Fantasy

[aplumpton]

<p>That is a memorable quote from a revolutionary artist. It reinforces the opinion of some that evolution as opposed to revolution can be equally significant (Mozart is a good example, in respect of his musical style).</p>

<p>Picasso also said the following:</p>

<p>"I begin with an idea, then it becomes something else."<br /><br>

"There are painters who transform the sun into a yellow spot, but there are others who, thanks to their art and intelligence, transform a yellow spot into the sun."</p>

<p>The two may speak to some degree of the presence of fantasy in the artist's mind. </p>

[luis_g]

<p> To steal, in Picasso's quote, is to make something your own. To copy is to enslave oneself to another's idea.</p>

<p> Roy, I, too, had some initial apprehensions about Fred's use of the word, but soon understood what he meant by it.</p>

<p> </p>

[nicolerenee]

<p>If there is Truth, then by it's very deffinition in has to be absolute and black and white and immutable. If is isn't, then the word means nothing and we're simply changing it's meaning to suit our idea of what it ought to be and not what it is. The Truth is that rock that everything we see is built on so it's natural that what we see should project that Truth (some things more forceably than others the nearer to the Truth they are) and find a spark of recognition and even yearning within us. What we choose to project that truth through colors our perception of it.<br>

Fantasy seems to open up a way to view what we feel about things without the confines of the rules of our natural world. A wonderfully kind lady may be much more a fairy princess in truth than what she is allowed by this world. A woodland glade may be much more full of magic than our "advanced" minds comprehend. </p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"If there is Truth, then by it's very deffinition in has to be absolute and black and white and immutable." <strong>--Nicole</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are many theories of truth, most of which don't suppose that it's absolute and immutable, for example pragmatist theories like Richard Rorty's and also coherence theories. Many believe that we can't dismiss context and so any notion of truth that claims immutability is basically meaningless.</p>

<p>I, myself, have a major aversion to anything that claims to be black and white, except a good photograph ;)</p>

<p>As for what you say about "fantasy," it's beautifully written and strikes me as a stimulating way to see it:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"A woodland glade may be much more full of magic than our 'advanced' minds comprehend." <strong>--Nicole</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. I think that says something both about truth and about fantasy. "Natural" and "true" are different.</p>

<p>Photographs and photographers can find the magic sometimes.</p>

[nicolerenee]

<p>Unless the thing is immutable it can't be truth, or we must change the word we are using to something else. If the deffinition of truth is constantly changing or in flux it is a meaningless word or else we aren't talking about the same thing. What context (and let's also say emotional state, which can be greatly influenced by mood and tone and context of a photograph) you view the truth through will color the way you see it, but context doenst change the fact, only our perception of it.<br>

I keep thinking of the famous Cottingly fairies. Through the lens of a camera the fantasy of a little girls mind was made manifest. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Nicole--</strong></p>

<p>Not an argument I want to have here. Thanks for your thoughts on fantasy.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Truth may exist, and may be invariable and immutable, but I doubt whether many, if any, humans can perceive it. We exist and operate on a much more empirical and relativistic level. Any concept of truth or approach to it is limited by the subjective judgements of his fellows, who may be no more able to contemplate truth than himself. </p>

<p>When a human conceives, envisions, imagines and externalizes his thoughts, whimsies or caprices, he may be creating fantasy or may be driven by it. Truth has little to do with it, I think, and in most cases is not an objective of either the approach or the creation. Art is not bound by truth. </p>

[nicolerenee]

<p>Fred, I hope you didnt think I was trying to start an argument! Just relating that my ideas of fantasy are really closely linked with my thoughts on truth and the one makes a difference in how I see the other. If I believed truth to be a changeable thing my thoughts on fantasy would be different than they are. Still, point taken. Mouth zipped. ;)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Nicole--</strong></p>

<p>Sorry. I didn't communicate well. I was thinking about philosophical argument, not that you were starting an "argument" in the negative sense. I've learned that discussions of "truth" and "reality" don't usually go well on PN and they more often get us away from the topic at hand. So I just didn't want to go there at this point. I sensed that we are both pretty set in our different notions of truth, so I figured we should just leave it at that rather than trying to convince each other of something so basic.</p>

[nicolerenee]

<p>Fred, that's very true. It's been a while I guess. Agreed!</p>

[jtk]

<p><em><strong>John Kelly - "</strong> Vladimir Nabokov has passed, but we still have Bruce Chatwin, for example."</em><br /><em>No, we do not. Mr. Chatwin passed away on 18 January, <strong>1989 </strong>at the age of 48<strong>. - Luis G</strong></em><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>Right. </strong><br />I was thinking of Jonathan Raban. I confused him with Chatwin...their work seems related, as does Alan Moorhead's, Eric Newby's, Peter Matthiesson's and John McPhee's. I think novels can bring an extra dimension to "fact," even extra "truth." But I especially love writers who can address "fact" with both clear non-novelistic eyes and literary beauty, the way that bunch does.<br /><em>Photographers are sometimes able to do both....</em><br /><em></em><br /><a href="http://www.jonathanraban.com/">http://www.jonathanraban.com/</a></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Clear political and social analysis seems to come in waves, as that of Britain's Angry Young Men novelists of the 50s and 60s, between valleys of silence. People like Raban probably help to increase the height of those waves. Interesting journalist and writer, living in an important period for his country.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Raban's country is the USA. He moved to Seattle intentionally after a long search for the perfect town (tentative locations included somewhere in Alabama). Personally, I'd have chosen another city (did choose), but Seattle's a good bet for oysters, smoked salmon etc.<br>

Raban, Matthiesson, and Theroux have had a lot to say about issues confronted by people in various parts of the world..most especially by lumpen Americans and rednecks (Raban), American Indians (Mathiesson), and Africans (Theroux's "Dark Star" especially).</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Raban, huh? Ssss-sure... I find Raban hard to confuse with Chatwin, specially in terms of politics.</p>

<p>BTW, If John was thinking of the guy who wrote <em>In The Spirit of Crazy Horse, Shadow Country, The Snow Leopard, </em> etc. It's Peter Matthiessen, without an <strong>"o". </strong> Unless, of course, John's thinking of someone else. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Matthiessen decades ago. What a learned, congenial man he was, and I suspect, still is.</p>

<p> </p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>I think fantasy is part and parcel of who we are as individuals and as 'artists' (including photographers). To deny it's influence in our photography is to lose a part of the photo's essence. As I see it, the perception of our immediate world is governed by our interpretation of it (and so an element of fantasy is inevitable). Fred, you ask what a fantasy feels like...to me it feels like an expression, a release, a interpretation of my perceptions. Its the feeling of creating something that may be obvious, in it's interpretation, or sublime, yet always present in how I see my immediate world. Do I feel it in my work? yes always, I choose to make it a part of it unless of course I decide to use photography to document the world say....like a photojournalist would, but even then the element of fantasy is ever present all be it far more sublime</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>(fantasy is) "yet always present in how I see my immediate world" (Art X)</p>

<p>That is a very much too sweeping condition in my own case. I engage in, or evoke feelings of, fantasy only at special moments, certainly not always. It is a precious companion and instigator of my perceptions of the world, arising not on command, somewhat mysteriously, but often triggered in my imagination when certain things "align".</p>

<p>That "alignment" may be related to particular past experiences, to philosophical positionning, to present feelings or sensitivities that may have been aroused by the object or by other non-photographic interactions, to the partcular axis of the sun and how light may be related to objects, to how I perceive those objects as things quite different from their technical (realistic) description and to their relation to other things around them, to the effect (feedback) of my perceived vision, and to fanciful interpretations in my mind of what is seen, to how the object affects me, and other factors).</p>

<p>At times, the consequences of my act of photographing when so affected is not even conscious to me and is revealed later (sometime much later, as silver negatives or electronic images can be passed over) when I look at my contact prints or enlarged straight prints and realize what I was doing. Further fantasy is sometimes created in enlarging the negative in the darkroom or modifying the image in the lightroom. This may be fantasy compounded upon original fantasy, or fantasy enacted on a negative or image that is devoid of fantasy in its realisation, or in its visual content.</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>"I engage in, or evoke feelings of, fantasy only at special moments, certainly not always....triggered in my imagination when certain things "align"." (Arthur Plumpton)<br>

I see where you're coming from here Arthur, I guess I see fantasy as a "precious companion" (well said btw) more often than not in my perception of my immediate world. You say it's something you experience "only at special moments". More than likely, but do you think that no matter how we perceive the world, whether in or out of those 'special moments', an element of fantasy (which to me is influenced by past experiences, culture, social and economic factors etc...) is ever present? i guess what i'm implying here is that for me, fantasy and realism often interact with each other in how i perceive the world and so that perception is expressed in my photography.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Art -</p>

<p>I understand your approach. I guess that in my case, I experience different reactions depending upon what I am doing or how I am feeling. In a simple case, if I am documenting an object to show someone later or to permit its sale on Photo.Net or to show a product to someone, I am not engaging any fantasy (except perhaps an imagined benefit of the sale!). That is quite different from an object (or scene), animal or person that moves me, whether I am observing that or attempting to construct a an imagined composition. Fantasy often plays some role. However, as much as I would like it to be, my imagination is not always that active, and may be fighting too familiar paradigms I created in past photographic experiences or approaches.</p>

<p>Fantasies are often experienced, I find, when thinking outside of the box. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I don't have much control over my fantasies.</p>

<p>They seem to come and go as they please.</p>

<p>Many of the fantasies I have that affect my photographs don't necessarily happen in the moment of photographing, though they can. They may have happened the night before or a month before.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I hope it's okay for me to throw in a series of binary/either/or questions about fantasy that I've been entertaining myself with. They're a little bit silly (you could quite reasonably answer "both" to all of them).</p>

<p>Is fantasy:</p>

<ul>

<li>access to, <strong>or</strong> escape from?</li>

<li>a way in <strong>or </strong>a way out?</li>

<li>an unnecessary (though often enjoyable) diversion, <strong>or</strong> a useful and often necessary means of growth?</li>

<li>the peel, the shell, the dreck, dross, that needs to be cleaned out, scraped off, and gotten rid of in order to reach the good stuff; <strong>or</strong> is fantasy itself the very beginnings, the germ of the good stuff which takes bizarre and unexpected form because that's how things look, are conceived of, when we don't yet <em>know</em> how they look or how to conceive of them (embryonic knowledge; embryonic actions).</li>

</ul>

<p>-Julie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Julie--</strong></p>

<p>Not so silly. I could and would answer both to the first two questions. Which answer I might provide at any given time would depend on mood and context.</p>

<p>For me, fantasy is more of an escape. Escape from the typical way I hold myself, the public persona. Escape from limitations I may feel. Access to a world of transcendence. Ungroundedness. Flights of fancy. Giving myself permission.</p>

<p>A way out of the mundane and into the significant, recognizing that the mundane can be significant from a certain perspective. A way out of habits. A way out of roles (sometimes right into new ones). There's a genuineness to fantasies that I'm drawn to. They seem unfiltered and unfettered. Personal. Individual. Sharing them or working with them can be liberating and intimate.</p>

<p>Useful. Probably necessary for me.</p>

<p>The beginnings, the germ. Nothing is dreck if I attend to it in a meaningful and/or positive way. Even table scraps can be used for compost.</p>

[jtk]

<p>This seemed relevant on the Tanyth Berkeley thread, but I think it relates as well here..re "reality" vs "fantasy."<br>

I just saw Pedro Almodovar's "All About My Mother" last night. Fabulous film. It's partially gender-themed...addresses universal issues ...seems almost Shakespearian that way. Almodovar prefers women to men as actors because he sees them as more entertaining (I think he uses a more subtle term). One of his Shakespearian-seeming (to me) characters, Agrado, addresses "authenticity" in a way that it gives great reality-weight to what most would call fantasy. Agrado's monologue has gotten a great deal of attention in literary philosophic discussions and I think one of its lines will be with us forever in the way some of Shakespeare's will (Shakespeare was also concerned with fantasy):<br>

<a href="http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/allaboutmymother/laagradosmonologue.html">http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/allaboutmymother/laagradosmonologue.html</a></p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>"A way in, or a way out ? Acces to or escape from ?"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What the hell, lets throw in another picture for this one.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>'</strong><br>

My answers to Julie's questions:</p>

<p>Is fantasy:</p>

<ul>

<li>access to, <strong>or</strong> escape from?</li>

</ul>

<p> Both, depending on one's vector.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>a way in <strong>or </strong> a way out?</li>

</ul>

<p> Both, depending on your starting point.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>an unnecessary (though often enjoyable) diversion, <strong>or</strong> a useful and often necessary means of growth?</li>

</ul>

<p> It could be both for this one, too, except in the context of this discussion, which would favor the lattter.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>the peel, the shell, the dreck, dross, that needs to be cleaned out, scraped off, and gotten rid of in order to reach the good stuff;</li>

<li></li>

</ul>

<p> Maybe if you've been overdoing it and feel a swing back to terra firma is in order?</p>

 

<ul>

<li> <strong>or</strong> is fantasy itself the very beginnings, the germ of the good stuff which takes bizarre and unexpected form because that's how things look, are conceived of, when we don't yet <em>know</em> how they look or how to conceive of them (embryonic knowledge; embryonic actions).</li>

</ul>

<p> It can be. Of course, good old boring reality has in it sometimes folded dimensions that often go well beyond anything we can imagine. In that sense, perhaps fantasy fulfills a dual role. One, what's been posited, the other, escape not from the fetters of reality, but as a mediated retreat from, or way to filter its mind-numbing, marvelous and terrifying nature. I think at times it can be like the bars that allow us a close look at a lion in a zoo without trekking to its habitat, or chancing being on the menu.</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>My impression is that Fred thinks of "fantasy" in terms of personal experience, whereas most others here think of it as an abstract theoretical concept (explaining the complexity of responses, struggles to communicate sensibly). Personally, I'm more interested in dreams and imagination...which seem to me to have substance.</p>

<p>I think of fantasy in terms of "flight." "Flight of fantasy." A voluntary or involuntary excursion. Like other experiences it may hold potential photographically. Not particularly important, of no more value to me than ordinary walking-around-reality, but illuminating sometimes: may provide a different perspective. Probably not as useful as dreams (my subjective evaluation: IMO).</p>

<p>"Fantasy" can be intentionally pursued, at the risk that anything "trippy" or distorted will be assigned extra weight...which may be a burden if the intent is obvious (wings on kids, psychedelic bric-a-brac, symbolism). "Obviousness" may be a sort of deal-killer, distinguishing fantasy from hype.</p>

<p>Just some thoughts.</p>