be altered if I knew.</p>

<p> </p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>

<p>Fred, I agree, for me context is pretty much all one can go by as well. I think the fine line you refer to in an earlier posting is never more fine or blurred than when trying to give an "artistic" (for want of a better word) spin on the plight of others (I don't mean to offend anyone here by suggesting some post production work can't in fact highlight the message their images intend to convey, nor is it my intention to take away anything from the photographer's motives either). There is one recent example in PN for me where I think both creativity and documenting a serious topic works well (and I'd like to know yours, Don's and anyone else's view on this). Here is the link:</p>

<a href="../photo/8396974">http://www.photo.net/photo/8396974</a>

<p>Don, I think your example is a very good one here, because it can be intended with either humanist or bigotry and racist intentions (I <strong>suspect</strong> though, that photos documenting lynching may have originated for the pleasure of racists and bigots and inadvertently became documentary evidence of man's darker side). The scent of an unseen flower is much the same as the intent of the unobserved finger clicking the camera.</p>

</p>

[inoneeye]

<p> Don, the injustice and racism depicted in a lynching photograph is not as commonly available as is a photo of poverty. Scarcity of exposures may heighten the drama. If there were lynchings happening on the street corner.... as common as the homeless person, the impact would be very different. No doubt we would be flooded with images. Of course the injustice of bigotry taken to such an extreme is blatant by nature but for some poverty and misfortune are equally notable.<br>

<br /><br>

I am sometimes, often influenced by the photographers intent and motivations. I have seen countless photos of a street or homeless person. I have taken countless myself. I am aware of the red flag it sends up for many. I know my reasons for taking them and will continue to do so, probably until i cannot shoot anymore. My reasons for shooting these photos influence my opinion of my own work. I often question others regarding there motivations for shooting their subjects. If there is little or no depth in their motivation than most often there is no depth (for me to experience) in their image. Depth is generally discernible without a discussion. With exceptions. <br>

<br /><br>

Perhaps we are being desensitized to poverty and homelessness. In part the number of images we have seen has helped this along. I often hear photographers discuss their disappointment over the quantity of these images and the motivation of the photographer, most often it is denounced. I for one am glad that someone is looking. I would hope that right now there is some photographer putting a fresh voice to an overdone subject. And i hope to come across a fresh/unusual view of a subject as common as poverty or half dome. And for my money, it is most likely to come from a photographer who understands <br>

<b>"The scent of an unseen flower - news from a counry we haven't visited" </b><br /></p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Josh--</p>

<p>Thanks for the word "depth." It is both visual and conceptual . . . and significant.</p>