Fantasy

[aplumpton]

<p>John-</p>

<p>Pedro Almodovar dedicated his film "To all actresses who have played actresses, and to all women who act." He also dedicated it to men who act and become women, and to all persons who want to be mothers. And, to his own mother.</p>

<p>European nations and some other small nations (Sweden, Denmark, Canada (+Quebec), Australia, Iran, New Zealand, Afghanistan, etc.) produce films that are not always great box office successes, but are wonderful ventures into fantasy and the profound (the two are often, but not excusively, related). Shakespeare is far from being alone in that sense (even though he and his fellow writers were initiators). I understand that "All about my Mother" was one of Almadovar's most successful at the box office (His films over the past ten years are all great), grossing about 55-60 million dollars worldwide (about 8 million in the US). The tansvestite prostitute, former lover of the principal character (the mother), is a person of both fantasy and profundity. The British stage subsequently presented a re-write of the film to very good reviews. The film has mostly been celebrated in Europe.</p>

<p>Fantasy in European films (and other smaller worldwide productions) is one pillar of cinematographic art. Yes, they produce a lot of inane blockbusters, too, but the repertory or art cinema is in my mind THE benchmark of great cinema. Much relates to fantasy that is often unpalatable to the larger audiences.</p>

<p>I think fantasy is not just a "personal experience" or part of our being or lives, that then can or cannot be present in our photography, but rather a key "process" within the photographic approach of some, some of the time. You can choose to make a photograph as a realistic representation, or you can imbue that design with your imagination and fantasies that the real world provides as only an original, and soon to be overseen or rejected, base.</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>"You can choose to make a photograph as a realistic representation, or you can imbue that design with your imagination and fantasies "</strong><br>

Sure. But that "imbuing" sometimes involves imposition of symbolism (crosses, allusions to the heavens, psychedelic conventions like multi-exposure)...and symbols specify meaning. In other words, they're intended to end questions rather than raise them. I think there's more excitement in "questions" than "answers": I'd rather a mystery than a morality play. Questions create tension, answers reduce it.</p>

<p>Like religious art, haiku are built out of symbols (in English these might consist of references to season, pine trees etc)...contriving to arrange a large experience within few (popularly 17) syllables. A photograph, by contrast, rarely springs from that much discipline.</p>

<p>Haiku spring from a discipline that treasures both paradox and an unexcited state. Photographers, by contrast, seem generally to be uncomfortable with paradox... and seem to seek excited states. Those are just my impressions: some photographers love paradox and doubt (I do) and some photograph in intentionally meditative states (I don't).</p>

<p>Fantasy, as most seem to use the term, implies stepping away from sense of reality, perhaps actively attempting to create a sense of unreality (eg make something look mystical). I don't think that's similar to experiencing...I think it's what Buddhists call "striving."</p>

 

[jtk]

<p>...some folks do look for symbols to access understanding...maybe it's genetic.</p>

<p>... others want impressions, patterns. Maybe we're lazy :-)</p>

<p>Some like concrete music (alludes to phenomena like "Spring" or "The Grand Canyon" or "anxiety" or "gates of Moscow"), others like jazz (ain't it got some swing? where have I heard this before? a bebop reference! love that grrrrowling bass!)</p>

<p>We've talked about film and music in relation to photography: Literature may relate as well. I've read James Joyces Ulysses four times now...the last time aloud with a group. I joined a group to hear other voices read it, and to read out loud myself. I didn't seek to "understand" it any more than I seek to "understand" life.</p>

<p>Some in my Joyce group are more interested in the author's symbology...it peppers his fantasies: my impression is that they don't hear the music, don't recognize the poetry, don't revel in the humor (Ulysses is riddled with it). Me, I don't find the symbols any more important than the signs on store fronts (which some photographers love :-) But I do laugh while I read, and some readers seem incapable...</p>

<p>Joyce himself chuckled nastily that some readers (academics) would get distracted by his constant play with symbols.</p>

 

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p> <a href="http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/therapy/potato+junkie_20299800.html">James Joyce and music</a> ? Ah yes,...makes me fantasize again about the good old days playin' bands like Therapy.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>John -</p>

<p>From your first response to my last post:</p>

<p><em>"....."imbuing" sometimes involves imposition of symbolism" </em></p>

<p>Agreed, but the keyword here is <strong>sometimes. </strong>I personally do not use symbolism as a regular element of fantasy, only sometimes and when I think it may be useful to the visual communication.</p>

<p>And from your conclusion:</p>

<p><em>"Fantasy, as most seem to use the term, implies stepping away from sense of reality, perhaps actively attempting to create a sense of unreality (eg make something look mystical). I don't think that's similar to experiencing...I think it's what Buddhists call "striving." "</em></p>

<p>I am not familiar with Buddhist thoughts about fantasy or stepping away from a sense of reality. But to my mind, experiencing and communicating that experience to photographic art are perfectly consistent with each other. One is personal only, the other is interactive, being a creation involving fantasy that is hopefully shared with the viewer. The shared experience is an objective of photography.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>John -"</strong> ...some folks do look for symbols to access understanding...maybe it's genetic."</p>

<p>...and maybe it's not.</p>

<p><strong>JK </strong> "... others want impressions, patterns. Maybe we're lazy :-)"</p>

<p> Maybe. Who knows?</p>

<p> Some want both, and what would they be? Greedy? Lazy? Genetic? All labels, right?</p>

<p><strong>JK </strong> "Me, I don't find the symbols any more important than the signs on store fronts (which some photographers love :-) But I do laugh while I read, and some readers seem incapable..."</p>

<p> And some can do both. Don't you remember the thing you mentioned about the blind men "reading" the elephant? It applies to all of us.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>For me, symbols are about the interplay between the particular (individual) and the transcendent (universal). Symbols, when used well, are evocative, not determinative. Even back in High School Shakespeare, we argued more about the symbols than we agreed. Good teachers encouraged that. Symbols will bring up as many questions as they answer, unless they're used simplistically or understood only superficially, which kind of defeats the purpose of a symbol.</p>

<p>When I read or listen to the spoken word, I don't do so either lyrically or interpretively. If I did only one, I'd be missing half. Here, I agree with Luis that it's not an either/or matter. Were I in a reading group with some people only interpreting symbols and other people listening only to the texture and rhythm of the words, I'd just figure I was having a more complete experience by doing both. And I suppose each group might feel I was missing something by not paying complete attention to one or the other.</p>

<p>A nod to Phylo, by the way, for posting a relevant and moving photograph. I see it as lyrical and symbolic.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Thanks Fred, I thought it represented in some way, even quite literally, Julie's questions of fantasy being a way in or a way out, an escape from or escape to. Fantasy deals also with being receptive ( which you also pointed to ), besides being a deeper understanding or affirmation of ones uncomplete but already well established thoughts. As for the picture itself, <em>it is reality, </em>meaning that anyone walking by there could have seen it - the tree's reflection aligning with the door inside - if they wished to look and stop for a second, and positioned themselfes to the exact spot where the reality of the tree's reflection together with the reality of the door becomes a possibility for <em>considering</em> something else.<br>

<br /> I don't run away from symbolism, I embrace it. Doors are symbolic, suggestive portals...As are trees. But each tree has a distinct character, each one communicating something different then the next. Wanting to photograph the character instead of a tree has something to do with fantasy, even though the character is very real.Seeing the character is natural and without limiting consequences but photographing it isn't. The camera's objective eye puts consequences to the *fantasy*, what makes it in a strange kinda way all the more fascinating.</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"And some can do both. Don't you remember the thing you mentioned about the blind men "reading" the elephant? It applies to all of us."</em> - Luis G</p>

<p><strong>Luis: Yes, of course.</strong><br>

<br />However... remember that each of the blind men had his own unique perspective...like some here...especially in their photos.<strong> </strong>Unique perspectives may be more scary than normative ones. Or, for others, recognizing and exploiting their unique perspectives may be the best possible way to see things.</p>

<p>The blind man who felt the elephant's trunk described it accurately...he wasn't trying to describe an elephant after all.</p>

<p>Based on my own personal responses, not have had normative responses, I addressed the Fantasy topic....like each of the blind men..perhaps more scientifically than "correctly". <br>

<strong>Luis...Do you have personal responses to the topic ?</strong> </p>

<p>There are Victorian pen/ink cartoon illustrations for that blind man/elephant parable: Except for the leader, each blind man hung onto the previous blind man's coat tails until they got to the elephant. Then they took risks, honestly describing their experiences. The parable had more to do with drawing "right" conclusions than with best effort experience (which is my first concern for reasons of scientific orientation or genetics :-).</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"For me, symbols are about the interplay between the particular (individual) and the transcendent (universal). Symbols, when used well, are evocative, not determinative. Even back in High School Shakespeare, we argued more about the symbols than we agreed."</em> <strong>- Fred G</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

Fred, that "symbols are about" is a unique perspective, as you recognized ("For me") so I don't need to disagree...though I will point out that it seems unique word usage.</p>

<p>And....I think you've used "when used well" for wiggle room (please parden my unique perspective :-)</p>

<p>I think its unusual for symbols to be "used well" in photography... for example, I don't think unicorn/photoshop images are "used well" to suggest imagination or fantasy or that gravestones "used well" in photos to address loss (except in insurance company ads). But YMMV :-)</p>

[jtk]

<p>"I am not familiar with Buddhist thoughts about fantasy or stepping away from a sense of reality. " - Arthur P<br>

<strong>Arthur</strong>, as I admit regularly, I'm a "faux Buddhist" at best. But...my understanding of the Zen spin on Buddhism is that "reality," such as it is, is the concern. The most direct possible experience, rather than direct pursuit of "elevated states." Minimally intermediated with thoughts</p>

<p>I distrust symbols because they're someone else's non-perceptual devices, they try to tell me how to respond. <strong>Fred</strong> mentioned high school arguments about Shakespeare and symbols...but I'm not aware of important symbolism in Shakespeare (other than in sonnets): I think he usually wrote specifically to grip an unsophisticated audience by the balls, not to lead them further into their own heads..but I'm not well enough versed in Shakespeare to deny symbolism fits in somewhere.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p >Allen Herbert,</p>

<p >Fortunatily there were Artists in those times who seperated fantasty from fiction.</p>

<p >What does that mean? If you're trying to say the reverse (fact from fantasy) I'd like to know who those artists were. Names please.</p>

<p >You find no fantasy in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blues" target="_blank">The Blues</a>? Or you find The Blues to be untrue? Less true than </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Back in the times of Rome writers satirists like <a href="http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/juvena.html">Juvenal</a> write fantasy but based on the truth of the times. Petronius wrote about people who had become rich. Juvenal wrote about emperors who indulged their fantasies. Humorous and always to the point but always accurate.. They offer us information about their time as well as revealing fantasy of the times.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >“You find no fantasy in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blues" target="_blank">The Blues</a>? Or you find The Blues to be untrue? Less true than”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The blues were very much based on hard truths….why would you imply I would think they were other than truths?</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >“I distrust symbols because they're someone else's non-perceptual devices, they try to tell me how to respond. <strong>Fred</strong> mentioned high school arguments about Shakespeare and symbols...”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > I agree.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Shakespeare created fantasy for his audiences; however, the fantasy was based on reality. Using metaphors he created a deep sense of reality from the fantasy…</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > “O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth” a wonderful example.</p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p >Allen Herbert,</p>

<p >Fortunatily there were Artists in those times who seperated fantasty from fiction.</p>

<p >What does that mean? If you're trying to say the reverse (fact from fantasy) I'd like to know who those artists were. Names please.</p>

<p >You find no fantasy in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blues" target="_blank">The Blues</a>? Or you find The Blues to be untrue? Less true than </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Back in the times of Rome writers satirists like <a href="http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/juvena.html">Juvenal</a> write fantasy but based on the truth of the times. Petronius wrote about people who had become rich. Juvenal also wrote about emperors who indulged their fantasies. Humorous and always to the point but always accurate.. They offer us information about their time as well as revealing fantasy of the times.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >“You find no fantasy in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blues" target="_blank">The Blues</a>? Or you find The Blues to be untrue? Less true than”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The blues were very much based on hard truths….why would you imply I would think they were other than truths?</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >“I distrust symbols because they're someone else's non-perceptual devices, they try to tell me how to respond. <strong>Fred</strong> mentioned high school arguments about Shakespeare and symbols...”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > I agree.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Shakespeare created fantasy for his audiences; however, the fantasy was based on reality. Using metaphors he created a deep sense of reality from the fantasy…</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > “O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth” a wonderful example.</p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Jeez, i hate repeating myself.<br>

 <br>

Thought this was amusing....<br>

 <br>

Emperor Domitian summoned his top advisers to solve a ludicrous problem – how to cook a fish too large for any pan. <br /></p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>John - "</strong> The blind man who felt the elephant's trunk described it accurately...he wasn't trying to describe an elephant after all."</p>

<p> He had no idea <em>what</em> he was describing. I've participated in this forum whenever I feel I have something to contribute. In this particular thread I didn't feel I had a lot to say that hadn't been said already.</p>

<p>All I was saying, as Fred correctly detected, was that one POV doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of holding others simultaneously. Some people are even capable of giving them equal weight.</p>

<p><strong>JK- "</strong> I distrust symbols because they're someone else's non-perceptual devices, they try to tell me how to respond."</p>

<p> Are you saying you only trust your <em>own</em> devices?</p>

<p>_______________________</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>John--</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

You find the formulation "symbols are about" unique but don't tell me what bothers you or what you find odd about it, so I don't know how to address your concerns. I didn't think beginning a sentence about how I think symbolism works with "symbols are about" was so strange. The point was more in the latter part of that same sentence, beginning with "the interplay between . . . " Did you find that part "unique" and, if so, could you talk about it. I really don't know what you're thinking.</p>

<p>As for wiggle room. Not really. You said you found that symbols provide answers. For me, badly used or badly conceived symbols provide answers, not all symbols. I thought you were categorizing all symbols (photographic, literary, etc.) as providing answers and I was merely saying that, for me, that characterizes only some symbols, and it is not in the nature of symbols <em>per se</em> to do that. Quite the contrary, I think.</p>

<p>"I think he usually wrote specifically to grip an unsophisticated audience by the balls, not to lead them further into their own heads"</p>

<p>I don't respond to Shakespeare the way I think he may have intented audiences to respond. I respond to him the way I respond to him. Audiences have changed since the time of Shakespeare. I believe art lives, and that means it is adaptable beyond its milieu. It's why I can listen to Beethoven on modern-day instruments and enjoy it. But there are many varied ways to read, see, and respond to Shakespeare, none of which are more suitable than another. Same for photographs.</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Fred and Luis</strong>...<br>

Yes, of course it's theoretically <em>possible</em> to make <em>good use</em> of symbols in photography, ...both as photographers and as viewers. It happens that I don't believe photographers commonly do. I think they're most often <em>badly used</em> (to use Fred's phrase).</p>

<p>Its been well known for decades, by by brain surgeons, psychologists and life insurance actuaries, that some people are more symbol-preoccupied than others (insurance actuaries call them "engineer types"). Some folks need symbols more than other folks.</p>

<p>Feel free to use symbols in your photos any way you want. I'm not trying to tell anybody how to work or what to think, I'm simply describing my evidently non-kumbayah perceptual/responsive experience.</p>

<p>As for Shakespeare, yes, it's possible to find symbols in his work...just as symbol-oriented people find them in their soup :-) But I don't think Wm S was an engineer type...nor do I think engineer types enjoy James Joyce quite the way he had in mind.<br>

<strong> </strong></p>

[jtk]

<p>...I think <strong>Allen Herbert</strong> hit the nail close to it's head, referring to Shakespeare's <em>fantasies based on reality.</em> And his mention of metaphor was long overdue in this thread...it's amazing that nobody mentioned it earlier.<br>

<strong>Metaphor is more poetic than symbol, less crude.</strong> That's my story and I'm-a stickin' to it.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>"Methaphor is more poetic than symbol"</p>

<p>Then you might as well say that metaphor is more symbolic than symbol since a <em>poetic</em> understanding and use - of language, concepts and communication - is always more symbolic then not, by definition of being poetic.<br /> And what else is a photograph other then a symbol for, or a <em>representation of...</em>anyhow.</p>

[crappystuffs]

<p>Oh, I let that for the viewing stage. You realize that people still have to fill in a lot of blanks, make their own connexion for a piece to work. At least that's how a lazy bum like me like to see things. :)</p>

[Julie H]

<p>"In the naked bed, in Plato's cave, / Reflected headlights slowly slid the wall, ... "</p>

<p>-- <em>first two lines of the poem</em>, In the Naked Bed, in Plato's Cave <em>by Delmore Schwartz</em></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"I'm not trying to tell anybody how to work or what to think . . . "</em></p>

<p>But you are Blanche, you are.</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Fred</strong>, you make a point of denying that you hold any angular views of your own. You prefer ambivalence: positioning yourself as a normative spokesperson. I do of course admire your approach to photography, but your posts often disparage individual perspectives on that basis alone, irrespective the ideas being expressed. </p>

<p>To make this more personal...your discomfort with new ideas (such as mine re distracting symbols) becomes obvious when you state that they come close to to the heart of the Shakespeare you may have read. <em>If you really did have long discussions about Shakespearian symbols in high school, you were missing the heart of the matter...which supports my point about symbols in photos.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

I seek engagement rather than agreement. I'm content to be thought wrong and I'm content when someone else seems wrong, though will try to point out where we differ. For example, Rebecca and I seem to agree on some key points related to Tanyth Berkeley...but she's got strong related views with which I disagree. I'm glad to know she's there, bored by the ideas of people who don't bother to consider what she's saying.</p>

<p>In this Forum I am regularly "corrected" by urgent expressions of the prevailing normative, "settled" view, which is almost always the view for which you seem the most determined representative. That's OK...it's the "norm."</p>

<p><strong>Phylo</strong>, by attempting to reduce poetry and metaphor to "symbol" you are denying the implications of both terms...and it's the implications that define them. I suspect you read even less poetry than I do...which would be fine except that in this case a good analogy would be me expounding on nuclear physics, a field in which I'm entirely ignorant.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John--</p>

<p>I see it differently. By using phrases like "non-kumbaya" to describe your own way of looking at things (in contrast to the ways of others), you seem to be putting others down. I could easily be wrong, but much of what you talk about in terms of your own personal way of doing things or seeing things often goes hand in hand with a swipe at the other way of doing things. Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I constantly feel like many of us are simply trying to let you know that you can do it or see it however you want (you don't want to read Shakespeare with symbolism, don't), but we wish you'd stop belittling the ways we do things when asserting how you do them. It's really as simple as that and maybe it's all a big misunderstanding, but it seems to happen over and over again. I mean, what's the crack about the understanding of symbols maybe being genetic for? How does that further your desire for closer engagement?</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>. "I could easily be wrong, but much of what you talk about in terms of your own personal way of doing things or seeing things often goes hand in hand with a swipe at the other way of doing things. Others can correct me if I'm wrong, "<br /><br />I would like to correct you, Fred.</p>

<p>You are making a personnel attack in my opinion....i also dislike the use of the word "we” and what you imply with it.</p>

<p>John has he's style of writing and that is all there is to it. I have never found him personally offensive despite many heated hard discussions. He also makes some valid points in a direct way which often goes against the flow….it’s called having an opinion.</p>