Doubt

AJHingel · August 31, 2010

And this.<div>

00XBf4-274975584.jpg.8d061cf7a857c21794ea4f88a1fa2a05.jpg

</div>

AJHingel · August 31, 2010

Arthur, thanks for the detailed info on Paris. Very good and very informative. I will pass by rue Menilmontant in the centre of Belleville which as you write is maybe the quarter of Paris with the biggest Maghreb population.

John you are of course right that Paris has many memories, good and bad. Some exhibited on every street corner (resistance) and some hidden away - for everyone to see it (Algeria). I would how ever be very careful writing about any place on Earth apart from your own back yard, with the basic inspiration of words like: "who cares, I'm in New Mexico"! (I can't find it again, but I think you wrote it. If not, please excuse me, but I love the formulation). That is the ultimate approach for not seeing "essence" anywhere and a very bad omen for shooting "good photography", in my view.

Phylo touches, as he often does, at something essential when he writes the following that I will not comment on:

Consider the skyline of NYC without the Twin Towers, but they're still there, somewhere. This also on a microscopic scale in the streets of Paris or whenever where ever. Perhaps that's the *essence of essence*, its dependency on memory.

</blockquote>

Thanks Phylo.

Julie H · August 31, 2010

In my opinion ...

"Essence" is conservative. It works *TOWARD* a name ("Paris"). It requires or at least expects/anticipates confirmation, consensus, agreement. It's centric -- it works toward that name ("Paris"). It is reactionary; it's about stability. This is not a bad thing; to the contrary, we need our dictionaries, our starting assumptions. Essence is about group consensus and confirmation.

On the other hand, there is anti-essence. Working *AWAY* from a name, away from the center. Away from group confirmation, away from current or common consensus, away from "Paris." It works *TOWARD* the un-named, the un-explored, the un-known, the un-confirmed; the (fuzzy) boundaries, the (undefined) edges, often far distant from what has already been named (and "essenced"). There be dragons! (We sure hope so.) There, thank goodness, lies doubt ...

[Thank you Antonio and Pnina for supportive comments addressed to me long ago in this thread. Much appreciated.]

AJHingel · August 31, 2010

Julie I think you misunderstand the case of Paris. That is city is of no central importance to the question of "essence" than Hong Kong, Tokyo or Rome would be - in my eyes. I'm anything but conservative, and I'm not looking for stability. I'm looking for what I feel of a certain place that communicates to be, being novel or old known places. As mentioned earlier I have not managed to catch what makes places like those mentioned special (call it essence, soul or whatever you wish). The reason history and memory came into the discussion was only that some believed that this is where "essence" is to be found. I'm not sure and I don't see how nature, I mentioned forests for example, can be covered with reference to such mostly unexplored places.

I agree that working way from the essence might be a way forward - a little like the scientific refutation method of Popper. However this does not change anything in essence (sorry!) because you cannot move away from something you have not defined - or you define it when you have managed to move away from "it". method of Popper's of which

AJHingel · August 31, 2010

Sorry typo in the text. Can it be delimited please?

Here is the corrected version which is hopefully more readable:

Julie I think you misunderstand the case of Paris. That city is of no more central importance to the question of "essence" than Hong Kong, Tokyo or Rome would be - in my eyes.

I'm anything but conservative, and I'm not looking for stability. I'm looking for what I feel of a certain place that communicates to be, being novel or old known places. As mentioned earlier I have not managed to catch what makes places like those mentioned special (call it essence, soul or whatever you wish). The reason history and memory came into the discussion was only that some believed that this is where "essence" is to be found. I'm not sure and I don't see how nature - I mentioned forests for example - can be covered with reference to such, mostly, unexplored places.

I agree that working away from the place (essence) might be a way forward - a little like the scientific refutation method of Popper. However, this does not change anything in essence (sorry!) because you cannot move away from something you have not defined - or you define it when you have managed to move away from "it".

aplumpton · August 31, 2010

Does a city or a place have an essence, an absolute being, or an existence or entity of immaterial or spiritual nature? Fred referred to "chairness" as described by Plato, as an idea or essence of what it is to be a chair. What is it to be a place like Paris, New York, Amsterdam or Boston? What is the "all" that makes something what it is, or appears to be? The ruins of the last Cathar castle in Roussillon (or Languedoc?) is simpler, it has an essence that is inescapably related to the ideas and perseverence of that former religion. Mecca and Bethlehem have essences that relate to their religious ideas and significance.

I must admit, as much as I enjoy Paris's multiple beings and nature, they may not confirm, in a conservative manner suggested by Julie, a singular essence. I doubt we can discover the essence of Paris, in the sense that the place is complex and changing. Doubt has to overlay any definition and any attempt to make one picture that evokes the essence of Paris. Perhaps not even achieved unequivocally in a single image by Brassai or Doisneau or Rons or Boubat. A friend suggested (perhaps not originally) that Paris is a woman, while London (or Berlin or New York) is a man. On the subject of Canada, I proposed to him that it's essence may well be found in that expression "eh?"

In Anders first image in the 1st arrondissement, we can see a number of things that characterise Paris: the chic apparel, gate and presence of Parisian women (or women visiting Paris and fully conscious of that quality); the attention to walkways and spaces for pedestrians (contrast the thin vehicle artery with the sidewalk or plaza); the desire for nature (the immaculately kept and protected tree, reminiscent perhaps of the trees lost to building and to wars in the 11th century); the formality and somehat traditional appearance of the male Parisian (few tennis shoes or "sneakers" here, witness the man's polished Oxfords or laceless shoes). These, and the elegantly fenced in office building, are perhaps not unique to Paris and may be seen in many European cities (including the graffiti), are admittedly superficial in respect of defining essence, any may relate more to an essence of Europe than to anything specific about Paris. But perhaps essence is made immaterial by it being a sum of many such small characteristics, although we might wish for it to be more noble, more related to history, Voltaire, Foucault, unique thoughts and social questions (L-E-F). The diffusiveness of any defining essence creates the doubt. In photography, we can only approach it, as Atget did.

jtk · August 31, 2010

"... Paris has many memories, good and bad. Some exhibited on every street corner (resistance) and some hidden away - for everyone to see it (Algeria). I would how ever be very careful writing about any place on Earth apart from your own back yard, with the basic inspiration of words like: "who cares, I'm in New Mexico"! ...If not, please excuse me, but I love the formulation). That is the ultimate approach for not seeing "essence" anywhere and very bad omen for shooting "good photography", in my view." -- Anders

I'd move to Paris in an instant if Manhattan, the road to Monterey Bay and back (for the week ahead) and my own back yard weren't beckoning.

IMO no "thing" (eg "essence" or "soul" or Paris) exists more (or at all) with the help of verbal "definition." With definition, one doesn't move toward or away from a non-phenomenon. There is one kind of definition of Paris that involves positioning: cartographic. "Who cares, I'm in New Mexico" :-)

aplumpton · August 31, 2010

"There is one kind of definition........that involves positioning: cartographic. "Who cares, I'm in New Mexico" "

John, probably voiced by someone who has about as much curiosity as that required to use his GPS to find his way to his very local beer store.

While looking for the reference to that quote I found this one of yours

"And it may remind some of what Paris did to its Jews during the German occupation"

When you are overtaken by the enemy, as a civilian in France it was not like being a free civilian in Germany, where many saw the atrocities first hand. and didn't act (except perhaps Ernest Leitz III in Germany and several in Paris who risked their lives for Jewish citizens).

AJHingel · August 31, 2010

John, the word "define" only became involved in this discussion with reference to Popper's refutation method. Noone seriously believe that anyone and at any moment can "define" what we are discussing concerning "essence". Actually that is one of the reasons we discuss it at all and maybe believe that photography is a way forward just like poetry might be.

Furthermore if you believe that cartography defines Paris as a "city" it can only be in a very limited sense of the word. It defines the geographical positioning of the place only. But, like any other complex phenomenon on earth there is more to it that makes it into what we call a "city". Dare I mention the population, the structure, the streets, the mode of living, the buildings? Actually no-one have up till now come up with a definition of a "city" that researchers can agree upon. Defining "Paris" is a non starter.

I thought about you when I wrote the word "define" together with "scientific" and Popper and a voice in my head warned me that you might bite. The voice was right.

jtk · August 31, 2010

Anders, congratulations on your voice. btw..do you get AM or FM on your dental fillings? :-)

No matter...I can't position my thinking in relation to yours because you seem to be evading one of your own (probably my mis-reading).

I've not read Popper (beyond some online sketches). What's been said about him here has not been impressive, one way or another. My thinking on this matter isn't academic, I'm still at a level of trying to make sense of the various posts. Please clarify.

Maybe I'm not reading you carefully enough. I think you're defending "essence" while denying it exists, not sure about cartographic definition while insisting upon it in romantic terms . Help!

Arthur, the Paris police and municipal government enthusiastically rounded up Jews for shipment to their murder. I don't understand your reluctance to accept that. The police and government have always constituted much of Paris, just as with any large city. One might even call them part of the essence of Paris.

luis_g · August 31, 2010

What are we reading when Arthur describes essence? Class-common Western education/history, specific social customs, demographics, Hausman's design, etc. There is the group consensus that Julie mentions, with the usual accompanying affirmations of class signifiers of knowledge, taste, etc. As Julie said: "Essence is about group consensus and confirmation." It is also about affirming one's identity and class in many ways. We can see that forcibly stripped bare in Arthur's spiny: " John, probably voiced by someone who has about as much curiosity as that required to use his GPS to find his way to his very local beer store." Lamentably ugly intimations of a less sophisticated, curious, cultured, techno-savvy lower, beer-drinking class become clear in that statement.

___________________

Julie's "It is reactionary; it's about stability." are clear in the sense of (perhaps subconscious) perpetuation of one's own status quo. Is the search for essence a short, self adulatory feedback loop? I do not know. At any rate, I wouldn't put it down as a photographically viable idea any more than I would Antonio's approaches to photographing people or architecture. His self-imposed limits give his work a strong sense of form.

We are told little or nothing about the intrinsic qualities of essence, which remain a mystery. Anders likened it to "soul" but never explained if those two words wrt "essence" were synonymous, and if not, why not, and that's OK. Maybe essence is like a catalyst?

The key statement in grasping what Anders and Arthur mean by "essence" to me, lies in Anders' curious statement that some forests have soul and some do not. What makes a particular forest have "soul"? Can a desert have it? A frozen Eskimo-scape? Does it have to be about cultural high-drama? Over long periods of time (Examine Sally Mann's profound, elegiac explorations of this in a very personal sense of spacetime in <a href="http://www.photoeye.com/bookstore/citation.cfm?catalog=BF189&i=&i2=&CFID=11396655&CFTOKEN=61729924">What Remains</a>) or short ones?

Even small things, let alone cities, contain too much information, leaving their past aside, to be encapsulated by a photograph. At best, that could be approached at the cost of precision and resolution via metaphor. It seems more likely to me that we are photographing a significant portion of it as a reflection of ourselves, what we are and know than what lies before the lens.

If you didn't know about the history and tantalizing legend of the Cathars and what preceded and followed it, what would the ruins of the castle Montsegur be able to tell you? Specially if you hadn't read the records of the Inquisitors? How would it seem different from the ruins of a hundred other small castles in the area and in Europe? I would suggest that it is we that hold the fire, and the ruins (or cities) give it form, breathing life and fanning the flames within us.

Arthur, " In photography, we can only approach it, as Atget did."

Unless we've lived all our lives in Paris, focused our energies for a lifetime as he did, possessed his intelligence, passion and heart, no, no, we can't. We can only do a bad imitation. Atget, lovingly, nostalgically, and ever-so-brilliantly photograph his own back yard, which also happened to be where his heart was. Only Atget could be Atget.

We must approach it in our own way.

fate_faith_change_chains · August 31, 2010

All this talk about cities and their "essence" reminds me of the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Some-Cities-Victor-Burgin/dp/0520206363">Some Cities</a> by Victor Burgin, which I bought a looong time ago, but haven't read yet at all, only looked at the pics ! It explores in text and in photographs the nature of cities, and our relationships with them.

Also, the lyrical expression of one idividual's - Speed Levitch, I stumbled upon him through the film Waking Life - relationship with "the city" ( in this case NYC )

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZy5WCe8N6w&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZy5WCe8N6w&feature=related</a>

---------

The city as a work of art, as a living organism.

aplumpton · August 31, 2010

Wow, I posted an appreciation of your first photo Anders and the mod seems to have disagreed, or am I confused?

aplumpton · August 31, 2010

To the moderator: Please let us know what is happening, a number of responses have disappeared from these latter pages. Thanks.

Norma Desmond · August 31, 2010

Anders, I want to make sure of something. My postcard remark way above was not at all meant to suggest that your photos appear like postcards to me. The reason I brought up "postcard" was to try to fine tune what it was you meant by essence. Up until that point, your description of essence seemed to be focused on reminding those who know the city, stimulating senses of smell and touch, sound, noise, and attachment to the city. All of those things can be said of a postcard, which simply represents. So, I was asking what you put into your photographs (which are way beyond postcards) to capture what you are referring to as essence.*

I will say that most of what you and Arthur have discussed seems to me about the content of the photos and about the history and geographical markers of the cities. These descriptions which are meant to center around essence read as being about stuff you know of the cities. That is, indeed, about the essence of the city. The question here, though, is how does all that become a photograph that somehow captures or expresses this essence. Other than representing all that stuff you've been talking about by photographing historical markers or certain streets that people would recognize, all that content, I'm after photographic considerations that might get under the surface and give me FLAVOR. I haven't heard much talk about light, for instance. Or texture. Use of focus and DOF. I haven't heard much about perspective. How might changing perspective and even adopting extreme perspectives in various situations take us from a postcard representation of a place to a more personal essential aspect of a place. Do lighting and shadows effect whether we feel that we've penetrated the surface of a place? What about capturing movement? Dynamics? Knowing history will, of course, add to one's feeling a particular city's ambience. But creating such ambience in a photo relies on much more than history and location.

____________________________________

*The thread has moved beyond the word "essence" and I'm no longer questioning its usage here. This is about how to photograph what is being referred to.

AJHingel · August 31, 2010

Let me try again to formulate in a few words what I up till now have used the terms "essence" and "soul" to describe.

I have experienced, that some places leave me totally cold and others inspire me over and over again. The result is in photographical terms that in one place something makes me see photographical scenes surrounding me at all times - and in other places I cannot see any thing of interest. I would believe that such experiences are common to any serious photographer. When I use the term "essence" or "soul" (I don't make a difference between the two) about a place, a city, a forest or indeed any place I happen to find myself in - I speak about the "something" that characterizes the place and makes it communicate to me.

This "something" is not a temporary and changing quality of me but my experience tells me that it is for me consistently attributed to specific places. .

Communicating by photos what is special about a specific place (say Paris) is the ultimate challenge I set myself. Not any single photo can convey such information, but series of photos might.

Places where I feel this "something" are however also places that I find agreeable to be in. I could not for long live in a place that does not inspire me - also in photographical terms. Ugliness and beauty are parts of the whole in such places - just like violence and peace, justice and injustice, history and present, change and stability or inequality and cohesion.

AJHingel · August 31, 2010

I wrote a new contribution trying to answer Fred's question, but it seems to have disappeared. What is happening?

aplumpton · August 31, 2010

Luis,

If you read my post, it says "I doubt we can discover the essence of Paris", Why, because I considered "essence" (elsewhere if you had caredto read it) to be of an immaterial or spiritual type and not material. So where please did I invoke Haussman as the definition of the essence of Paris? I don't think so. Also when you quote Anders forest concept, you are quoting Anders, and not Anders and Arthur. Do try to be accurate, Luis.

You also seem to dislike my comment "In photography, we can only approach it (essence), as Atget did." What you conveniently forget is that if you also accept the definition (Oxford) dictionary) of essence being immaterial and spiritual, you will also be able perhaps to comprehend that Atget, an intelligent being no doubt, would have been honest in admitting that he only approached essence. That he approached that elusive quality much closer than you or I could is not inconsistent with the word "approaching." You are probably familiar enough with assymptotic relations to know that approaching is not just one point on the curve.

The comment, wherever it came from that "Who cares, I'm in New Mexico" (in regard to essence of Paris) is a dullish and nonsensical comment when taken at its face value, and as I said, was probably voiced by someone possessing as much (intellectual) curiosity as that required to use his GPS to find his way to his very local beer store.

By throwing that back as "Lamentably ugly intimations of a less sophisticated, curious, cultured, techno-savvy lower, beer-drinking class become clear in that statement" tells me much about the quality of your reasoning.

Luis you seek every possible inch of space in this forum and others to flaunt a borish vendetta against whatever I say. I am not interested in doing that to you and also not interested in attempting to have a sincere conversation with you and others and constantly having to put up with such childish behaviour (someone said you taught students - wow!).

I do not see any way you will stop all of this so here is my proposal, which I hope youwill respect:

"That Luis refrain from referring to Arthur's posts in this or other forums, and Arthur agrees to do the same in regard to Luis' posts. As this won't affect the progress of discussions that most of us wish, it should not close down any useful discussion of our colleagues. Should you change your mind about how you react towards me (for whatever unknown reason) I would be happy at some later point to re-engage in discussion with you, and hopefully beneficial ones, with suitable assurances from you that you are so interested.

Do you think that is a reasonable way for us to agree ?

Julie said: "Essence is about group consensus and confirmation. It is reactionary; it's about stability. It is also about affirming one's identity and class in many ways." Apologies to Julie if I place these quotes in the wrong order.

I guess that you may be right, if we accept that a meaning for essence of a place or period that is largely divorced from those social constraints is not possible. It may well be so, just as a reading of opinions on politics and society from different continents, like Europe and North America, is often not reconciled. But I tend to be more optimistic about the ability of man to research meaning in a less biased manner. Perhaps because of my rarther innocent scientific training?

aplumpton · August 31, 2010

Luis,

If you read my post, it says "I doubt we can discover the essence of Paris", Why, because I considered "essence" (elsewhere if you had caredto read it) to be of an immaterial or spiritual type and not material. So where please did I invoke Haussman as the definition of the essence of Paris? I don't think so. Also when you quote Anders forest concept, you are quoting Anders, and not Anders and Arthur. Do try to be accurate, Luis.

You also seem to dislike my comment "In photography, we can only approach it (essence), as Atget did." What you conveniently forget is that if you also accept the definition (Oxford) dictionary) of essence being immaterial and spiritual, you will also be able perhaps to comprehend that Atget, an intelligent being no doubt, would have been honest in admitting that he only approached essence. That he approached that elusive quality much closer than you or I could is not inconsistent with the word "approaching." You are probably familiar enough with assymptotic relations to know that approaching is not just one point on the curve.

The comment, wherever it came from that "Who cares, I'm in New Mexico" (in regard to essence of Paris) is a dullish and nonsensical comment when taken at its face value, and as I said, was probably voiced by someone possessing as much (intellectual) curiosity as that required to use his GPS to find his way to his very local beer store.

By throwing that back as "Lamentably ugly intimations of a less sophisticated, curious, cultured, techno-savvy lower, beer-drinking class become clear in that statement" tells me much about the quality of your reasoning.

Luis you seek every possible inch of space in this forum and others to flaunt a borish vendetta against whatever I say. I am not interested in doing that to you and also not interested in attempting to have a sincere conversation with you and others and constantly having to put up with such childish behaviour (someone said you taught students - wow!).

I do not see any way you will stop all of this so here is my proposal, which I hope youwill respect:

"That Luis refrain from referring to Arthur's posts in this or other forums, and Arthur agrees to do the same in regard to Luis' posts. As this won't affect the progress of discussions that most of us wish, it should not close down any useful discussion of our colleagues. Should you change your mind about how you react towards me (for whatever unknown reason) I would be happy at some later point to re-engage in discussion with you, and hopefully beneficial ones, with suitable assurances from you that you are so interested.

Do you think that is a reasonable way for us to agree ?

Julie said: "Essence is about group consensus and confirmation. It is reactionary; it's about stability. It is also about affirming one's identity and class in many ways." Apologies to Julie if I place these quotes in the wrong order.

I guess that you may be right, if we accept that a meaning for essence of a place or period that is largely divorced from those social constraints is not possible. It may well be so, just as a reading of opinions on politics and society from different continents, like Europe and North America, is often not reconciled. But I tend to be more optimistic about the ability of man to research meaning in a less biased manner. Perhaps because of my rarther innocent scientific training?

aplumpton · August 31, 2010

Luis,

If you read my post, it says "I doubt we can discover the essence of Paris", Why, because I considered "essence" (elsewhere if you had caredto read it) to be of an immaterial or spiritual type and not material. So where please did I invoke Haussman as the definition of the essence of Paris? I don't think so. Also when you quote Anders forest concept, you are quoting Anders, and not Anders and Arthur. Do try to be accurate, Luis.

You also seem to dislike my comment "In photography, we can only approach it (essence), as Atget did." What you conveniently forget is that if you also accept the definition (Oxford) dictionary) of essence being immaterial and spiritual, you will also be able perhaps to comprehend that Atget, an intelligent being no doubt, would have been honest in admitting that he only approached essence. That he approached that elusive quality much closer than you or I could is not inconsistent with the word "approaching." You are probably familiar enough with assymptotic relations to know that approaching is not just one point on the curve.

The comment, wherever it came from that "Who cares, I'm in New Mexico" (in regard to essence of Paris) is a dullish and nonsensical comment when taken at its face value, and as I said, was probably voiced by someone possessing as much (intellectual) curiosity as that required to use his GPS to find his way to his very local beer store.

By throwing that back as "Lamentably ugly intimations of a less sophisticated, curious, cultured, techno-savvy lower, beer-drinking class become clear in that statement" tells me much about the quality of your reasoning.

Luis you seek every possible inch of space in this forum and others to flaunt a borish vendetta against whatever I say. I am not interested in doing that to you and also not interested in attempting to have a sincere conversation with you and others and constantly having to put up with such childish behaviour (someone said you taught students - wow!).

I do not see any way you will stop all of this so here is my proposal, which I hope youwill respect:

"That Luis refrain from referring to Arthur's posts in this or other forums, and Arthur agrees to do the same in regard to Luis' posts. As this won't affect the progress of discussions that most of us wish, it should not close down any useful discussion of our colleagues. Should you change your mind about how you react towards me (for whatever unknown reason) I would be happy at some later point to re-engage in discussion with you, and hopefully beneficial ones, with suitable assurances from you that you are so interested.

Do you think that is a reasonable way for us to agree ?

Julie said: "Essence is about group consensus and confirmation. It is reactionary; it's about stability. It is also about affirming one's identity and class in many ways." Apologies to Julie if I place these quotes in the wrong order.

I guess that you may be right, if we accept that a meaning for essence of a place or period that is largely divorced from those social constraints is not possible. It may well be so, just as a reading of opinions on politics and society from different continents, like Europe and North America, is often not reconciled. But I tend to be more optimistic about the ability of man to research meaning in a less biased manner. Perhaps because of my rarther innocent scientific training?

aplumpton · August 31, 2010

Luis,

If you read my post, it says "I doubt we can discover the essence of Paris", Why, because I considered "essence" (elsewhere if you had caredto read it) to be of an immaterial or spiritual type and not material. So where please did I invoke Haussman as the definition of the essence of Paris? I don't think so. Also when you quote Anders forest concept, you are quoting Anders, and not Anders and Arthur. Do try to be accurate, Luis.

You also seem to dislike my comment "In photography, we can only approach it (essence), as Atget did." What you conveniently forget is that if you also accept the definition (Oxford) dictionary) of essence being immaterial and spiritual, you will also be able perhaps to comprehend that Atget, an intelligent being no doubt, would have been honest in admitting that he only approached essence. That he approached that elusive quality much closer than you or I could is not inconsistent with the word "approaching." You are probably familiar enough with assymptotic relations to know that approaching is not just one point on the curve.

The comment, wherever it came from that "Who cares, I'm in New Mexico" (in regard to essence of Paris) is a dullish and nonsensical comment when taken at its face value, and as I said, was probably voiced by someone possessing as much (intellectual) curiosity as that required to use his GPS to find his way to his very local beer store.

By throwing that back as "Lamentably ugly intimations of a less sophisticated, curious, cultured, techno-savvy lower, beer-drinking class become clear in that statement" tells me much about the quality of your reasoning.

Luis you seek every possible inch of space in this forum and others to flaunt a borish vendetta against whatever I say. I am not interested in doing that to you and also not interested in attempting to have a sincere conversation with you and others and constantly having to put up with such childish behaviour (someone said you taught students - wow!).

I do not see any way you will stop all of this so here is my proposal, which I hope you will respect:

"That Luis refrain from referring to Arthur's posts in this or other forums, and Arthur agrees to do the same in regard to Luis' posts. As this won't affect the progress of discussions that most of us wish, it should not close down any useful discussion of our colleagues. Should you change your mind about how you react towards me (for whatever unknown reason) I would be happy at some later point to re-engage in discussion with you, and hopefully beneficial ones, with suitable assurances from you that you are so interested.

Do you think that is a reasonable way for us to agree ?

Julie said: "Essence is about group consensus and confirmation. It is reactionary; it's about stability. It is also about affirming one's identity and class in many ways." Apologies to Julie if I place these quotes in the wrong order.

I guess that you may be right, if we accept that a meaning for essence of a place or period that is largely divorced from those social constraints is not possible. It may well be so, just as a reading of opinions on politics and society from different continents, like Europe and North America, is often not reconciled. But I tend to be more optimistic about the ability of man to research meaning in a less biased manner. Perhaps because of my rarther innocent scientific training?

fate_faith_change_chains · August 31, 2010

emanation of a place >> essence of place / space << imagination of a place I think a photograph then can transform an essence to "the essence", through memory and deduction. ---------- I love Ralph Gibson's photographic view on the "essence" and / or the semiology of France. <a href="http://www.ralphgibson.com/">www.ralphgibson.com</a> ( "archive 1" > "1971-2004 France" )

aplumpton · August 31, 2010

Dear moderator,

I understand you are having problemns with posts coming through to you today and I am told I am not alone. Please locate and recognize my most recent post. If lost in your system, I can re-send if necessary. Thank you. Respectfully, Arhur P.

luis_g · August 31, 2010

Arthur, you're right: I certainly mis-attributed the Haussman and forest references, which is a pity, because they were at the core of understanding this essence thing, at least as Anders means it. Sorry about that.

I did not dislike the Atget reference. I disagreed with it, though your explanation clarified it somewhat.

AP - "The comment, wherever it came from [John Kelly] that "Who cares, I'm in New Mexico" (in regard to essence of Paris) is a dullish and nonsensical comment when taken at its face value, and as I said, was probably voiced by someone possessing as much (intellectual) curiosity as that required to use his GPS to find his way to his very local beer store.

By throwing that back as "Lamentably ugly intimations of a less sophisticated, curious, cultured, techno-savvy lower, beer-drinking class become clear in that statement" tells me much about the quality of your reasoning."

Exactly what does it say about the quality of my reasoning? It was an unwarranted and rather revealing class attack on John Kelly, one which you've only attempted to justify again. I stand by what I said, as it appears you do by what you said. And to be clear, I was reacting to what I found repulsive in that statement, not defending John Kelly, because 1) he did not need defending and 2) is amply capable of doing so himself.

AP - (someone said you taught students - wow!).

Arthur, I can guarantee you that casting aspersions on my career is not going to help this one iota. Talk about personal...

Do you really expect to characterize my thinking as "childish" in one paragraph, dare cite my teaching career negatively, and in the very next paragraph call for peace? To cite the very title of this post, can you possibly see why I might doubt your sincerity?

As you say in your corner of the universe, and, as it happens, is also said in mine: "a spade is a spade, not some sort of garden trowel". We disagree, nothing more.

AJHingel · September 1, 2010

I think our moderator needs all our support. The forum is all messed up. I wish you all "courage".

As Arthur does above, let's go back to Julie when she writes:

Essence is about group consensus and confirmation. It is reactionary; it's about stability. It is also about affirming one's identity and class in many ways

</blockquote>

I have already, I think, answered the question of reactionary and the reference to stability.

"Essence" (let's continue to use the term as reference point for what we are discussing) might be a very subjective feeling, but linked to something recognizable that can be registered on a film. If it is however only subjective it is of no interest what so ever for this discussing because it would only concern the photographer as a person. That it affirms ones identity and class seems to me to be obvious as all creative expressions in one way or another, but still it is of no interest to others if it stays subjective and it is of limited interest if can only be understood within the closed frame of a "class.

No, I believe that it can be widely shared with others and that we are also here on PN because we have a shared wish to share it in photos.

Whether that sharing is delimited to same class and shared identity (Western, European, American) might be the case, but the ultimate aim of any photographer must be to go far beyond class border lines.

If you look at photos of <a href="http://www.nikohk.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/Henri-Cartier-Bresson8.jpg">Cartier-Bresson</a> do you only see his privileged bourgeois background and the family's<a href="http://www.thiriez.org/cartierbres.htm"> cotton manufacturing industries</a>. Do you think that Cartier-Bresson did not bother about "essense" of his time, of places and just was shooting around with his Leica? If his photos still can be "read" by most of us, don't you think that it is because they communicate elements of this "essence" that many of us share, a sharing that goes far beyond class and tells something about a certain "place" and a certain time (époque)? Well, if it is so, why should this not be a project accessible for all of us photographers when we shoot places in the beginning of the 21th century?

Disclaimer: I'm not comparing myself with Cartier-Bresson. My modesty forbids me.

PS. This is the first time I have experienced that the term "class" can be used in these forums (I call them fora!) without provoking a struggle.

PSS John, I don't think this the place where we should start a discussion on Popper. Just leave it with the reference to refutation as a method. Anyway, I don't see any other aspects of Poppers writings that really inspire me.

Sign In

Doubt

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in