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

[don_e]

<p>"(and I'd like to know yours, Don's and anyone else's view on this)"</p>

<p>It looks like art; it looks like a system of signs. At that size, I am unable to make out some of the signs; I probably don't understand the language of the signs, anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Don E: "Fred and Art, I was thinking of a stark, dramatic example"</p>

<p><a href="../photo/474979">http://www.photo.net/photo/474979</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol10/s_special/images/bowers/image001.jpg">http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol10/s_special/images/bowers/image001.jpg</a></p>

<p>I sense two different motivations, different senses of depth, humanity, and connection.</p>

<p>"Whatever the motive or intent, the impact of the photo on me would not be altered if I knew."</p>

<p>The impact would change for me. (I might be able to tell the intent when I view some other of that same photographer's work, even without a verbal explanation.)</p>

[don_e]

<p>"I sense two different motivations, different senses of depth, humanity, and connection."</p>

<p>Whatever a photographer's intention, it cannot trump the response of a viewer, something which the photographer cannot know or control. There is no way I can view Lange's Migrant Mother without seeing my father's mother, or reflecting on the condition they lived in. The same is true for Walker Evan's Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. The viewer is not tabula rasa but brings the complexity of a life to the viewing. It is why I don't concern myself with viewers or attempt to create impact on them, as if I could possibly have the key to opening their hearts and minds.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_e]

<p>My previous reply would not apply to a situation where the viewers are a 'target audience', rather than just the odds of anyone seeing the photo. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'm not sure what point you're making, Don. As far as I can tell, in this thread, no one suggested the viewer was a tabula rasa.</p>

<p>You can't view Lange's photo without being affected by thoughts of your family. Makes sense. But you can view a photo of a lynching without being affected by knowledge you may have of the photographer's intent. I don't understand the difference.</p>

<p>There will always be a mixture of the photographer's motivations and intentions and, of course, the photo he's produced, and the viewer's experience and context, etc. But I don't see that that somehow discounts that one can often tell whether a certain photographer is approaching his work with depth or not, exploitively or not.</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>

<p>The word "depth" is very appropriate for this forum (thanks Josh). I agree with you (Josh) that we are becoming desensitised to poverty in general and more specifically, the homeless, but the impact of these images for me, remains the same when viewed because, as you say 'they put a fresh voice to an otherwise overdone subject'. As long as the intent to photograph is ethical then there is no reason to stop taking such images, and voice one's opinion on even the most overdone of subjects. I don't intend to criticise, disapprove or condescend those who continue to take such images (nor I suspect does anyone else), I only seek to question their motives when I look beyond the photo to the portfolio in which they belong to, or to the feedback the photographer asks for (by placing such images up for ratings for example or simply for critique). This is the basis for me of what is truthful and what is deceptive.</p>

 

 

 

<p>As Fred has pointed out, there are tell tale signs that can be used to gain an understanding of the photographer's motives (I'd like to also point out that as a rule, I view images for what they are, how they were intended to be viewed, what they mean to me and the impact they have on my psyche and I do all this in ISOLATION well and truly before I ever look at other works from the same photographer. Only after I've appreciated the image in singularity do I become curious about the photographer and look at their other works). I can appreciate the message in both images Fred has posted the links to but I would not be seeking ratings feedback, instead opting for critical or opinionated feedback.<br>

Don "Whatever a photographer's intention, it cannot trump the response of a viewer, something which the photographer cannot know or control".<br>

I agree with this statement. It cannot and should not. The impact of certain subjects, like poverty and the homeless, stems as much from our life experiences as it does from the image viewed. This is out of the photographer's control and therefore, I believe, should not warrant rating but rather critique.</p>

</p>

[don_e]

 

 

<p>"But I don't see that that somehow discounts that one can often tell whether a certain photographer is approaching his work with depth or not, exploitively or not."</p>

<p>I would not say that. I don't think I was discounting that. Many (many) photographers are far more sensitive to the evidence of how other photographers approach their work than I am. That you linked to the Migrant Mother was fortuitous because it provided an example for me to relate how a viewer's perception can overwhelm what the photographer might have intended.</p>

 

 

<p>"But you can view a photo of a lynching without being affected by knowledge you may have of the photographer's intent. I don't understand the difference."</p>

<p>The difference is that no one in my family has been lynched, and although one side of the family comes from poverty in the deep south, I don't think they lynched anyone...in fact their attitude towards the races was the opposite of such things. It is not a choice that I make. I do not choose to respond to the Migrant Mother the way I do; it just happens. Photos of lynchings make me sad; though the dead are now hanged, the hangers-on lived to propagate their madness to others, poisoning their families and communities. Whether the photo was taken by a racist or a humanist does not change my response to such photos.</p>

<p> </p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Fred, tabula rasa .. i had to look that one up. interesting term.<br /> Art, i should have clarified myself. The condescension i was speaking of is in response to many forum posts i have read in the past. I also frequently question a photographers motives for what they present. Maybe not so much for where they present their work. I am curious to your meaning...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>(by placing such images up for ratings for example or simply for critique). This is the basis for me of what is truthful and what is deceptive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would think most people that are submitting for ratings are doing so for more exposure. I realize that ratings are important to some.<br>

The Migrant Mother was the first perfect photo in my naive,sheltered little world. It inspired me to research the FSA photographs and photographers. It opened my eyes to an unknown universe. One of my first photographer biography reads was Dorthea Lange. After learning more about her i enjoyed the Migrant Mother photo even more. I often find that my initial response to a piece or even a body of work may be enhanced or diminished with further knowledge of the creator and circumstance. My first response happens in a vacuum (of experience, taste, politics, preconception..). I may not get beyond that. Sometimes with additional information i am rewarded and sometimes disappointed. But often my opinion changes. <br /> I first react to a photo as charged as a lynching with extremely strong feelings. My view of it would be different if i knew it was a keepsake, souvenir for some bigot than if it were taken by a dispassionate documentarian or if the photographer was sneaking photographs to expose the injustice. I would also feel different if the photo was attempting to be artsy. <br /></p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[Art X Photography]

<p>

<p>

<p>Before I answer you Josh, let me clarify one point here. Whatever the motives of the photographer in taking a photo of the homeless, desolate and poverty stricken, I thank them for ensuring these issues remain well and truly entrenched in our minds and not swept up under the carpet as something taboo and unspoken.<br>

I suppose my meaning, Josh, is that for me, some images, powerful in meaning, go beyond the need to be rated. That's why I find critiquing them or talking about them to be of greater value. Sometimes (and please don't jump down my throat for this statement people) I think ratings cheapen a photo because they place an exact or quantitative (even somewhat tangible) value on them, rather than allowing the image to remain unattainable, for want of a better word. What also cheapens an image and what I refer to as deceptive, is when one knows the image will probably rate well because it's subject matter stirs emotions to which the photographer does not subscribe to themselves (I really hope this makes sense). I've always felt that that's the deception, rather than the manipulation of an image in post production. And yes, I agree most probably submit photos (for rating) for added exposure, as do I. Actually I would add here that I look at my ratings for as much of an ego boost as I do to gain valuable feedback to help me become a better amateur photographer (I hope in time to have a collection of images with greater "depth" that don't necessarily require a rating for me to be equally happy (as with a high rating) with that body of work. In a way that may be part of the evolutionary process for me). To go one step further, I sometimes mistakenly use rating averages to judge a person's ability before I view their collection, something I try to do less and less of. Sometimes I might be right, more often I'm wrong.<br>

But to get back to the topic at hand, seeing isn't always believing and believing isn't always about seeing. Whether the scent of an unseen flower, or news from a country we havent visited, all is subjective through the senses of the intended viewer. Don't you think?:)</p>

 

 

 

 

</p>

</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The "scent of an unseen flower" is a primary motivation of an artist. To be driven to go where he hasn't been and towards something he must see (create). To create what he hasn't (or others haven't) yet created. Not to stand on a spot where others have reproduced someone else's thoughts, unless he can bring something entirely fresh to the subject. For Gabrielle Roy's character, it's the hidden (or sacred) mountain, imagined but not realised. The artist's search and interpretation can be of a common site (back yard, Eiffel tower, Kyoto, Half dome) or an as yet unseen site or fragrance he imagines and wants to experience and/ or create.</p>

<p>Not at all a question of photograph ratings, or what others before us have done and how.</p>

 

[inoneeye]

<blockquote>

<p>To create what he hasn't (or others haven't) yet created.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>to create what others haven't yet created must surely require awareness, acknowledgement of what others have done and how. The artist search inevitably will begin in oft trodden territory. The motivation and goal may certainly be to follow the scent of an unseen flower. I know my own goal has been, to the chagrin of many i have known..</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not to stand on a spot where others have reproduced someone else's thoughts, unless he can bring something entirely fresh to the subject.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, i think the key word is unless. In the case of an artist standing were those before have stood, if he is to offer something unique it is because he/she probably recognizes the territory and can still pick up the scent of the unseen flower. And has the talent and practice to show us.<br /> <br /><br /> Freds link to a Migrant Mother hit home for me in context of the second part of your quote.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>news from of a country we haven't visited</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That image opened my eyes to a country/time i was unaware of. That was my naivete for sure, but it was the beginning of a very long and rewarding journey. In context of my world it was an unseen flower. A scent that eventually help nurture a desire in myself to find a flower unseen by any human eye. . . . still looking.<br /> <br /></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"Whatever the motives of the photographer in taking a photo of the homeless, desolate and poverty stricken, I thank them for ensuring these issues remain well and truly entrenched in our minds and not swept up under the carpet as something taboo and unspoken."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think sometimes the result is simply an invasion of privacy of people who don't have the benefit of a wall and window behind which to live their private moments. In many of those cases, I am more inclined to question the photographer's actions rather than thanking them. It seems like we can reach a balance between not sweeping these people or the issue of homelessness under the carpet and at the same time respecting their spaces.</p>

<p>When the motive is to gain attention and pathos "the easy way," I usually find both the motive and the result objectionable. Interestingly, motives and results often counter each other. So that even a questionably motivated action or click of the shutter may result in a significant and/or beneficial consequence or photograph. In many cases, a good result will outweigh less than laudable intent. But I think the reverse is also true. Many photographers shooting the homeless think they are providing a service and showing an important story and are doing it with the best of intentions but, in fact, they are just using people who wind up in public places and at their disposal and not getting a worthwhile result. Here, the resulting photograph is often meaningless and vacuous and the harm done is that it may diminish humanity and can add to de-sensitization, as Josh noted, rather than keeping something significant in our minds.</p>

[kristina_kraft]

<p>Arthur, you've done very attractive thread here. <br>

"Is it important to you to seek the unseen and to photograph it? Perhaps it is something you are looking for or perhaps even more absract. Is the scent of an unknown and yet unseen flower a stimulus for your hobby or profession? Are you driven by your appreciation of the usual, or by the challenge of the unusual or unexperienced?"<br>

Lets see the unseen: Of course, this has been my motivation from always. I've seen many places and spaces. On my way I have found I sacrifice myself a lot, spontaneously. It came as I am becoming older. I become a searcher and have discovered a life in its splendour and fulfilness. So many depths that sometimes I feel lost just as Alice in a Wonderland. I just, then, let myself into it, accept, and then it's gone. And I'm back on track, so to speak.<br>

The scent of an unseen and unknown flower - Yes, that's it. That is the part where my motivation begin, always. And I am aware of a danger on the way. But where is the limit, then? I think, I know where lies mine. I discovered it on the way.<br>

Challenge of the unusual and unexperienced: The challenge might become a problem, an obstacle. Might ask: How strong is my motivation and drive to dare. It all depends on my power of creativity - how to do things on my quest. I'm satisfied right now the way it goes.<br>

As a kid I used to play with myself in a way I'd hid myself in a closet and closed the door, sitting in a dark for a few minutes. Many kids are afraid of the dark, specially when comes the time for sleeping. I've never been afraid of the dark. That was a good start, wasn't it?<br>

Some of you were strangers for me in the begining, putting my posts among the strangers. You might call it a challenge for unexperienced and unseen situations. Now, I'm still here, writing among less strangers, feeling comfortable.</p>

 

[don_e]

<p>This year in West Virginia, a group (I've forgotten the name...dentists without borders?) announced free dental service. Five thousand people showed up. This year on the front range of Colorado, a farmer announced a gleaning (vegetables). Expecting a few hundred, he was astounded when an estimated 40,000 people showed up. This year in St George Utah, the story came out of hundreds of homeless teenaged boys on the street. They were the boys of a polygamous cult. The stories about such communities focus on the fate of the girls when they enter puberty, but few if any explore the effects on the boys when they enter puberty (they are kicked out by the older guys).</p>

<p>Homelessness is rural, suburban, urban. Many are employed and have families. Many are women and children (in the US they are more prevalent in suburban and rural homelessness). I'm sure there are photographers documenting homelessness with humanistic intent. Then there are "bum photographers". The bum is often the one looking through the viewfinder.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Thanks all (and recently Kristina (with your sense of exploration), Josh, Fred, Don) for your thoughtful takes on this subject. Lots of good reflections on why we photograph. A good read, before we go out to capture something that is imagined as 'the scent of an unseen flower.'</p>

[pnital]

<p>Two points that I would like to add, Arthur ...."Not to stand on a spot where others have reproduced someone else's thoughts, unless he can bring something entirely fresh to the subject." Now photography in general, in many of its aspects is based on other works of human creations, like photographing architecture, temples , museums, churches,mask festivals( example Venice)the Egyptian pyramids , music and theater performances, kimonos/ cloths, gardens etc. and even though a photographer added something of his own it is still a collaboration.To find the "scent of an unknown flower", is a very long quest that serious photographers are looking for all along their way of expression..<br>

And<br>

"Whatever the motives of the photographer in taking a photo of the homeless, desolate and poverty stricken, I thank them for ensuring these issues remain well and truly entrenched in our minds and not swept up under the carpet as something taboo and unspoken."<br>

I think that even though a photographer has the best of intentions, and doing it with the best feeling of concern and compassion, it will not help the homeless, it is not ethical Imo as he is not asked if he agree to be photographed, it is just disturbing his privacy as was already mentioned. It is a "country we haven't visited", It is just looking at from our better standpoint in the world, but the homeless is living in that unvisited "country". The photo will not bring him to a better place just show his/her human low status. People will look at the photo and pass to the next. My question is , will that photo help to better a homeless situation aside from bringing it our attention.?In most cases I have my doubts.</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>Pnina: "I think that even though a photographer has the best of intentions, and doing it with the best feeling of concern and compassion, it will not help the homeless"</p>

<p>No, you're right Pnina. More often than not it wont help the homeless, but once in a while it may stir enough emotion for someone to actually do something about it. Even if it means the next time you pass a homeless person you look at them rather than simply pass them by as if they weren't there (maybe even offer some change and a smile). If you look at my earlier postings, I too agree that exploitation of the homeless is rife in photography as in other facets of society, but I also like to give the benefit of the doubt since I cant always be sure of the photographer's intent and that's why I thank them.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Pnina--<br /><br />We can distinguish two different senses of collaboration. One is when the photographer is working directly and intentionally with someone else or someone else's work. Your own work with dancers and choreographers and my work with people whose portraits I take might be put under that category. But generally speaking, photographing buildings, gardens, textiles, etc. is not the same kind of collaboration. In most cases, the photographer is much more in charge there and not as immersed in an actually living interaction between two creators.<br /><br />I said elsewhere that nothing is ex nihilo for us mere mortals. Creating something from nothing is God's purview. For us, we start, as it were, in the middle of things, born with inherited traits, to certain cultural and familial surroundings. That we photograph things or people we come across, dancers, actors, friends, celebrities, buildings, objects, what have you, is simply the raw material of photography. "To find the scent of an unknown flower," after thinking about this for several days and reading the many good posts on the subject, may simply be an exercise in futility, one that falsely keeps us challenged but will never resolve itself. It may simply be a poetic way of stating the tired old desire for man to be God. Ideal notions such as "never been done before" and "completely new" and "perfection" -- to me -- present an inescapable quandary and an actual fallacy, just like the notions of absolute Truth, non-relative morality, and God. These notions are human creations themselves, and they are capable of doing as much harm as good, potentially taking us out of the world we live in and suggesting that there's something beyond humanness and mortality that we should all strive for. It all begins to sound too religious to me.<br>

<br />At the same time, I acknowledge what Josh is talking about with his experience with the Lange photo. Our unseen flowers get us out of our own worlds. They are transcendent. Perhaps how we relate our humanness and mortality to this transcendence is the whole point.</p>

[don_e]

<p>"I thank them for ensuring these issues remain well and truly entrenched in our minds and not swept up under the carpet as something taboo and unspoken."</p>

<p>What becomes entrenched in the minds of people is the notion that homelessness is something affecting bums and winos rather than people like themselves. Rather than bringing homelessness close-to-home, it distances the viewer from it. Leave the "mean streets" of the nearest big city and venture into really dangerous places, like Idaho for example, and photograph homelessness. The Homeless has become a genre. Students are eager to photograph The Homeless to get a real photograph for their portfolio.</p>

<p>"the fact that the thing he sought was not at all to be found in the "baggage" (my word) of art and beauty he had been privileged to access, but in the vision of what he wished to experience. Like "The scent of an unseen flower""</p>

<p>Lewis' work and intellect is fully religious and Christian; his concepts, such as the above can be understood from that perspective, and I'll leave it at that. My response is to take Monet's advice and plant a garden.</p>

 

[pnital]

Art

 

You did not refer to the point that it is not ethic, as the photographer is not asking the homeless his permission to photo him. A coins and even a smile is not going to really better his situation,let alone his will to be photographed if asked.

 

 

 

 

Fred

 

We talked about it before, and I agree that it is different and another kind of collaboration than the direct one we are doing , and you are right , I also said it before, we don't start from scratch. We were ,and are, a part of a long chain of creating works, in all domains of creativity, that were done before us, continue to be done, continue to search for the "scent of the unknown flower", and are an influence on what we do today and will do tomorrow....this is our human need and trigger to express our life , and create the world around us. It is not the same world as was millennium or 100 years ago, as the human mind is creating constantly. Architecture, ( as an example) as was two hundreds years ago, is different nowadays. Impressions can mix different media ,expressing/combining literature or poetry with dance or theatre, painting and photography etc. in one creation mode ( which the technical developments enable us nowadays). These are tools artists are using to find their own voice.

 

So I think that we are quite close in the way we perceive the subject. ;-))

[pnital]

<p>Sorry that it has printed combined, but it is a different answer to Art and Fred.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Pnina, I meant only to address you directly in my first paragraph about collaboration.</p>

<p>In the rest of the post, I wasn't so much talking about artists and the influence from one artist to the next, although we have discussed that before. I was talking about all humans, artists or not, finding themselves in the midst of a world and context and able to transcend the known and the accomplished while also being steeped in it. I was questioning just how ideal a quest this scent of an unseen flower can become and if there might be a religious trap in overreaching for it.</p>

[kristina_kraft]

<p>I've just recalled that Lewis was a photographer too. He liked to photograph a girl who was a doughter of his friend - a rector of one of the churches in the 19 ct. It is said that this girl had been his inspiration for a book <em>Alice in a Wonderland </em> . So you may call me a <em>looney</em> if I say that this girl might had been his <em>scent of an unseen flower</em> .<br>

(Let me find the photo of that girl. I've seen her on the web.)</p>

[pnital]

<p>Fred,<br>

"I was questioning just how ideal a quest this scent of an unseen flower can become and if there might be a religious trap in overreaching for it."<br>

Thanks for better explaining your intention ( for me). As you know I can have some language understanding barriers....</p>

<p> I don't have an answer for it, I know only that I'm in a constant quest for better expression of my work. Thanks for your help and my wishes to you for the coming new year.</p>

[kristina_kraft]

<p>Here is his photo of Alice Liddell, a daughter of Dean of Christ Church.</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alice_Liddell.jpg</p>

<p> </p>