The material representing the immaterial

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p><em>"of no essential consequence; unimportant."</em></p>

<p>is simply the legal use of the term. I am quite surprised that you have been taken in so readily by that.</p>

<p>Ernest,</p>

<p>No problem. You understand the OP, or you don't. Like a lot of discussion that doesn't hold too well together, it is not something to lose any sleep about, or in fact even bother arguing about or exhibiting truly facile sarcasm about, unless that is one's main purpose, of course. One gets it, or one doesn't. There is no panacea that pleases everyone.</p>

<p>Fred, Ernest,</p>

<p>....however it seems telling that a lot of the comments on anybody's contribution in the PoP seems to raise 10% agreement and 90% disaccord, and the only way it seems to avoid those poor statistics is to involve oneself in self-laudatory navel gazing about one's work (looking for no comment, of course), rather than to put up one's work for comment in this forum (funny how comments seem to be more respectful of the photographer in the photo critique forum).</p>

<p>I think the future of this forum is looking less and less bright, at least for those who still wish to think of it as a good place for sincere ideas exchange, devoid of sarcasm and ego trips.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ernest, I am trudging along with you.</p>

<p>Anders, Sartre posed a difference between the essence of man and things (cities are things). The essence of man is a nothingness. (I meant it when I said essence is nothing.) Man, in fact, is condemned to create his own essence. It is not given him by a maker. Things, on the other hand, get their essences from utility. Sartre was practical. The essence of a thing comes into play through the purpose for which that thing is made and/or used.</p>

<p>Sartre was not advancing a distinction of material and immaterial. (I don't say this because I think you may have thought he was. I say it just to make sure it's said.)</p>

<p>Sartre was concerned with freedom and responsibility. Through our actions we have an ever-changing essence (therefore, a nothingness -- <em>not</em> pinned down or defined). For Sartre, things like religion (relying on the ten commandments) were ways for us to avoid taking responsibility (for creating our own moral codes). This he called Bad Faith. The ways "immaterial" and "essence" have been used in this thread are examples of Bad Faith.</p>

<p>Here's why: Freedom, for Sartre, is dependent on Action and an Agent, as is determining the essence of a thing . . . a thing's essence is dependent on usage by an Agent, the actions an agent takes with or toward the thing. Yet, when Julie talks about the importance of an Agent in her post of Sept. 9 at 5:15 am, Anders' response seems to put the city's essence, at least in part, beyond the touch of the Agent:</p>

<p><em>"Surely 'Anders's Paris' would be different from 'Julie's Paris' but both would find the material in <strong>what is real in Paris here and now.</strong>"</em></p>

<p>Sartre would find Bad Faith in the notion of "real in Paris here and now." Because you have separated what's real in Paris from Anders and Julie.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, lighten up a little. I said it was a joke. I refuse to talk in here as if I were a schoolbook. If occasional jokes, sarcasm, and "creative" tones of voice by me and others is taken as insincere, that's your bad, as the young 'uns say.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>Addition:</em> I've put up plenty of examples to illustrate lots of my points. I didn't add one to this thread because I can't put up an example of something I think is ill-formulated and doesn't apply to photographs or anything else. It's certainly been a worthwhile discussion. Sometimes, there is strong disagreement about some very foundational things. But if I don't find that your foundation applies to the world I know and live in, and can't even really make much sense of your foundation, I can't exactly choose examples to post.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>Additional addition:</em> I did, however, address one of your photos as far as saying that (and describing why) it didn't well illustrate what you seemed to be talking about. But you didn't respond much about that photo. So, on either side, it didn't seem to function well in this thread, since you ignored it beyond making an initial statement about it and didn't seem to find useful examining it or what you thought it exemplified any further.</p>

[ernest-b]

<p>John, I was going to leave your latest gauntlet lying in the grass. I'm departing on a trip in a few hours and must prepare.</p>

<p>But before signing off I'll touch briefly on two points:</p>

<p>(1) I don't think I could express more fully than I already have, my understanding of "essence": kindly read, or re-read, my previous posts, especially those at Sep 5, 7:02 pm; and Sep 8, 01:56 pm.</p>

<p>(2) I've already described at length--to excess, perhaps--my views of how we "conceive" or "perceive" or "see" or "notice" or "react visually to" the things before our eyes. Since it's always possible that further clarification on my part might make a difference, allow me to retrieve a particular quote from the "motorcyclists" analogy that you liked so much; and within it, to make a simple word substitution. I've substituted, below, "implications" for the original word, "meaning":</p>

<p><em>"The [motorcyclist] who survives is the one who continually monitors the <strong>implications</strong> of hundreds of constantly-changing visual elements. Our brains are designed (or "created", or "evolved", or "programmed", whatever) for this kind of thing. (In my opinion.)"</em></p>

<p>And, with corresponding word substitutions in two paragraphs from a subsequent post (here substituting the words "implications" and "assessment" for the original word, "meaning"), we have:</p>

<p>"My...motorcyclist analogy was only meant to underline, in a commonsense way, two points: that (1) religion has no bearing on the visual/brain functions I was referring to; and (2) we humans are constantly exercising the visual "sense-making" functions--i.e., we continually, in all our waking hours, are assessing and determining the <strong>implications </strong>of the visual elements before us. Assessment of <strong>the implications of visual cues</strong> is <em>not</em> a process we "begin" when we pick up a photograph (or upload it) then "cease" when we put it down (or click away from it).</p>

<p><em>"Of course there are various levels of "<strong>assessment of visual cues</strong>". They correspond to various levels of mental functioning. But our eyes and brains respond to visual cues at all levels--from the (almost) entirely instinctive (e.g., professional tennis), to the (almost) entirely conscious (e.g., published analyses of paintings or photographs by professional art critics). Created images can engage us instinctively, or subconsciously, or consciously--or at all levels simultaneously. (Or at no level, if we find them boring at a glance, and simply turn away)."</em></p>

<p>The word "meaning", as originally used, was not intended to convey any doctrinaire dictum about which "levels of meaning" the word "meaning" is allowed to connote. I was using it in its normal, everyday sense:</p>

<p>---------------</p>

<p><em>Motorcycle instructor: "Okay, kid, say you're approaching a four-way intersection at speed, five or six car lengths behind a pickup truck. You have the green light, so you and the pickup truck don't have to slow down. Behind you, much further back, a few cars are following at the same speed. To your front, facing you on the opposite side of this intersection, there's a line of stopped vehicles in the oncoming turn lane, waiting to make a left turn. Just as the pickup truck clears the far side of the intersection, and you're about to enter the intersection, you notice a big SUV--the lead car in the turn lane--suddenly lurches, moving forward and beginning to turn into the intersection. You see this--what does this mean?"</em></p>

<p><em>Motorcycle student: "I don't know. What?"</em></p>

<p><em>Motorcycle instructor: "It means you're dead, if you don't take evasive action immediately.</em>" <em> </em><em> </em></p>

<p>---------------</p>

<p>John, I hope that helps. I'm outta here.<em><br /></em></p>

[luis_g]

<p>After all this, allow me to make a boring, old-school proposal: What has been called "essence" seems identical to what was once referred to back in the 60's as "a sense of place". Yes, a very plebeian way of putting it, but everyone seemed to understand or accepted what was meant by that, and it is in close agreement (I think, I'm sure I'll be corrected if not) with Julie, Fred, Arthur and Ernest. </p>

<p>[speaking of o-l-d...in the early 80's, Time-Life put out a series of books titled "<em>Cities of the World".</em> Some of were extraordinary at the time. Venice by Ernst Haas, Vienna, by Thomas Hoepker, and San Francisco, by Jay Maisel. I now forget who did Paris.]</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>fwiw I've found this discussion, although "ill-formulated," enlightening. It's important to me to experience how others think and communicate, which is of course a <strong>lost cause</strong> when everybody salutes the same "givens" in the same way (eg about "art," "essence," "creativity" and the like).</p>

<p>I do recognize Arthur's personal frustration. But his complaints and resignation clearly don't reflect the experiences of many others, as there would not be so much effort to share <strong>individuaistic spins on probably -shared photographic experiences</strong> if they did. Why pretend we're posting questions if we're after agreement?</p>

<p>I'm especially appreciative of the skill (skill) with which Ernest and Anders and Julie and Fred have written. Clean, concise writing accurately measures respect for readers as well as perceptivity. I especially enjoy Fred's exposition on Sartre, so will have to get back to him (I skated too quickly past him, twenty years ago) after I finish Moby Dick :-)</p>

<p>As well, there were Anders' selections from Stieglitz (who, remarkably, was otherwise given short shrift here). And Julie raised something centrally important to human awareness in discussing Proust. Whose writing could be more relevant to photography than his? Wish I was literate in French.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>Fred</strong>, sorry, I was in fact addressing<strong> John</strong> (02.43p.m.) and not yours which came while I was writing my last contribution which you can appreciate or not with or without Sartre and his "mythologies" (the mythologies of Barthes seems more salonfähig here around). No stew around. As you can see from my last mail "essence" is very photogenic indeed. Almost like "characters" in portraits. As I believe in "essence" as a subject that can be photographed I can appreciate characters in portraits.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders, I don't think <em>Sartre's</em> use of "essence" is mythological at all. I think many adapted uses of the term, however, employ mythology. I do think there are better ways of explaining matters of "being" than Sartre's.</p>

<p>You mention character, presumably for a reason. At the beginning of the character thread, I posed several different possibilities for it and throughout the thread expressed skepticism about the whole idea and many people brought up and were left with questions.</p>

<p>And you?</p>

<p>Here was something I said in that thread:</p>

<p><em>"Deep as I may want to be and am able to get, photographs are visual works. . . . Indeed, the <strong>surface</strong> has become very important to me."</em></p>

<p>Generally, I'd say the character discussion was a pretty material one.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, you are right making reference to a "a sense of place" and the books on cities of the world. That series is being continued and some very fine books have come out lately also on the French marked.<br>

Sometimes when reading and looking at such books they however too often, I find, stand out as sofa-table volumes that are agreeable and glossy, but not very profound. I wonder sometimes whether the photographers have felt the "sense of places" or just shot nice photos of nice views and nice colors. <strong>Fred</strong>, I'm sure can continue the last sentence, if he finds the inspiration.</p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>Generally, I'd say the character discussion was a pretty material one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, generally, I would say that about this "essence" discussion here also.<br>

I did not participate in the character discussion because I feel badly at ease when discussion start on a somewhat philosophical level and turns into some kind of egocentric ping pong. No critic of others needs here on PN, but I choose not to participate.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders, actually, as I said much earlier in this thread, I think you're bringing up "oh so nice colors" was one of the most significant things you said about your own photo of the cat and the cemetery. I've been aching to discuss it and have mentioned it a couple of times. You brought it up and then dropped it. I don't know why you dropped it.</p>

<p>It was the only non-obvious and non-symbolic thing you brought up about that photo and your mentioning it truly did make me see the potential for that photo to capture what you were after. I wasn't sure if you were being a little ironic in saying "oh so nice colors" as if you saw them as somehow exaggeratedly pretty so they would belie the seriousness and grievousness of death or if you simply meant nice colors in a straightforward way that would still add a visual/photographic layer to the symbolism you employed. Either way, or any way you might have meant it, could work to capture something significant about death. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"egocentric ping pong"</em></p>

<p>No critic taken! </p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>Anders, Sartre posed a difference between the essence of man and things (cities are things). The essence of man is a nothingness. (I meant it when I said essence is nothing.) Man, in fact, is condemned to create his own essence. It is not given him by a maker. Things, on the other hand, get their essences from utility. Sartre was practical. The essence of a thing comes into play through the purpose for which that thing is made and/or used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, yes I know and you might have noticed that when I wrote about cities and acts of men I did not refer to him and was/is much more inspired by phenomenologist (Alfred Schütz et als) and "social construction of reality" social scientists (Berger and Luckman, Aaron Cicourel et als). This is the social constructivism school of thoughts, if you wish, which is sufficiently and uncomfortably so far away from philosophy that it becomes immediately relevant for observation and , yes, photography. You might notice that I'm quit critical of philosophical discussion about photography if one wish to learn about photography.<br>

I don't believe in the "purpose" logic of places you refer to. Makes no sense to me, if you wish. Only actions and inter actions and their materiel manifestations matter when "essences" of places are being made.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>Fred</strong> the "oh so nice colors" work on two levels and that was what I shortly referred to. It works of the level you mention in relation to the subject matter of the scene, the question of death, but it also works on the level of an immediate opener for the viewer, making his eye catch the scene. If I had put it all in B/W I would have very fewer, even fewer, people looking at it.<br>

Actually I don't like the photo and don't find it very profound or agreeable to look at. I used as part of the discussion only.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I don't see "oh so nice colors". I see potential for such an approach to color.</p>

<p>I'm sure in some worlds phenomenology and social construction of reality are not philosophical.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I did not anywhere say the that colors were "oh so nice" I talked about the approach. I me phenomenology is mainly a methodology of seeing and analyzing the world not a roadmap for philosophical discourse.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders, you parse words. </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I thought that was your speciality Fred, but I might have picked it up over time. <br>

You never sleep over there ?</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Anders - "</strong>I wonder sometimes whether the photographers have felt the "sense of places" or just shot nice photos of nice views and nice colors. <strong>Fred</strong>, I'm sure can continue the last sentence, if he finds the inspiration."</p>

<p>Fred's inspiration to write seems to know no bounds, Anders. :-)</p>

<p>In my estimation, the specific photographers I mentioned went well beyond niceties, though it is true that the great majority of books of that type <em>are</em> about niceties. A sense of place to me implies what Julie said about the primacy of perception. It comes from the photographer. What his or her senses make of a place (and it is really always about space & time). Very different from the idea of essence, which seems intrinsic.</p>

<p>One of the best examples of this is George Tice's <em>"Patterson"</em> I & II.</p>

<p>http://www.candacedwan.com/#Katonah/Exhibitions/George_Tice_Patterson_II</p>

<p>More of Tice's work:</p>

<p>http://www.gallery270.com/galleries/2-george-tice-at-seventy?gclid=CNPb94H3_KMCFUNe7AodJlavIQ</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Thanks for the links Luis. Looks interesting.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders (or anyone), you said black and white might even have attracted less viewers. I would have thought that black and white might have attracted more people. People on PN seem to think black and white heralds "a work of art." I hear "works really well in black and white" or "black and white is perfect for this" much more than I hear "color is perfect here." Why, in this case, do you think color attracted more attention? And . . . did you say "oh so nice" with irony, as if you were thinking about exaggeratedly pretty colors (perhaps over-the-top pretty) or did you say it just to mean "nice colors" with no sarcasm or irony? What does "nice colors" or "oh so nice colors" mean to you? Since you weren't referring to the colors in the photo, but rather to an approach, can you point to an example in your work or someone else's of "oh so nice colors"? Or can you describe it? How would your suggested approach vary from what we see in your photograph at this point?</p>

<p>It seems to me this could head in a particularly photographic direction and might get us to what you're calling essence or what Luis is calling a sense of place. Could essence or place-ness be imbued by color somehow working in tandem with the symbols you chose? Talking more about color, in this case a photographic quality, might also be how photographs access what Arthur is calling the immaterial. Of course, there's a lot more that's visual than color involved, and there's a lot more than symbol and interpretation.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>It is amazing how an OP and a postulate about photography going beyond the material, a thesis claiming that photography might allow something more profound than simple compositional or chromatic attributes, or a simple "f8 and be there", and beyond the purely visual, has run into such an opaque wall of doubt and lack of consciousness of the very photographers who seem to profess that photography can be an art, or if not an art, at least a vehicle of more profound communication. The immaterial of ideas or feelings often transcends the obvious material of a painting or a sculpture. Like certain photographs, it can suggest what is not aparent (whether literally, subonsciously, rhetorically, symbolically or whatever) and suggest something beyond its mere physical presence.</p>

<p>My own photographic examples may not be convincing (I am glad that at least one observation was one of amusement, albeit a viewer's response conditioned by my own reactions to my image and probably not his own) but that is neither here nor there. If yoiu believe that good writing, better poetry and theatre or some cinema have the power to induce the consideration of ideas and feelings in your thoughts, it is not a huge leap to consider that photography might do the same.</p>

<p>Brief resumé of positions (non-statistically produced): 90 to 95% consider that the material (the photograph, the subject) cannot invoke immaterial reactions such as ideas, feelings, essence, or spiritual notions. 5 to 10% consider it to be possible, wothwhile challenge and a component of great photography.</p>

<p>Was the OP worth it? I hope so. Thanks to all who participated.</p>

<p>I enjoyed it, even if I was left with a remaining appetite for more relevant philosophical and photographic enlightenments on the subject (Sorry, Luis, thanks for the links, but those photographs of Mr. Tice don't go far enough for me, and New Jersey is not an unknown entity for me). Next time around?</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>It seems to me this could head in a particularly photographic direction and might get us to what you're calling essence or what Luis is calling a sense of place."</p>

<p>Which are not the same thing. To attempt to clarify, essence is a quality of <em>the place. </em>Sense of place is a cognate in the photographer's mind, not a quality of the place, which might explain why there are so many Parises in different photographers' portfolios.</p>

<p>Without a doubt, color enters into the equation in a color photograph, even when it's gratuitous. It's a rare thing that any element in a photograph adds up to a sum zero, so the question is does it add or subtract from the image, and more to Fred's point, <em>how does it affect the outcome? </em></p>

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