To what extent is photography a solitary pursuit?

[jtk]

<p>Philip, your commentary on your wonderful photographs, the images themselves (technical exercises as well as visual phenomena), as well as your brilliant commentary elsewhere on fundamental aspects of digital imaging, are all culminations or reflections of the work of large "institutions" (including Microsoft, Firefox, Adobe, Nikon, the Internet itself, the various various ancient and newer cultures for which you express admiration on your website...).</p>

<p>"Non-ethical" may be what you have in mind, rather than "unethical" regarding "institutions." And in any case, the OT here has been "individual" vs "popular demand/social process" (not just vs "institutions.")</p>

<p>Using any sort of technology to make images (Ansel Adams: eg Polaroid), posting those images on a website, and writing online in conjunction with those images ...means one engages others as a cog in a social machine. </p>

<p>As for Jung, his ideas centered on what he believed we as generic humans share. Freud included Jung, as an "Aryan type", in his school partially to achieve group diversity, to expand from his own Talmud-rooted ideas (hard-wired to tribal taboos and practices)...the same reason he included an American and a Japanese ...Jung was part of that "institution."</p>

<p>What are your thoughts? </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Creativity is not a groupthink process. I'll go further, as I have read an enormous amount of Jung's work: everything worthwhile in the world begins with an individual. Institutions are unethical entities because all morality resides in the individual as a personal attribute. The larger the institution, the more repressed is the individual, and the less moral is the institution. Twas ever thus. Society turns its back on the individual at its peril.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, Philip! Whether you are right or wrong on this or that, these are strong claims--food for thought for at least the rest of this brief life.</p>

<p>As pretty much of a loner myself, I can relate to what you are saying. I have to consider John's objections, but there's a lot of truth embedded in what you say, I know. I just need to think about this a wee bit more. Wish I had ten thousand more years to figure it out--and to figure out why wilderness and solitude speak so strongly to me.</p>

<p>What is ultimately at stake, I believe, is independence of thought. I do not think that it is possible to be a virtuous person if one is not an independent thinker. Much less is one going to discover or create anything of value if one is not a truly independent thinker. For me the answer is not escaping institutions so much as learning to live in them without being corrupted by them. I need to recharge my batteries alone, however. Even the biblical prophets and Jesus of Nazareth are said to have sought out the wilderness, and the story of Moses is of a man who was honed into an instrument of God's will through forty years in the wilderness. The literal truth of these stories is not the issue. The point is that whoever relayed these stories to us was trying to tell us something very important.</p>

<p>We should listen.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>My city photography is solitary, mostly</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What a wonderful paradox, Don! But I think that it gets to the heart of what it is to be an individual and to retain one's individuality, regardless of the social and physical environment.</p>

<p>Along another line, I think of my older daughter, who happens to be gay, and realize what a tough kid she always had to be--and now she has to be even tougher as an adult. I had her rappelling out of an Atlantic white cedar tree in Florida when she was four (belayed twice, once from above and once from below, with me as the ultimate backup right beneath her), had her riding a bike without training wheels by the time she was five (although none of this was my accomplishment), going out to run with me and running several miles the first time out, going sailing with me the first time on an AMF Force Five on a day with gusts to twenty-five knots--with her at the helm and me as little more as ballast. What a girl!</p>

<p>She's a music therapist now treating disturbed kids, who assault her from time to time. Where she really shines, however, is music itself. What a wonderfully creative person! She relaxes by studying and doing landscape architecture on weekends, when she is not jumping out of airplanes or running rapids--and she puts the guys to shame. She also just happens to be beautiful.</p>

<p>The Spirit of Creativity comes through in the Great Souls. I cannot claim to be among them, but I can appreciate them.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>Question....</p>

<p>Do you think a wedding photographer, any photographer that has to work with people, a solitary pursuit?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Being an independent thinker doesn't have much to do with being a loner. Sartre, for example, wrote about existentialism, about loneliness and despair, etc., was an independent thinker, yet was one of the more social of philosophers . . . smoke-filled hours at the Cafe Flor, a substantial relationship with Simon de Beauvoir, grassroots political activism. He didn't wander around alone in nature to develop his independent thoughts. And he wasn't virtuous by many standards of his time. Thankfully.</p>

<p>That's not to say that some photographers aren't a lot more solitary than others. But solitariness doesn't lead to independent thoughts or visions. I know a lot of solitary nature photographers who don't come up with independent photographic visions. The question was, Is Photography a Solitary Pursuit? Phillip answered that for himself and I get it. But I question any further move to independence of thought.</p>

<p>And I certainly think one can be a virtuous person without independence of thought. I don't care much how people arrived at stuff or even much about what they're thinking. I care about what they do. Virtue is in my actions, not in how independent a thinker I am. From an entry in one of my philosophy encyclopedias:</p>

<p>"Virtues can be placed into a broader context of values. Each individual has a core of underlying values that contribute to his or her system of beliefs, ideas and/or opinions. <strong>Integrity in the <em>application of a value</em> ensures its continuity and this continuity separates a value from beliefs, opinion and ideas.</strong>"</p>

<p>Beliefs revolve around thought and are more abstract. Virtue demands an application and is public.</p>

<p>Lannie, for me, what would help move the conversation about solitariness forward is to know to what extent you consider yourself responsive to others' evaluations (and how that affects you photographically and personally), as you felt it was important to emphasize the point that we all are responsive to some degree. I find a lot of meat in moving beyond the belief to the application.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"</em><em>The Spirit of Creativity comes through in the Great Souls."</em> <strong>--Lannie</strong></p>

<p>The first counterexample to come to mind is Alfred Hitchcock. He was a letch. No great soul. Roman Polanski, extremely creative and fascinating filmmaker (not all, but many of his films). And a pedophile.</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"What a wonderful paradox, Don!"</p>

<p>What paradox do you see? I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean collaborating out in nature rather than out there on a solitary vision quest, or for the experience of being there? We are doing a follow-up on another husband and wife team whose research extended over decades. I think it is a really bad idea to go out there alone, anyway. I've known nature photographers who do that, some had the common sense to tell someone 'If you don't hear from me by Thursday, call Search & Rescue. Here's my route'.</p>

<p>Mostly we shoot individually. We see different things. My wife is much more detail-oriented. She sees the tiny things I don't. If one of us finds something of interest, we will both work on it. Mostly what we are photographing are "anomalies", things that the geologists have found a label for, and may have theories regarding, but do not fit well into the geological scheme of things...the 'standard model'. We shoot scenics, too -- be fools not to.</p>

<p> </p>

[stp]

<p><em> "I know a lot of solitary nature photographers who don't come up with independent photographic visions."</em></p>

<p>Fred, how can you look at anyone's photograph(s) and determine the extent to which they are <em>independent</em> photographic visions? Just because a person's photograph may be similar to photographs that have appeared before doesn't (IMO) necessarily mean that the person's photographic vision is therefore not independent. Photographs of moving water captured with a slow shutter speed are very common. Some such photographs may be made by a person who wants to see if he/she can duplicate the process. Other such photographs may be made by a person in whom the blurring of moving water strikes a deep chord, especially when it is combined with other elements in the photograph. Looking at photographs from both of these individuals, there is simply no way to ascertain what's going on in the person's mind, and therefore no way to determine the extent to which a person is following the herd or following his/her inner muse. Independence cannot be measured by uniqueness (although uniqueness may be one barometer of independence). I've found it to be very dangerous (in the sense of being entirely wrong) when one assumes he/she knows what's going on in another person's mind.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Don, fwiw I'm sympathetic with your views about "solitary" and "be a fool not to" and for practical reasons with the wisdom of sometimes having someone at your back for safety.</p>

<p>I spend a lot of time in wilderness as well, but I'm that "fool" you mentioned: my first concern is with more/other than the staggering beauty I live in (NM). I rarely care to make lovely "scenic" photographs, which would have implications for sales if that was a concern.</p>

<p>On the "Bias" thread we differed sharply: you seemed unable (technically & experientially) to see the merit in Platon's work...actually ridiculing it after struggling with deficient tech to see only a couple of online images.</p>

<p>I recommended The New Yorker to you because IMO it is one of the several most important photo venues in print (more than any "art" or "photo" or "outdoor" mag): when a respected venue chooses a photographer like Platon (or Avedon before him, or like Life's Capa and Eisenstadt), I pause, think, look again, take stock of my own photographic values. Values mean nothing, untested and static. Platon took time and reflection, just as did Avedon long ago, before I caught on to his virtuous, stated, lifelong photographic philosophy.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Being an independent thinker doesn't have much to do with being a loner. Sartre, for example, wrote about existentialism, about loneliness and despair, etc., was an independent thinker, yet was one of the more social of philosophers . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I'm not among those who see in Sartre originality or greatness. What is so original or great about being a nihilistic atheist? As for being a social animal, there is his famous quote: "Hell is other people."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The first counterexample to come to mind is Alfred Hitchcock. He was a letch. No great soul.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I said "great souls," Fred, not "perfect souls." I've never met any of those.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[stp]

<p><em>"Lannie, for me, what would help move the conversation about solitariness forward is to know to what extent you consider yourself responsive to others' evaluations (and how that affects you photographically and personally), as you felt it was important to emphasize the point that we all are responsive to some degree. "</em></p>

<p>Fred, I think this is a key point, and really the better interpretation of the original question. Various responses throughout this discussion have touched on it. Some responses (and even some iterations of Lannie's original question) have focused on physical independence (simply being alone), while others have focused on independence of vision (doing what was felt, regardless of public opinion). Physical independence is easy to see and therefore easy to measure. Independence of vision is much more difficult to see and therefore very difficult to measure. What criteria could be used to determine the extent to which a photographer is a "loner" in the sense of following his/her inner voice or vision rather than popular demand? In partial answer to my own question, I don't think that lack of uniqueness necessarily equates to lack of independence, as I stated in my previous post. But this is only a partial answer; I'm still wondering what you would see in the "application" (the person's actions) to help determine the extent to which a person's photography is truly a solitary pursuit (or, put another way, the extent to which a person's photography is guided, perhaps subconsciously, by pubic responses to the photos coming from that person).</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"What a wonderful paradox, Don!"<br>

What paradox do you see? I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean collaborating out in nature rather than out there on a solitary vision quest, or for the experience of being there?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Don, I was thinking only of the juxtaposition of words: "My city photography is solitary, mostly." I carefully avoided the word "contradiction." There is a vague sense of paradox in being solitary in the city, although cities can indeed be very good places to become anonymous and to be independent in thought and action. "Alone in a crowd" also comes to mind here. I'm not trying to refute anyone here, simply trying to set forth some of my own views. I like relaxed conversations, not debating contests. I also prefer the easy intellectual atmosphere of brainstorming. Even philosophical argument to me is best carried on in private: it takes a while to formulate a worthwhile response to a worthy challenge. When I am serious, I write, and I write only for me, in the same way that I take photographs only for myself, although others are free to look at them.</p>

<p>I have been speaking primarily of the restorative power of nature and solitude in my own life, a life where (for some of it) solitude was almost literally out the back door. I do not live in such a place now. Sandwiched between Charlotte, Greensboro, and Winston-Salem, I see suburbia closing in on the land around Salisbury from all directions. There is no wildness to be found without traveling a ways. When I have lived in sprawling urban areas, I have sought out railroad tracks and other places off the beaten path.</p>

<p>Yet, yet, I have found ways to get in touch with myself wherever I have lived, including Akron, Ohio, where I spent some of my childhood years. I do think that it is easier to get in touch with oneself in some ways in the wilds of nature than in cities Doing so is a luxury, however, and one that I cannot so easily indulge at the moment in the little burg where I currently live. I was a latecomer to wilderness. I did not grow up with it. When I first really experienced it in its fullness all alone, after I was grown, it astonished me.</p>

<p>The problem with civilization lies in the distractions that it affords. Those can inspire growth and creativity. They can also inhibit them. When I read of persons taking all of their electronic devices into the wilderness, I have no doubt that they will be safer. Whether they will experience wilderness is quite another thing. A compass and a watch are the most high-tech gadgets that I carry with me into the wilderness. A cellphone? Yechhh!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lannie,</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I do not think that it is possible to be a virtuous person if one is not an independent thinker.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the 2 are unrelated. Some people rise to the challenge, not so much thinking but acting. They have and show virtues, but not necessarily an independent mind. Some people with independent minds lack skills to outgrow their own constraints.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Spirit of Creativity comes through in the Great Souls.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmmm, and what makes great souls great, and why would creativity be with them? Is creativeness a grand gesture? Nearly all people here (on this site) are creative to some extend. Some more than others... true. Likewise, some have more independent minds... or more virtue. But creativeness is not the ability to create world-recognised art.<br>

I'm by no means the most creative. Nor a very good photographer. But I try, try again, and try another time. I do see growth, and in ways that quite some people would call 'more creative'. Creativeness does not come to you. You build it, the only difference is the starting point (which I'd rather call talent).<br>

The reason to bring this up is that it seems to create this 'us' versus 'them'; we mortals attempting, and those creative gods. I don't think the differences are all that big, and we're all somewhere on wide array of greys.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"Lannie, for me, what would help move the conversation about solitariness forward is to know to what extent you consider yourself responsive to others' evaluations (and how that affects you photographically and personally), as you felt it was important to emphasize the point that we all are responsive to some degree. "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I think that I just answered that in responding to Don: "When I am serious, I write, and I write only for me, in the same way that I take photographs only for myself, although others are free to look at them." I am not talking egoism here when I speak of "for me," rather being true to myself and my own beliefs so that I am not overly influenced by the differing views, lifestyles, etc. of others.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[dan_south]

Fashion, advertising, and event photographers aren't loners. They coordinate their work with lots of other people.

[don_essedi]

<p>"On the "Bias" thread we differed sharply: you seemed unable (technically & experientially) to see the merit in Platon's work...actually ridiculing it after struggling with deficient tech to see only a couple of online images."</p>

<p>Actually I thought we were ok on that. Sorry, though, I'm not a deep thinker re: critique but I didn't ridicule him, and I've continued to be interested in his style on those presidents. Google Ingre's portrait of Napoleon. That wasn't the only thread on Platon on PN, either. If it is important to you, start a thread about him.</p>

<p>I'm not sure, but I think you misread what I wrote re: "fool"</p>

 

[don_essedi]

<p>"Don, I was thinking only of the juxtaposition of words: "My city photography is solitary, mostly.""</p>

<p>Lannie, I'll layer another paradox on it. My city photography is done in the neighborhoods I was born and raised in. My house is 3 blocks from my childhood home. 47 of my 65 years have been lived in this neighborhood.</p>

<p>"There is a vague sense of paradox in being solitary in the city, although cities can indeed be very good places to become anonymous and to be independent in thought and action. "Alone in a crowd" also comes to mind here."</p>

<p>I meant I shoot alone and not with anyone else (except now and then with my wife). I can be haunted by 'presence', layers of time, change, history, narrative. The city is far more an intimate experience for me than is the desert.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Hmmmm, and what makes great souls great, and why would creativity be with them?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know, Wouter. The idea of "overflowing fountains" comes to mind. I'm not trying to sound too Nietzschean here, simply reflecting on the fact that some persons seem to draw upon a deeper well in most every thing that they do than do many others.</p>

<p>When I have nothing better to do, I sometimes compare myself to myself: my productive self versus my unproductive and aimless self. The former only comes around when things hold together in my life as an integral whole. That kind of spiritual integrity is what I seek. The words of Dag Hammarskjold come to mind: </p>

<p>"Shall I ever get there? There where life resounds, a clear pure note in the silence."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[jtk]

<p>Stephen Penland posted above: His online images and accompanying concise, well-written blog- ruminations are directly to the point re: "solitary". Zero egotism about social independence and "creativity" (after a government career, of course), <em>tremendous photographic substance.</em><br>

Take a look: <a href="http://www.stephenpenland.com/">http://www.stephenpenland.com/</a></p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p>Doing it- very</p>

<p>Evaluating it, preferably not.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"</em><em>Other such photographs may be made by a person in whom the blurring of moving water strikes a deep chord, especially when it is combined with other elements in the photograph. Looking at photographs from both of these individuals, there is simply no way to ascertain what's going on in the person's mind, and therefore no way to determine the extent to which a person is following the herd or following his/her inner muse. Independence cannot be measured by uniqueness (although uniqueness may be one barometer of independence). I've found it to be very dangerous (in the sense of being entirely wrong) when one assumes he/she knows what's going on in another person's mind."</em> <strong>--Stephen</strong></p>

<p>I find it dangerous, too. I talked about <em>independent vision</em>, which I can see in a photograph, not what's going on in a photographer's mind. I'm not projecting how the photographer arrived at it. I brought up action, not in relationship to photographers but because Lannie said that virtue required independent thinking, which I disagree with. I think a person's actions make them virtuous or not. I wasn't saying I'm interested in a photographer's actions to assess their photography. Not at all. An independent vision is something I <em>see in a photograph</em>, and I don't project that onto what I think is going on in the photographer's mind. I'm concerned with their photographs, not projecting stuff onto them.</p>

<p>What you describe is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind when I talked about an independent vision. (Please note that I said independent vision, not independent photographer!) <em>"</em><em>Other such photographs may be made by a person in whom the blurring of moving water strikes a deep chord, <strong>especially when it is combined with other elements in the photograph.</strong>"</em> I think there is a visual difference between blurred water when it's utilized in a sort of generic fashion and blurred water when it has some internal relationships (harmonies, counterpoints, and contrasts) with other elements (composition, lighting, perspective, handling of color, etc.). When the blur has photographic relationships to other elements and qualities of the photograph, it feels more independent of cliché and gimmick. That's me looking carefully at elements, qualities, and the full picture of the photograph. It's not me assuming I know what's going on in someone else's mind.<br /> __________________________________________<br /> <br /> <em>"I'm still wondering what you would see in the "application" (the person's actions) to help determine the extent to which a person's photography is truly a solitary pursuit"</em> <strong>--Stephen</strong></p>

<p>Thanks for the question. As I said above, I wasn't looking at photographers' actions. I was looking at their photographs. Whether they work in solitude is interesting to me as it relates to their photographs themselves. As you and I both described above, I look for "independence" in photographs, visually. I'm in tune with photographic solitude , the expression of solitude, even if the person was in a group when he took the photo. I don't think one's physical aloneness necessarily translates to a photograph that conveys solitude. Photographic solitude isn't dependent on physical solitude. I think that's why you said what I asked Lannie seemed key. Because it's not about whether a photographer was alone when he photographed or not. It's about what solitude, independence, and others' evaluations mean to the photographer photographically. How they affect him photographically. How a photographer might convey those feelings of solitude photographically if he wanted to. It's not me trying to guess whether the photographer was alone. It's me trying to see either an independent vision (one more free of generic clichés or unharmonized already-proven stylistic tricks) or a solitary vision (one that speaks to me of aloneness, introspection, etc.) in the photographs themselves.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>When I have nothing better to do, I sometimes compare myself to myself: my productive self versus my unproductive and aimless self. The former only comes around when things hold together in my life as an integral whole.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>" But the paradoxes bug me. And I can learn to love, and <em>make love </em>to the paradoxes that bug me. <strong>And on really romantic evenings of Self, I go <em>salsa dancing</em> with my confusion</strong>." </p>

<p> Speed Levitch, <em>Waking Life</em></p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Phylo, I always wondered who watched that kind of stuff:</p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aCazIRtG3o</p>

<p>I was hoping that I might invoke the Socratic dictum: "Know thyself" as well as "The unexamined life is not worth living."</p>

<p>I had no idea that I would be interpreted as sending out an invitation to a solipsist convention. I was rather hoping, that is, that "solitary" would not be interpreted as a variant of solipsism.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[hadi_khademi]

<p>When I was a teenager I got the chance to work as an intern in a photo lab, working with red light and all those smelly chemicals. It was very exciting to see pictures caming to life in developer tray, almost magical! I was fifteen when I started mountaineering and rock climbing and later became a mountain guide seeing natural wonders most people never seen firsthand. Watching birds of prey flying in groups of 6-10 right above my head atop of a 1200 feet scarpment was a treat for the sore eye. Only photos were able to capture those unique moments (if you were ready for them or your camera wasn't frozen!). memories fade for the most part but pictures freeze the precious moments for you. You will be so grateful to your camera for doing that and in turn it creates a unique one-one relationship between you, camera and your subject (in my case mountains and everything in them). Even if you are with a group of fellow climbers this journey has to be solitary and you can't help it but to be a loner. You get into a mindset of chasing the things you deem very important at the moment that you just can't afford any distractions. Interestingly any great mountainer or rock climber I have ever met where loners! Something lures you into this mindset that I can't explain.<br />Cheers,<br />Hadi</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>Hadi, you might enjoy this:</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Glen-Denny-Yosemite-Sixties/dp/0979065909/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275702290&sr=1-1</p>

<p>http://images.google.com/images?ie=UTF8&q=%22glen+denny%22</p>