Cliché

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, I've always enjoyed discussions with you. Here, I take you to be asserting differences you have but I honestly don't get what the differences are. You first said that a toolkit doesn't make sense to you but now it seems we were looking at toolkits similarly after all. (We seem to agree on the way the clutch example would work and on the continuing process of learning with photography.) Now you mention making emotional choices (Hiro) when shooting, and I suspect we agree on that as well and that most of us put a lot of emotion into our shooting. I'm not sure how making emotional choices or moves (if not actual "choices") when shooting relates to thinking about clichés in this forum. I'm mindful that you started by feeling the need to rant and that you are now emphasizing your difference of approach, but I just don't see the difference. I am likely missing something here. Sorry. Most importantly, you've given a great example of how a cliché (snapshot) can be creatively approached and I appreciate that example very much.</p>

<p><strong>Thomas</strong>, Thanks. Very good points. I think novelty (actually most things we come up with) is secondary to being genuine.</p>

<p><strong>Colin</strong>, subverting clichés seems to be significant, to the extent it can be done. Thanks.</p>

[laurent-paul]

<p>From the definition, beeing born, living, and dying is a cliche, as everybody does just that.<br>

Therefore, can we really avoid cliche in Art ?</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p>Laurent-Paul, I don't think an avoidance paradigm is a practical or viable idea. Instead of avoidance, it's better to actively reach for something else. When we focus on avoiding something, somehow it magnifies, magnetizes and exerts its pull on us all the more.</p>

<p>Being born and dying is one thing, how we live is something else. We can only photograph out of our own consciousness, and if that's cliche', so will our photography be. We can't avoid ourselves, but we can grow, evolve, and change.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Just to throw in a terrible cliché: if you can't see it, you can't take a photo of it....<br>

If photography has taught me one thing, it is to look, and to look a lot. And slowly learning to imagine how things look from a different angle, see structures, textures and colours... and the final image I see, for me that's what I try to take a picture of. So how is that a cliché, if it is a personal process? <br>

Well, in many many ways. First of all, I've got a cultural backpack like everybody else. A cross means something else to a Christian than it does to a Buddhist, the example of the haystack in Russia given earlier is a very good example. You cannot cast this aside, since it defines your view on the world.<br>

Second, I'm also just a normal person, like the rest of us. None of us have continious original thoughts, visions and views. Even the greatest artists aren't creative all the time. Meaning, most of the time I will resort to tried and tested formulas, and often unknowingly so.<br>

And lastly, I've got a inherent idea about what's beautiful and what's not, like all of us, and that is not a unique vision at all. While we (as a "community") might disagree on what's beautiful and what not, I feel that given a large population you will find that there are just a few visions with minor variations on beauty. Since I aim to make pictures beautiful in the way I like (and fail 99% of the time), my pictures will obey to some "rules" of composition, colour use and what else that I and others like - so, yeah, always at least elements of cliché.</p>

<p>That said, trying to look at things from a different angle... Photography does inspire to take unconventional viewpoints, look at things as a composition with elements, rather than an subject, see light have a colour, where most people just see the sun, and so on. In that sense, photography also helps thinking unconventional, and therefor less cliché. This is a continious learning process indeed, and I think and hope I'll never stop learning. But whether the lessons learnt always translate into the final pictures - well, to me it's harder than I care to admit.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Nothing is "a cliche'." </p>

<p>The word is used only to claim one's superiority, it doesn't point to any phenomenon.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Laurent-Paul</strong>, An interesting question. In your own work, I've often seen what seems like an internalization of styles and fashion given a personal stamp. It's an effective and often moving means of expression. Your few words here strike me as down to Earth and realistic, and your photographs often speak similarly.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter</strong>, That "none of us have continuous original thoughts" seems like a fact of life worth taking into account. Certainly, the more creative among us have very unique gut outpourings but it's not as if some of the more rational thoughts and experienced paradigms of culture don't somehow go into the sparks and bursts, even if the "ideas" themselves aren't being attended to in the moment of the snap. So often in philosophical discussions, I come away with a feeling of tension. I don't think free will/determinism is an either/or matter and I don't think realism or idealism alone adequately describes the human condition. Like you, I think elements of cliché are around and dealing with them is a matter of counterpoint.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, I think the reason you "come away with a feeling of tension" is the indirectness of philosophizing.... your mind doesn't by default operate on words...words are "workarounds" employed mostly for linear communication chores, as well as construction of outlines. If we could read each others minds we wouldn't use words.</p>

<p>Words may "make us human," but they also account for the scale of human horrors. Chimps only do local atrocities.</p>

<p>Perceptions and emotions are inherently non-verbal...but we do often try to frame them with words. Repeated endlessly they define neurosis (eg the "search for truth").</p>

<p>The non-verbal nature of photography is one of its attractions...I think our minds are more at home with images than with strings of words.</p>

<p>Poets get closer to verbally identifying and relating perceptions and emotions (called "understanding") than do philosophers because they don't try to tie things down more tightly than words allow. I think poets know what words are and are not...</p>

<p>.... here, on this forum, we often "reify" words, pretending they are entities..."cliche'," "truth," and of course..."art." :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p> The contents of our backpacks vary widely. It's more complicated than Russian square vs. American round haystacks. As transportation has improved, you have many people (like me) who have lived in two or more countries for extended periods of time, or moved often and far within one country. Oval haystacks, anyone? It is no secret in history that many (but by no means all) top artists were well-traveled and/or expatriates. One can acquire a multidimensional way of looking at the world (and/or a fusion, fission, or synthesis), though most end up suppressing everything else in order to ease into whatever culture they're in at the moment. And this may be part of why artists, and photographers in particular, are so energized by the experience, even if their photographs don't show it right away.</p>

<p>Normal person? They only seem that way until we get to know them. :-)</p>

<p> Anyone who has continuous original thoughts would probably be unable to communicate with others, be deemed insane, and/or end up living under a bridge. Remember when Moses chatted with the Burning Bush? He had to wear a veil so as not to injure onlookers with his new (radiant?) visage. That's what original thought will do for you.</p>

<p>Ansel Adams said towards the end of his days that he had <em>"four good ideas" </em> in his lifetime. Herbert Marcuse wrote that a truly original work of art would be invisible to the culture at large. I think that there are lots of future masterpieces floating around right under our noses.</p>

<p> As with snowflakes, given that there are nearly 7,000,000,000 people living in the world, the idea of uniqueness is untenable, at least in an absolute sense. But... there are variations.</p>

<p> BTW, If one only fails 99% of the time, they're one of the greatest photographers that ever lived.</p>

<p> I see the tension regarding cliche' as the field generated between conformity/generic mind and the Individual/specific mind . If it's biased towardsthe former, it's easy to grasp, but a soporific to many. Too much of the latter, and almost no one will get it, though those that do will be electrified. This tension creates the horizon, defining a field or context for human communications, thought and experience.</p>

<p>___________________________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>John</strong>, One of the reasons I like Philosophy is because I welcome that feeling of tension. It's energizing. It's why I used "counterpoint" in the next breath. I don't run from tension any more than I do from clichés. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, I didn't imagine you disliked tension :-) </p>

<p> If you did dislike tension you (like me) wouldn't be attracted to verbal artifice (philosophy) in the first place.</p>

<p>I hope you understood my point about "cliche" being "reified" ( a non-entity whose existence we begin to believe in)</p>

<p> "truth," "art," and "cliche" all have to do with presumptions of superiority: All the best people "recognize art when they see it" :-)</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>John</strong>, I don't see us "reifying" anything. We use words descriptively. When a quality or idea is given a "name" (which is what many words do), it may seem like it's become an entity, but not really. Many of us focused on cliché as <em>expression</em> rather than subject or substance. I don't take anyone to be pretending clichés have a different ontology than they do. Any presumption of superiority is in the mind of the beholder, I think.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>I would agree with Johns earlier posting.</p>

<p>"The Perfect Way is only difficult for those who pick and choose,</p>

<p>Do not like, do not dislike; all will then be clear.</p>

<p>Make a hairbreadth difference, and Heaven and Earth are set apart;</p>

<p>If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against."</p>

<p>Seng Ts'ans Poem on Trust in the Heart.</p>

<p>Seng was the third patriarch of Ch'an buddhism of China about 600 A.D. He composed the poem starting with these lines which is known and popular today.<br>

Translation courtesy E.A. Burtt</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Ilia's mention of Ch'an (the Chinese roots of Zen, whose earlier roots were in India) is timely.</p>

<p>I almost half-ascribe to that sort of idea. I know I can step back from verbal analysis and see the words working like tiny animals, sometimes usefully and sometimes mischeviously (as when we call someone's work "cliche" or label ourselves "artists" in contrast to "non-artists").</p>

<p>On the other hand, my experience is that Buddhism misses the boat. It's great if you are starving in the backwoods of Asia, too poor for thrills and chills..but if you're a comfortable expensive-camera-owner-operator who seeks tension and release (as I do, and as Fred seems to), and especially if you like meat and loud music...Zen seems a little too refined, too unappreciative of your animal nature. Which may be the reason few Buddhists are Zen practitioners :-)</p>

<p>This author makes a beloved-by-some-photographers point about life, which may be sharpest at its edge...that Guatama B may have missed : <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/07/04/specials/hemingway-afternoon.html">http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/07/04/specials/hemingway-afternoon.html</a></p>

[jtk]

<p>Ilia's mention of Ch'an (the Chinese roots of Zen, whose earlier roots were in India) is timely.</p>

<p>I almost half-ascribe to that sort of idea. I know I can step back from verbal analysis and see the words working like tiny animals, sometimes usefully and sometimes mischeviously (as when we call someone's work "cliche" or label ourselves "artists" in contrast to "non-artists").</p>

<p>On the other hand, my experience is that Buddhism misses the boat. It's great if you are starving in the backwoods of Asia, too poor for thrills and chills..but if you're a comfortable expensive-camera-owner-operator who seeks tension and release (as I do, and as Fred seems to), and especially if you like meat and loud music...Zen seems a little too refined, too unappreciative of your animal nature. Which may be the reason few Buddhists are Zen practitioners :-)</p>

<p>This author makes a beloved-by-some-photographers point about life, which may be sharpest at its edge...that Guatama B may have missed : <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/07/04/specials/hemingway-afternoon.html">http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/07/04/specials/hemingway-afternoon.html</a><br>

...you'll have to register, but since it's freshly delivered from 1932, maybe it's worth it.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Fred,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think free will/determinism is an either/or matter and I don't think realism or idealism alone adequately describes the human condition. Like you, I think elements of cliché are around and dealing with them is a matter of counterpoint.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very well put. Now only to learn how to deal with them in a creative way :-)</p>

<p>Luis G, your last posting, very good points raised and in essence what I meant (I'm often a bit messy in writing when trying to convey thoughts, but I hope to stick around on this forum and get the hang of that). As for the 99%, well, using 99,9999999% would be a cliché... but much closer to the truth ;-)</p>

<p>Ilia, I like the poem as a mind-teasing exercise, but not to choose, it's a very difficult skill to acquire. Given that the majority of people (me included) cannot prevent themselves from judging on first sight, loosing the instinct of choosing "for/against" is a few steps further. A noble target maybe, but one to spend a lifetime on.</p>

[sobeystudio]

<p>If a cliche' gets the point across, use a cliche. Example: a hard working waitress at a diner, talks and looks tough- cliche'. Actor is waiter- cliche'. Starving artist-cliche'. If that's the story, then thats the story. Its not your cliche- it's theirs. Shoot away.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> The contents of our backpacks vary widely. It's more complicated than Russian square vs. American round haystacks. As transportation has improved, you have many people (like me) who have lived in two or more countries for extended periods of time, or moved often and far within one country. Oval haystacks, anyone? It is no secret in history that many (but by no means all) top artists were well-traveled and/or expatriates. One can acquire a multidimensional way of looking at the world (and/or a fusion, fission, or synthesis), though most end up suppressing everything else in order to ease into whatever culture they're in at the moment. And this may be part of why artists, and photographers in particular, are so energized by the experience, even if their photographs don't show it right away.</p>

<p>Normal person? They only seem that way until we get to know them. :-)</p>

<p> Anyone who has continuous original thoughts would probably be unable to communicate with others, be deemed insane, and/or end up living under a bridge. Remember when Moses chatted with the Burning Bush? He had to wear a veil so as not to injure onlookers with his new (radiant?) visage. That's what original thought will do for you.</p>

<p>Ansel Adams said towards the end of his days that he had <em>"four good ideas" </em> in his lifetime. Herbert Marcuse wrote that a truly original work of art would be invisible to the culture at large. I think that there are lots of future masterpieces floating around right under our noses.</p>

<p> As with snowflakes, given that there are nearly 7,000,000,000 people living in the world, the idea of uniqueness is untenable, at least in an absolute sense. But... there are variations.</p>

<p> BTW, If one only fails 99% of the time, they're one of the greatest photographers that ever lived.</p>

<p> I see the tension regarding cliche' as the field generated between conformity/generic mind and the Individual/specific mind . If it's biased towardsthe former, it's easy to grasp, but a soporific to many. Too much of the latter, and almost no one will get it, though those that do will be electrified. This tension creates the horizon, defining a field or context for human communications, thought and experience.</p>

<p>___________________________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Interesting. Like what was said already, I think that cliché's are inherent to Life, inescapable and deeply tattooed on everyones consciousness. And who doesn't want to show of or see someone else's tattoos every now and then, even though they all become to serve the same purpose...? True arts and photography's history I think there have been nothing but distinctive affirmations of embracing the cliché in the various expressions of human consciousness. Being that it's perhaps exactly the Cliché - with the universal themes of love / hate / death / life / ... - that will manifest itself as being the individual experience leading to a higher universal answer. </p>

<p>Earlier in the discussion there was the mention of Serrano's " Piss Christ ". It's a fascinating photograph, the idea behind it deeply rooted in an uber cliché : Jesus Christ hanging on the cross, and the photograph itself shows not only that, but it also shows Jesus on the cross surrounded in a golden and heavenly divine light. This " divine golden light " is being established through Serrano's own urine, the message being here I think is that just like Jesus and his message, we all are " the sons of God ", for each and every single particle and energy coming from our own body & mind can be traced back to the same universal source. That's what I read in the photograph, it's an ultimate embracing of a cliché and I agree with it but I wouldn't rely on the title with it's message to do so, for if I or anyone else would have needed it, it wouldn't have been universally cliché, which it evidently is ( Jesus hanging on a cross in a golden divine light ). So what I don't agree with is Serrano's use of the title " Piss Christ ", that to me is also a cliche, but a negative and avoidable one, establishing nothing but Serrano's ( or anyone's ) own ego looking out for an affirmation through confrontation, in which the universal concept / cliché of the initial expression gets lost without having touched it's intuitive knowing. Not believing, but knowing.</p>

<p>In a way, I think Serrano became afraid of the cliché, afraid of only showing Jesus Christ in a golden divine light ( which without the title and knowledge of how the photograph was made would be pretty much exactly how one would see it ) and had to counterpoint it with it's " Piss Christ " concept and all the connotation / confrontation around it. Being an artist and not a priest, even though the two perhaps also have a lot in common, maybe in the end he didn't really wanted a surrendering to anything " cliché ", to anything absolutely " divine ", but needed some friction which isn't bad per se. Michelangelo came closer, sculpting the " divine ", the " human ", and the " cliché " out of his David anatomically, an expression through knowledge rather then believe.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"the message being here I think is that just like Jesus and his message, we all are " the sons of God ", for each and every single particle and energy coming from our own body & mind can be traced back to the same universal source."</p>

<p><strong>Phylo--</strong></p>

<p>The crucial phrase in this quote is "I think."</p>

<p>Because it's certainly not what I think or what the photo stimulates in me. </p>

<p>It's interesting to bring up the role of the title here. The way I read it is that Serrano's inclusion of the title is an integral part of the photo and the expression. Choosing to somehow exclude it or differentiate it from the so-called "photo itself" is not to accept what Serrano has offered in its fullness.</p>

<p>Now, if seeing Jesus bathed in a golden light brings to you the message that we are all sons of God and every particle is involved in that, more power to you. We each experience photos in our own way, given our own backgrounds and emotional and cultural dispositions. Were I to have seen that same photo without the title, it would simply have been a great photo to me, it would represent the very human concept of faith, all its power. But it would say nothing to me about Son of God, other than reminding me of that particular mythology (which is how I relate to the notion of God and Son of God). So, while the message of faith would come through, and a brilliant representation of religious thinking would come through, it would hit me personally through empathy but it would not make me believe nor would it make me think Serrano necessarily believed nor would it give me the message you seem to think is universal. The symbol is universal but the message is much more often individual. That's what I love about symbols.</p>

<p>My take on it is that it was Serrano's beliefs and ego that allowed and helped him to create the photo to begin with, so not asserting that ego, to me, would have been false and hypocritical. </p>

<p>Now, to me your post brings up an interesting point about whether or not it has become cliché for artists to be in-your-face and controversial. I think it's a risk just like other risks and just like other clichés. It's a matter of what you do with it and how well you do it. The fact the Serrano's in-your-faceness goes along with a very compelling and moving photo makes me take it seriously and makes me think he did it well.</p>

<p>What seems evident to me is that clichés abound in both the picture and the title, and it's a great example of just how influential and powerful a tool clichés can be.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Martin</strong>, I like that a lot . . . "It's not your cliché, it's theirs." Perhaps it is a matter of taking possession of expressions, making them your own in a way, that is often at stake.</p>

<p><strong>Ilia</strong>, I react similarly to John and Wouter. I don't actually see it as any more a noble goal than other ways of operating or living, though I do respect those who seek it out.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Phylo, I also didn't read Serrano's photograph the way you did. To me, it is a great example of a cliche'/ religious symbol (crucifix) recontextualized into something else. The resplendent color is inverted by the title. Serrano, ever the provocateur, <em>wanted</em> the viewer to see beauty and sacrilege simultaneously, the sacred and the profane and/or human, and for me, a metaphor of the sacred drowned by the profane, and perhaps an observation on transfiguration, too. </p>

<p>Serrano himself said, among other things, that the work was meant for the viewer to question what's acceptable and unacceptable.</p>

<p> Serrano did other "Immersions".</p>

<p>Piss Discus</p>

<p>http://www.artnet.com/artwork/425932974/424021068/andres-serrano-piss-discus-immersions.html</p>

<p>He filled a cross with Blood:</p>

<p>http://www.artnet.com/magazine_pre2000/news/barone/barone7-2-5.asp</p>

<p>And others...</p>

<p>Ilia, the issue for me has nothing to do with a matter of judgment, let alone intimations of superiority. Cliche' is not a nebulous term, nor is it a negative one. It's simply a descriptive term, nothing more. </p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>" God is in each and every one of us ". That's a ( religious ) cliché, as big as they come. But what I understand in every cliché is not something of little value but rather an expression of something of importance, something solid and universal. I see God ( call it ' Dog ' if you like ) as being ' nothing ' but the universe. The universe is in each and every one of us, sounds more scientifically reasonable, doesn't it. Jesus, myth or not, said basically exactly that, that he was the son of the universe and that we all are. He was a scientist, if anything. I don't care what some institutional church would like me to believe or not to believe about Jesus, I only care what I believe to know directly, as simply being another human. What Serrano did, in my strictly personal view, was celebrating this notion of us being in the universe and the universe being in us and he did this through the readily understood cliché of Jesus on the cross, Jesus being the son of God = being the son of the universe in a bottle of urine. From this perspective I don't see anything of sacrilege about that, the molecules in the urine being no less than the molecules in the cross / Jesus body / the statue of David / you, me / the whole damn universe, are being anything more, on this essential level of matter they are all equal with none any less or more cliché then the other. The photograph simply works on this level of form and matter, and without the context of it's title attached to it, the golden light might be made up of anything but it isn't really important, what's important is what it portrays. But then comes the title, not so much the title but the statement behind it, with the cultural connotation attached to it as opposed to the actual image which is quite aesthetically pleasing. So another cliché is introduced ( approaching nihilism : pissing on the universe ) that cancels the other one out, the one intentionally esthablished through the form of the photograph. And it leaves me thinking about the cliché vs the artist, who was perhaps unwilling to embrace either one cliché, but needed the tension between them, which is perfectly reasonable as a creative means. Nevertheless I have a strong feeling that you can't really have more than one simultaneously, not when one's inspiration and intention is to be at the highest point. Cliché's are abundant, but which one do we chose our inspiration from and, once inspired, are we able to stick with it ? Does the cliché transforms us or are we the one transforming the cliché ?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"the golden light might be made up of anything but it isn't really important, what's important is what it portrays"</p>

<p>Obviously it was important to Serrano. As I said, without the urine motivating him and perhaps even the title in mind, I don't think he would have bothered making the photograph. I think what the golden light is made up of is one of the more significant aspects of the photograph and from what I've read about Serrano, I believe it was quite important to him as well.</p>

<p>"The universe is in each and every one of us, sounds more scientifically reasonable"</p>

<p>Though I respect whatever views of God or the universe you have, no, it doesn't sound scientifically reasonable to me. To my way of thinking, I am in the universe, the universe is not in me. Generally, though, even that is flawed thinking. I find it better not to think of myself and the universe in terms of the paradigm of in or out, but that's a whole different discussion.</p>

<p>"not when one's inspiration and intention is to be at the highest point"</p>

<p>If your inspiration and intention is to "be at the highest point" more power to you. It's not often mine and I doubt it was Serrano's. There are some awfully lowly intentions that go into making some compelling photographs and other works of art.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>Yes, it was important to Serrano, like in many of his works, but the fact that he called it " piss christ " instead of for example " Jesus floating in a divine golden light " isn't nearly as important to me, not in any positive/negative direction. It let's assume that Serrano's urine is somehow more significant ( " shocking " ) by acting as a counterpoint, then what the body of Jesus was made of : flesh, bones, blood, urine,...Or what whole galaxies are made of : essentially it is all the same "cliché" thing / energy. I'm approaching it here from a quantum-mechanical level ( which is invited by the religious theme of the image ) that goes beyond the cultural connotation of " piss ". From that level the context of the photograph becomes meaningless ( less important ). It could have been piss, it could have been liquid gold in which the crucifix was floating, does it really matter ? Paradoxically, I think it doesn't matter to Serrano ( which I suspect to be very religious ) but what does seem to matter is that he wants the viewer to know that it's made by use of his own urine, resulting in a lesser cliché then it would have been otherwise. Hence my : the artist perhaps being afraid of surrendering to the cliché. But cliché's are very powerful in that they don't need constant chatter around them to evoke their power from.</p>

<p> With " at the highest point ", I was more referring to examples in Art like Michaelangelo's David. Examples where the artist kind of disappears in the finished work even though the highly inspired ( 'religious' or otherwise I don't care ) intention of the artist in creating the work is apparent. Also, in creation, as opposed to destruction, I don't believe in lowly intentions, there are only intentions and they all point upwards.</p>

<p>For me it's perfectly logical and scientific to know that the universe is in you and me and in everyone else, if it wasn't then how could our minds possibly begin to conceive it ? Isn't the universe in the Earth also, as well as the Earth is in the universe ?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo--</p>

<p>I'm afraid from the quantum level, not only does the context of the photograph become meaningless, the entire photograph is meaningless, at least in the way we're discussing it. Just as his piss may be seen as merely another substance, the photograph may be seen as merely another substance, too. If piss is not piss per se at the quantum level then art is not art at that level and a photograph is not a photograph at that level and none of it would be of interest to be discussed as we're discussing it at the quantum level. If we can discuss the photograph as photograph (rather than as mere quantum-level substance) -- something that moves us, that gives us a message, etc. -- then we can discuss piss as piss.</p>

<p>Even the warmth of urine has a role in my perception of the image.</p>

<p>I differ from you on intentions. I think there are lowly ones. I have some of my own.</p>

<p>I love Michelangelo's David, but it's an example of a type of art. There are other types. Warhol wasn't interested in disappearing. Often, performance artists don't disappear.</p>

<p>"Or what whole galaxies are made of : essentially it is all the same "cliché" thing / energy."</p>

<p>I'm not one who subscribes to the everything is everything school of thought or everything is anything or something like that. It makes thinking and talking really difficult. I don't think I even <em>feel</em> that way. Some feelings feel one way and others feel another. They aren't, at any interesting level to me especially in the arena of photographs or aesthetics, all the same. I know that approach can and does work for some scientists and in some other areas and instances.</p>