Transcendence and Transformation

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Allen, you must be having fun.<br /> I'm glad you do.</p>

<p>I have always longed for free, on-line psychoanalytical work, and I thank you for that.</p>

<p>I still believe that there is way too little self-criticism around, but, as I repeat, it's a free world. Fortunately.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Allen I am not claiming the disconnect as an absolute. But I can view my work without investing in or caring for the who done it.</p>

<p>"Why would you want to distance yourself from your work which is part of you?" I enjoy the perspective. and I learn from it. besides my work is loaded with self indulgence.</p>

<p>"...nobody walks away from themselves and becomes a remote viewer..." I don't feel remote from the work i am viewing it actually just opens a door to a different relationship to my work. If 'remote viewer' means viewer without remembering or considering all that went into the process ..." The disconnect from my input is not 100% but it somehow just feels like it doesn't belong to me anymore. and I like that."<br /> <br /></p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>When i look at someone’s portfolio i often feel I’m looking beyond a Photograph....a reflection of their personae...or. Soul to those of that persuasion..... <br>

<br>

Try it.</p>

 

[inoneeye]

<p>Response to Transcendence and Transformation<br>

"...looking beyond a Photograph....a reflection of their personae...or. Soul..." .<br>

now we're back.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Josh,<br>

I very much agree with you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I enjoy the perspective. and I learn from it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>is exactly my attitude. It is impossible for me to detach completely from my photographic work. Normally I can recall the situation when I took each photo very precisely, even after decades.<br>

But time somehow places a thin emotional diaphragm between me and my work which makes me view and appreciate it better. I really enjoy it.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p >“Allen, you must be having fun.<br />I'm glad you do.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Life should always have fun otherwise it will be sad place.... but i think you are missing the point. Pre- conceived thought are defunct in evolutionary terms as they trap the mind into chewing the cud. </p>

<p >As i said before.... have a little think before you dismiss. Apologise for being self righteous but methinks I’ve pressed the button. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >“The disconnect from my input is not 100% but it somehow just feels like it doesn't belong to me anymore. and I like that."”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Fantasy my friend. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Your work is you.... stop trying to tell me stuff and nonsense which neither of us believes. You will be telling me next you travel out of body on astral journeys. </p>

[inoneeye]

<p>

 

<p>Allen, I have lost my ability to give the benefit of doubt to your comments. I won't play along. I don't like to play with my perception of bait in these forums.<br>

Now for the meat I gleaned from your prior post. I too have always learned from a body of work and "When i look at someone’s portfolio i often feel I’m looking beyond a Photograph....a reflection of their personae...or. Soul to those of that persuasion....." At least that is what I hope to find... 'a reflection'. Those are among the portfolios or stand alone photographs that ring my bell. Those are the ones I will likely label as having lasting presence or transcendence from the ordinary.</p>

 

</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"thin emotional diaphragm between me and my work which makes me view and appreciate it better. I really enjoy it."</p>

<p>Tempus Fugas, the flying of time, creates a better photograph,eventually.</p>

<p>Jeez, all that bin stuff i better keep.</p>

<p>Right on.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p >“I won't play along. I don't like to play with my perception of bait in these forums.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Nothing to play along with or baiting, Josh. I speak as i think ...really that simple to understand. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Debate is debate.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Sort of feel I’ve spoilt the party.<br>

<br>

Oh, well , as the tune goes.</p>

 

[don_essedi]

<p>Although I am critical of Smith's Pittsburgh project, I think the work he did immediately after is profound -- the "Loft" photos. The jazz musicians, his daughter, the window and what he placed there, whether shooting clouds or the street below through it. I think these photos are both documentary and transcendent, and, imo, his best work.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>I speak as i think ...really that simple to understand.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Simple enough. And then there are those who think before they speak...not that difficult to comprehend.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>I have to answer to my perception Allen. and here I will take the 'bait' (my word) as an example of my perception.<br /> "Your work is you.... stop trying to tell me stuff and nonsense which neither of us believes." it is speaking your mind Allen but not debate as I read it. it is a projection and a declaration that I am being dishonest. <br /> “The disconnect from my input is not 100% but it somehow just feels like it doesn't belong to me anymore. and I like that." Take it on, oppose it and I will gladly continue. But tell me I don't believe what I say, then I won't play. Tell me to "have a little think" or "try it" or "You will be telling me next you travel out of body on astral journeys." and I am not going to be able to muster enough interest to respond. What do I care, to simply disagree with your take on what I wrote.<br /> <br /><br /></p>

<p>"Your work is you...." as stand alone statement, I agree on that. I will even take it one step more and say that the more I see of myself in a photo the more invested and successful as the communicator I become. Which is probably why I like my own work so much, because I get it as a viewer. It is me - about me - for me and hopefully sometimes about and for others. and it is that perspective I enjoy when I encounter my work from a distance. For me, a reflection <em>inward and outward</em>. and not just the external nature of things. beyond <em>superficial</em> (not intended as a derogatory label). Some of my best photos (friends) are superficial.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_essedi]

<p>Luis, I think awhile back in this thread you wrote that the history or narrative of Eisenstaedt's "Kiss" wasn't in the image but the documentation -- in the caption and in the publication of it. We know about it because it is documented and has social and cultural value. I doubt Victor Jorgensen's similar image would be known except by association with Eisenstaedt's. You can search Google Images and find Benkovitz because you already have documentation, the name, the city, but even then it is not enough because that information has to be associated with the images where they are found. Otherwise, there is no match, and you get no hits. It's not magic, it is work.</p>

 

[Julie H]

<p>I've been thinking about two things, fragments of larger posts, that <strong>Don</strong> wrote in two different posts somewhere long ago in this very long thread. The fragments are:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I have to do is see the 'plenum' as a photograph; form and content; make coherent something that did not come together nor was it put together to be coherent photographically."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And, in a separate post:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"But for one shot, there would be no geometrical framing of subjects, but a content that is organic, dynamic. That means the forms are fluid rather than geometrically fixed. Whether the shot has a form for frame or whether or not there are geometrical compositional elements in the shot, isn't the issue. Privileging them is."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My thoughts -- which have not reached any conclusion and which I almost certainly am not taking in the way Don meant them -- have started with me wondering about the difference between how peopled scenes arrange themselves and how "organic" scenes (by which I am thinking unpeopled natural landscapes, though Don did not say that) are arranged. It seems to me that the simplest overarching difference is that a peopled landscape is overtly motivated where the natural landscape is -- I can't say unmotivated because we all know that ecology is inherently balanced on supply and demand but, what would be a good way to say it? In equilibrium? From our speedy point of view, it *appears* to be unmotivated. As if it falls into place; as if it is not "desirous,"; not "motivated".</p>

<p>Peopled landscapes seem to be often (most of the time ...) not in equilibrium. There are desires (motives, deceptions, conflicts, tensions, etc.). Which (finally getting to my point) leads me to wonder if or how much desire is necessary for transcendence? Is transcendence about the participation in/with the desires inherent or suggested by a scene; or in the case of a natural scene, is transcendence dependent on the viewer's infusing that scene with his/her own desires?</p>

<p>How different is it (in what way) to infuse a scene with your own desires versus to allow the scene's desires to infuse you? Or to share in, participate in, the (implied/transcendent) desires of a scene? [if you aren't comfortable with the word "desires" try "motivations".] What's the connection between the "coloring," the "scent," the pull that bends your mind -- given to scenes by the viewer, the photographer and/or those (people or other animate or intentionally manufactured things) shown in a picture -- between all that, and transcendence? Is such desire or motivation necessary for such evocation?</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Don - "</strong>Luis, I think awhile back in this thread you wrote that the history or narrative of Eisenstaedt's "Kiss" wasn't in the image but the documentation -- in the caption and in thepublication of it. We know about it because it is documented and has social and cultural value."</p>

<p> To which I would add we saw it <em>first, </em>and its narrative was largely <em>fixed (no longer a vacuum for the viewer to fill) and/or specific.</em></p>

<p><em><br /></em><br>

<strong>Don - </strong>"I doubt Victor Jorgensen's similar image would be known except by association with Eisenstaedt's." </p>

<p>Indeed, that is the case.</p>

<p><strong>Don - "</strong>You can search Google Images and find Benkovitz because you already have documentation, the name, the city, but even then it is not enough because that information has to be associated with the images where they are found. Otherwise, there is no match, and you get no hits. It's not magic, it is work."</p>

<p> All I had was the name from you. It is hardly an historically significant spot except to the locals, and historians, as far as I know.</p>

<p>I never said, hinted or thought that it was "magic". Never used the word. Nor have I made a single statement against the notion of hard work. What I did suggest is that excellence requires much more than hard work (and listed the first things that came to mind). I never said/implied or suggested they were <em>substitutes </em>for it.</p>

<p> At times, it may not sound like it, but barring a few ideas, I feel Don and I are closer than it seems.</p>

<p>I cannot thank Don enough for getting me thinking about documentary work as I may be driven to it shortly by circumstances beyond my control ( I can't hep it). </p>

<p> </p>

[don_essedi]

<p>Luis, I meant no implications about regarding magic and work. I meant it as a general observation, not directed to your comments. Sloppy writing on my part. I think we, and Fred and other participants, are not in disagreement. Rather I think we each have an emphasis that is significant, important to us, and we want it heard. Sometimes we think it isn't heard clearly, is all.</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Don - "</strong>Luis, I meant no implications about regarding magic and work. I meant it as a general observation, not directed to your comments."</p>

<p> Sorry I misunderstood you, Don. We're good. I think your last sentence is spot-on.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Just when we were beginning to kick back & slack a little in this thread, Julie typed:<br /></strong></p>

<p><strong>"</strong>It seems to me that the simplest overarching difference is that a peopled landscape is overtly motivated where the natural landscape is -- I can't say unmotivated because we all know that ecology is inherently balanced on supply and demand but, what would be a good way to say it? In equilibrium?"</p>

<p>It's too early for this, but I'll try (unformed thought caveats shields up). Neither arena is in equilibrium. Both are changing, but in different time scales, as you allude to above. Nature has its order, and so does humanity. While a city may look nonsensical or haphazard to many, there's order there. Abraham Maslow's shopping list for human survival has to be met somehow, in one configuration or another, for the inhabitants to survive and thrive. In the same manner that ecology fits what we find in nature. In any scene, whether on the cable car on Market St or high in the Sierras, "arrangements" depend on consciousness observing/selecting/making an exposure(s) from a timespace coordinate, or in Julie's case, make that multiple ones.</p>

<p> Other things beside desire can lead to transcendence. Curiosity, insight, logic, emotions, etc. Enough is required to break through our preconceptions. To get us out of our stupor (duh-ness?) long enough for a glimpse of what's been before us all along, but we hadn't noticed. The obvious is the last thing we see. Ego leads us to think we're seeing all there is to see, but in reality we are mostly blind.</p>

<p><strong>Julie - "</strong>How different is it (in what way) to infuse a scene with your own desires versus to allow the scene's desires to infuse you?"</p>

<p> Scene's desires? I usually let them have their way with me. Hopefully, there's a lotta infusing going on, though some like being in control, and others submissive. A few hardy pilgrims circle their wagons somewhere in between, or so I am told.</p>

<p> There's many roads to transcendence, and not all of them require desire, motivation, or even energy. Sometimes slowing down, as in contemplation, will do it.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think it's to a great extent about what tools are used and how and how the photo is "read."</p>

<p>Luca's shot of Times Square: He claimed not to "desire" to create a transcendent Times Square and, indeed, for the most part, he didn't. That's not, to me, a matter of cause and effect (or a matter of city vs. country) as much as a matter of the photographic choices he made.</p>

<p>Had he happened to use or chosen to use a different perspective and had he happened to catch or chosen to catch a different kind of lighting reflecting off the buildings, had there been something of a symbolic nature in the foreground, some action among New Yorkers, some facial expression, some seemingly "meaningful" configuration of traffic, there might have been some transcendent elements in the photo (regardless of his "desires"). Had he shot from a crane with an American flag on a long pole blowing against the sky towering above the square, we'd have more places to go suggested by the picture. They wouldn't have to be just elements of content. Had he employed a different depth of field, a lens that might have created a different perspective, . . .</p>

<p>I don't know that we can always assess the photographer's motivation and the psychological road to transcendence. My claim would be that things like space, focus, shadows, light, texture, gesture, expression, perspective, composition, framing, internal relationships between content and form, contrast, internal relationship between content and color, use of symbols and signs are where the hints at transcendence lie.</p>

<p>Leads me to a difference I came up with in thinking about Phylo's question about imagination and transcendence . . .</p>

<p>Imagination seems looser and less directly tied to or based on reality, though of course we can't imagine anything without at least some basis for the imagining. But transcendence has a <em>ground</em>, something specific as the jumping off point. Imagination runs more wild. Imaginings run away with themselves and seem more loosely based on reality. Transcendence usually has a more specific starting point, the thing transcended. Photographs seem conducive to transcendence. They are symbolic by nature, by medium.</p>

<p>Transcendence seems dependent on some sort of initial focus, a focus proximate to the transcending. Imagination builds upon all my past experience. It absorbs as it goes along and is in flight at will and draws from a lot of wellsprings for its inspiration and meat. Transcendence seems a letting go of even greater magnitude than imagination, but it seems initially more tied to specifics. I find more tension in transcendence than in imagination, more of a direct dialogue or dialectic with "reality." The photograph not being the photographed but needing the photographed.</p>

<p>If the photograph is NOT the photographed, it is in some sense a negation of what we otherwise see and know.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"Luca's shot of Times Square..."</p>

<p>If it was linked to or posted to this thread, I missed it. Is it in Luca's portfolio here? While browsing it, I found an image or two similar to some I've shot. Perhaps it would be of use to the discussion if we posted our photos that illustrate our points. I can speak confidently and with authority about my own, much moreso than I could for anyone elses, including Eisenstaedt, Smith, Winogrand, Swank. I posted one awhile back in the thread to illustrate the 'narrative in one's head' vs the suggestion of narrative in the image. Perhaps to post images might seem to make the forum a critique forum, but we are able, I think, to stick to the subject -- or, at least, bring it back home after wandering.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luca linked to his Times Square photo in his post of May 31, 12:21 PM, in the last paragraph.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>Thanks, Fred. I did miss the link. Here's one in my portfolio superficially similar to Luca's. No intention linking to it. I just was seeing some similarities in our photos, and the Time's Square one seemed a fit.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11056778</p>

<p>For those photographer's who shoot with the intention to make a transcendent photo, do you have a viewership in mind? If so, does that determine anything about the photo as you create it (concept, exposure, post, print...whatever)? There are 7 billion subjectivities out there to address. Perhaps Luca's photo is transcendent for someone whether he intended it or not.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'm <em>aware</em> that there will be viewers of my photos. I do use photographs as a means of expression and communication. I have a good friend who's a poet. He knows his words will be understood by English speakers, say, as opposed to Russian speakers, and he also knows different spins and interpretations will be given to his words, different reactions to the somewhat common understandings that knowing a common language assumes. Similar with me and photography. I don't photograph <em>for</em> an audience but I am aware of commonalities of experience and understanding with groups of viewers, etc.</p>

<p>Japanese photographs seem to have some cultural similarities that can be studied and written about. There is a style to French films that can be distinguished from American films. But Americans have at least some understanding of what's going on in French films, likely because of some more universal commonalities.</p>

<p>In any case, the last few posts have been about how one might go about creating a photograph with more suggestibility of transcendence. What I'm talking about here is not whether transcendence is in the actions of the photographer, in the photograph itself, or in the mind of the viewer. For me, that starts getting us back to abstract metaphysical issues like whether narrative is in one's head or not and can quickly spiral away from a nuts-and-bolts discussion of the topic at hand. I'm focused on what are photographic elements and/or characteristics of transcendence.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>How about if I get horribly basic? I don't have to look at pictures. I don't have to make pictures. I don't look at pictures for information (except when I do look at pictures for information :) ). I look at pictures because I want ... what? Because of what they *do* to me; because there is an ignition ... [not wanting to stir up sediment from early disagreement in this thread, I'll leave it there].</p>

<p>For me the transcendent is not separable from or out of my experience of what a picture does to me; what I go to pictures to hoping to have done to me.</p>