Re: The Intellectualization of Craft

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, next thing you know you'll be telling us to get out there and shoot -- LOL!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie, not sure whether my answer expressed my ideas very unclear on the point, or whether you misread me. I am <strong>not</strong> skeptical about the extent of which the trains of thought in this forum (and in our heads) can affect photography. I know for me, it does; it has helped adding depth to my hobby and as a result, made me take it more serious and more ambitious as a photographer.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well said, Wouter. I think that we all (well, most of us on this forum, at least) believe along the same lines. Otherwise, I guess that we would just take Lance's advice and get out there and shoot all day, process and post all night.</p>

<p>I wonder if it is possible to shoot and not think. Could that be what Lance was recommending?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Wouter, I just want to acknowledge your perceptive comments here and always stimulating, to me, thoughts. I can't add much to them other than to say "I hear you." And I'm sorry for the lapse, with those three words, into my past!</p>

<p>As a good friend pointed out to me last night, and John Kelly suggested the connection already, I used to think of my philosophy as affecting my photographs and I am thinking more and more that my photographing is affecting my philosophy. Hey, maybe a new thread in there. Now, I would probably fall prey to your observation, Wouter, that I would pose the question with the answer I just gave for myself already in mind. It wouldn't necessarily be asked in order to change my mind or because I didn't already have an answer. It would be asked because I didn't have a complete answer and wanted to hear, if I could get over myself long enough to listen, what others had to say. That way, my own answer might become more nuanced and a little more carefully considered. You are right, we often argue where we might benefit more by building on each other's thoughts. It's all not so easy. Or maybe it is easy and we make it hard.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie, not sure whether my answer expressed my ideas very unclear on the point, or whether you misread me. I am <strong>not</strong> skeptical about the extent of which the trains of thought in this forum (and in our heads) can affect photography. I know for me, it does; it has helped adding depth to my hobby and as a result, made me take it more serious and more ambitious as a photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said, Wouter. I think that we all (well, most of us on this forum, at least) believe along the same lines. Otherwise, I guess that we would just take Lance's advice and get out there and shoot all day, process and post all night.</p>

<p>I wonder if it is possible to shoot and not think. Could that be what Lance was recommending?</p>

<p>Of course, he did seem to give a passing thought or two to nude self-portraiture, although, to be fair to him, both threads were by women (which is not necessarily to say for women).</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Sorry for the double-posting there. I thought that I was still in the editing phase. I must have had two windows open.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I am thinking more and more that my photographing is affecting my philosophy.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, that very same thought crossed my mind this morning. I'm not sure that I could summon up much more to say, however, although I am open to the idea of such a thread. I wonder how many persons could post photos that have affected their own philosophy.</p>

<p>Seeing other persons' photos has had more of an influence on my thinking than seeing or making my own, I think.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I'm out of synch with the conversation of the moment but I wanted to say thanks to John K (the book is <em>The Moment of Seeing: Minor White at the California School of Fine Arts </em>by Stephanie Comer & Deborah Klochko) and to Lannie for appreciating the Minor White post.</p>

<p>Also, and most of all I wanted to say (and am sorry it took so long for me to say) that I was totally blown away, this morning, when I read <strong>Luis G's </strong>post that was made at 6:03 p.m yesterday. For a minute I thought I was in the perfect forum in a perfect world ... Exemplary. [<em>Whether or not it reaches its intended target, there are many of us "listening" who learn from your example</em>.]</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, already posted!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis, what did you mean when you said "My voice does not require a chorus or clique to be audible"?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'm no hunter, Fred, so no need to feel a prey in my question! The keyword was 'firmly'; what you describe is having an idea, but not one cast in stone, nothing fixed. Willing to move if a compelling argument is made to move. That, to me, is the key point in that part of the discussion: none of us come in as a blank page, we can't. But are we willing to move, and are we willing to let others be where they are? I guess I am saying the same as Luis now.... a call to stay open minded. Also mental note to self: stay open minded.</p>

<p>As for the mutual influence of my philosophy versus and with my photography. I thought about that a lot lately (which was the main reason to be relatively silent here for a while). All I can find is that they're one and the same. They are me, what drives me, what I see and don't see, what I perceive and how. One sharpens the others. I need a certain lucidity to make the photos I deem good; I need the same mood to really be perceptive to ideas. Then again, I count both as creative processes - they tap into the same brain activity.</p>

<p>Julie, forgot to mention earlier. The quote from Minor White is most useful. It is good, at times, to take such theories home and watch the rerun of myself. I am quite sure that it will reveal new things in what I've been doing so far. Ecco: this is why I love this forum!</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Julie,</strong> thank you for the White post. In the unpublished copy of his notes I have, one can see many of these points in earlier stages of development, and abbreviated, because the focus was on the workshops back then.</p>

<p>___________________________</p>

<p><strong>Phylo - "</strong>Intellectualizing about intellectualization ✓"</p>

<p> Indeed, and now with a fundamentalist turn to boot. As above, so below.</p>

<p>____________________________</p>

<p> Lance becomes the kickball du jour. Philosophy is a many-splendored thing.</p>

<p>Disclosure: I also responded to that nude self-portraiture thread, trying to be earnestly helpful, with a technical suggestion regarding making it possible for the model to view her pose from camera angle (and cheaply). Whatever is said of Lance for having responded to that thread can be said about me.</p>

<p>_____________________________</p>

<p> My mind is not a neatly compartmentalized california closet. It's faceted, but integrated. Philosophy and Photography and everything else affect each other.</p>

<p>________________________________</p>

<p> Apparently many members here mistake someone's response(s) as a kind of immutable manifesto when in reality they're nothing but a statement of where one happens to be on that topic at the moment, nothing more.</p>

<p>_________________________________</p>

<p> Wouter, there's never a defensive statement without a perception of an offense. You're right, this forum has become ensnared in a history and ongoing personal comments/attacks/vendettas. It can easily be solved, but is unlikely to be.</p>

<p>What's happened here has driven off the best photographers and artists (including all to whom I've recommended PN/PoP) here towards more civil pastures or clean off forums altogether. I still manage to glean the ocassional useful bit, but they're rarely coming from the dominant personalities here. They do catalyze exchanges from the others.</p>

<p> A special note of thanks to Julie, Phylo, Lannie, Arthur, Luca, Wouter and others.</p>

<p>_______________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Lannie - "</strong>I guess that we would just take Lance's advice and get out there and shoot all day, process and post all night."</p>

<p> I know Lance said it, so it must be ridiculized, but it's not as crazy as it sounds. It's what every MFA candidate (soldier, Dr., etc) is put through (with lots of reading and writing added) and apparently it works (leaving aside the pseudo Khmer Rouge/Taliban anti-academics). It worked for me to be working many 60 hr weeks commercially for years.</p>

<p>_______________________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Nope. Rather move on. Sorry to those of you who received an email version of this post.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Julie, </strong>thank you.</p>

<p>________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Luis, what did you mean when you said "My voice does not require a chorus or clique to be audible"?"</p>

<p> It referred to an earlier post by Arthur in which he said something about his idea of a separate forum and "like-minded people".</p>

<p>I don't need to be among like-minded people, and frankly, prefer to be among people who are smarter than and disagree with me (probably the #2 reason I am here). My voice doesn't require (external) visible/consensual means of support. Homogeneity does not make for good exchanges a lot of the time.</p>

<p>____________________________________________________</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Lannie - "</strong>I guess that we would just take Lance's advice and get out there and shoot all day, process and post all night."<br /> <br /> I know Lance said it, so it must be ridiculized, but it's not as crazy as it sounds. It's what every MFA candidate (soldier, Dr., etc) is put through (with lots of reading and writing added) and apparently it works (leaving aside the pseudo Khmer Rouge/Taliban anti-academics). It worked for me to be working many 60 hr weeks commercially for years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, in fairness to Lance, what he actually recommended was to "talk less and shoot more," or words to that effect--good advice for all of us, no doubt. Again I engaged in a bit of hyperbole, and at Lance's expense. I'm sorry, Lance, if you are around.</p>

<p>As for kicking Lance around, it was the presumptive tone that was off-putting, not the recommendation. Fred does, after all, post quite a bit, and I am sure that he shoots a lot more than he posts, if he is like me.</p>

<p>As for the threads I tried to humorously reference, I wasn't trying to be brutal, but perhaps it came off that way. I didn't do much reading on those particular threads. I went straight to the bios and then started looking at pictures.</p>

<p>I yam what I yam.</p>

<p>"Ridiculized." Luis, why the neologism? Will not "ridiculed" work well enough?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I actually find neologisms very expressive, visual (like photographs almost). I think "ridiculized" helped emphasize something significant while also kind of painting a picture for me. Neologisms like Luis's often carry with them personality, just like some photographs.</p>

[elvagabundoviejo]

<p>I'm still reading the posts from yesterday's discussion and thinking about them... It's unsettling in a way.</p>

<p>Lannie - It is, as Julie's post implied, proficiency in the craft is more likely to result in a satisfactory result. It's not that you, or anyone else, should shoot all day and process/post all night or shoot without thinking. I'm suggesting we become more proficient by experimenting and we produce a better result when we can think and see the result we want and the craft happens without thinking about it --it should be instinctive/automatic. I'm not sure what the references to the other posts I've done are about, the fact that I made them where I did or what I actually said in them which is essentially what I've said here --learn how to get it right the first time, first and by doing so, produce a more satisfactory result, whatever that might be to the person taking the photograph.</p>

<p>In Julie's post about Minor White's course, which all seems very reasonable in terms of craft, I'm more wary of the criticism and to whom we look for guidance. Anything from the 1950/60s is immediately suspect as far as I'm concerned because I seem to have a love/hate relationship with authority. I think PN is a much better forum because it's a collection of photographers doing the criticism (sometimes weak I'll admit) while doing the craft (also sometimes weak). I think the opportunity is in shrinking the learning curve for people who do want to learn. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>By the way, now that we're seeing our photos and the photos of others at the bottoms of these thread pages, I'm seeing stuff in HIDDEN folders I haven't really looked at in a while. It's fun and at the same time weird. Stuff I wouldn't necessarily want to represent me now but that tells a story of my progression.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm still reading the posts from yesterday's discussion and thinking about them... It's unsettling in a way.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for returning and commenting further, Lance. Yes, we jumped you, and I am sorry for that, not just for the hyperbole.</p>

<p>I am reminded of Nietzsche's saying: "Madness in individuals is the exception. In groups it is the rule." In defending one person, groups can go to the opposite extreme and demonize the critic or the mere dissident. It has happened to me as well (in the world, not necessarily here on PN). It is a kind of bullying, and it is painful to be on the receiving end of it.</p>

<p>Again, I am sorry.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I gotta stop hitting that button.</p>

<p>[sorry, Lannie, edited out my post before you reposted. I had questioned Lannie's use of the word "we".]</p>

<p>[boy, one sure can do a lot in ten little minutes ;)))]</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>We </em>did?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't say everyone did, Fred.</p>

<p>I see that you modified your post while I was responding.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Try not to worry so much about the philosophy and concentrate on being able to consistently produce and reproduce, at a moments notice, a memorable photograph.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lance, I am going back to your original post here. I don't photograph for money, but I teach a bit of political philosophy, ethics, etc., on a regular basis--along with some mainstream political science courses. I think that, if some persons on this forum or in the larger society think too much, most persons think far too little--and not just about photography.</p>

<p>Human rationality is different from that of other animals (or at least most other animals) in that we are reflexive in our rationality. That is, we are self-conscious. Our rationality allows us to see ourselves as if we were in a mirror. I do personally believe that our production-oriented culture puts a premium on action but not reflection. We are urged to be productive, to work hard, etc. We are also often led to believe that scholarly "leisure" is laziness. I happen to think that we do need to be self-consciously reflective about darned near everything. With regard to our lives, we need to be constantly re-evaluating where we are going and why, not to mention which means we are prepared to use to get there. Examining where we have been--watching our personal history unfold--is likewise very useful. It makes life more meaningful as well as better, I believe.</p>

<p>Likewise, in our work, I am quite sure that the reflective, self-conscious photographer is going to be better at his craft for studying his or her own work, as well as that of others--not to mention the critics and the theorists. I believe that it is a hard call to make as to when someone is thinking too much, or analyzing too much, as opposed to producing too much.</p>

<p>I am not saying any of this to try to refute you so much as to offer my own feeble thoughts on the subject.</p>

<p>Getting the proper balance is the key, I think. In any case, let me reaffirm that most persons that I know think and read and write not too much, but too little.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, like you said to me and like I responded to you, I am often obsessive. I feel less and less balanced and that's OK. Paperwork and dishes are piling up in my house like never in my life. Time is being spent at the computer, both writing feverishly here and often in the middle of the night working on sorting through, processing, and refining new photos. I am looking for and finding new and old faces, bodies, and their environments to photograph. It's more than a little unsettling and that's a good thing.</p>

<p>I don't think our priorities for our activities and the blends of those activities and passion with which we pursue them are generally understood terribly well by others. I don't often understand my friends' proclivities nor they mine. I will say, though, that those who know me have been excited for me and very encouraging (although my dad's really worried about my livelihood!). I'd be embarrassed, today, to have someone walk into my house and see that several days' dinner dishes are on my coffee table and that my kitchen's a holy mess, but I'd get over it. Because I'm doing other things I love and I'll get to the dishes before the ants get here . . . I hope.</p>

<p>My own reflections have always felt somehow active. Sometimes they get photographed. (Even if others won't ever know or see it, they're there having some kind of effect . . . maybe nebulous, maybe more overt.) I've never found philosophy to be a passive activity and I doubt you do. Thought is productive and producing requires thought.</p>

[elvagabundoviejo]

<p>I agree that balance is the key.</p>

<p>As for the idea: "...it is a hard call to make as to when someone is thinking too much, or analyzing too much, as opposed to producing too much."</p>

<p>I don't think it's all that hard, at least not in my opinion. I think it's obvious --but the difficulty is, as always, communicating that to the student honestly and directly.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>But who is the student and who is the teacher (a question I ask myself almost daily)?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lance,<br>

Saying somebody may overanalyse and think too much is not necessarily a teacher-student environment. Friends told me I do, and often enough, they are right. However, it isn't obvious. You need to know somebody. You need to understand what is genuine thought, what is expressing insecurity, what is misunderstanding and miscommunication, what is just grey noise, what is analysis and what is mesmerising and dreaming. And even when you nail that, and communicate clear and honest, the receiving end may still feel otherwise. One person's overanalysing is the other person's appetiser for a good meal of thoughts.<br>

The same goes for producing too much.<br>

There is no human standard here, only individual ones. Each need to find his/her balance.</p>

[elvagabundoviejo]

<p>One of the great attractions of Photo Net for me is that I can and should be both at the same time. I don't see photography as a one way street. I truely wonder at some of the photos/illustrations/paintings I see here on a daily basis. If I can save someone a minute, hour, day, month, year in their own development simply by providing a relevent example, shouldn't I?<br>

Even if I am dismayed by the subject, verb, object --shocked or amazed I try to understand the reason for the effort.</p>