Imaging and Imagination: How Are They Related? Reflections on Creation v. Discovery

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>It would be quite difficult, although immensely original, to create a photograph or a painting that originates in the mind but which is not taken from the World, or more specifically, from the world of our cumulative visual experiences to date. That creation might be something as I suggested in regard to the immaterial that may be present in an image. . . .</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like the old philosophical quandary as to whether or not we could have any thoughts or ideas to begin with if we did not first have actual experiences in the physical world (in this case the experiences being images).</p>

<p>Even some rationalists concede that thought begins with experience, but they go on to make claims about what can be known through reason alone. "Knowledge through reason alone" that is not first grounded in <em>some</em> kind of experience (including images) is a bit hard for me to understand. It sounds like it is even going beyond Kant's posited "<em>a priori</em> synthetic" statement--one of the most difficult and controversial problems in modern philosophy. (The writings of W.V.O. Quine come to mind--very heavy stuff.)</p>

<p>Of course, I might be going off in a direction that was not at all what you were getting at, but you have definitely offered some provocative thoughts here.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here is one link to the issue in philosophy proper:</p>

<p>http://www.nutters.org/docs/kant-sap</p>

<p>What possible relevance it might have for the philosophy of photography is open to debate, I suppose. (What isn't?)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Phylo, thanks for the links to Rauschenberg and his photos "quoting" Atget. For me it is especially interesting because I have lived for many years in one of the houses shown. I didn't even know the original of Atget of the place. The text of Rauschenberg is also very sharp and passionating to read. Thanks again!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Lannie,</p>

<p>It appears that Gardner put the tangible back into the mind of Kant, but I am just guessing. I kan't read Kant at the moment (but I will later, thanks for the reference) as I am under the gun to get things ready for a family do tomorrow. Sort of a final or nearly final opportunity for an outdoors-indoors party befiore everyone husks down for the winter up here in the boonies.</p>

<p>I realize that my sentence you quoted is impossible, as whatever the mind can throw out is somehow imbedded in/influenced by past experiences (how's that for a Juliean phrase), including visual ones. But I was wondering if one could create an image, probably abstract is easier (as it would be difficult to emulate Escher with semi-real objects), which somehow pays little attention to what we have in our "image bank" and more to our "image futures" (or an unbridled visual imagination). A second aspect of this might be the creation or imagination of photographic images that represent how we might feel or how are ideas appear to us.</p>

<p>Maybe this is sort of like the Sunday museum adult art courses where she asks the participants to put their hands into little cloth bags full of odds and ends (beads, marbles, rough objects, slippery things, etc.) and then draw what they think that encounter represents. Maybe this analogy to what I was trying to say is as crazy as that of a fellow (but eminent...) metallurgist of India a few decaeds ago, who believed that metals have souls, ostensibly because (but maybe not exclusively because) when you take a slim bar of pure tin in your two hands, and bend it, it emits a cry. I think I have just nicely obfuscated the discussion....just as well, perhaps, before the whip meets my back. But it may be worth continuing.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"I wonder to what extent a conversation could be conducted through the posting of pictures."</em> <strong>--Lannie</strong></p>

<p>The No Words forum is an example of such a conversation. I'm hesitant about analogies of photographs to verbal matters such as quotes* and conversations. Photographs are more sense-driven/perception-oriented/sensual . . . more <em>erotic</em> (as Sontag puts it) than meaningful.</p>

<p>A problem with the No Words forum is how literally the themes are taken. The threads are subject matter driven. Photos have the power to be metaphoric and reducing them to literal representations of a particular subject or using them as a means of literal conversation undermines that powerful non-literal way they can operate. The best postings in the No Words forum are the ones that take a more creative approach to the stated topic, a less literal and more metaphorical approach.</p>

<p>One might have a visual conversation that has nothing to do with representations and subjects, nothing to do with words or ideas. The photographic conversation could, for example, center around shadows and the way they move, contrasts and they way they change, focus and the way it obscures and reveals . . . not a "meaningful" conversation . . . a visual one. <br>

__________________________________</p>

<p>*I didn't get the sense that Julie brought up quotes in order to suggest that photographs are as literal as quotations. I think her analogy was emphasizing other matters.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Photos have the power to be metaphoric and reducing them to literal representations of a particular subject or using them as a means of literal conversation undermines that powerful non-literal way they can operate. The best postings in the No Words forum are the ones that take a more creative approach to the stated topic, a less literal and more metaphorical approach.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think that you are really right about that, Fred. Thanks again.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I agree that Fred is right about the fact that the No Words forum can be used in a more creative way than what mostly is the case for the moment. It can be used for I'm sure it is open for that but much depends on those that use it and especially on those that introduce themes. A theme like: "<em>contrasts </em>... and the way they change, focus and the way it obscures and reveals" is such a subject, waiting to be introduced. For the moment if you ask for a bicycle, you get bicycles.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>A quote -- one that stops me, makes me scramble to write it down on any available surface -- delights me, enriches me, moves me into a condition that I was not and would not have been in or found before or without it. It's not about agreement; it's not about recognition -- its about enrichment and expansion. Also, it's about a sensation of being present with that other person; of sharing a common mind with the souce of the quote. A sense of closeness, across space and time.</p>

<p>But that's just the beginning. Then, (as I said in my original post above) I USE the quote; I weave it into my own experience. I make creative use of it.</p>

<p>If I am listening to a solo singer or musician and suddenly a second (and third and fourth, etc.) musician(s) joins in, in harmony but with a different track, I get this same kind of sensation. A feeling of enrichment, expansion, a development of a fuller web.</p>

<p>When I am out wandering around with my camera, and I suddenly "discover" something that is "in harmony" with but/yet at the same time beyond what/who/where I am at that moment in my life, I feel enriched, expanded, a development of ... whatever you want to call your ongoing persona. An "Oh! I see!" moment in the fullest metaphorical sense of "see (more)."</p>

<p>On creativity and discovery, I would suggest that those are words about historical origins. Creativity is to do with escaping history; discovery is embedded in history. Various kinds of art have various degrees of freedom with respect to history. I would suggest that photography is deeply entrenched in/with/to history such that it weights the scale heavily to the side of discovery. Every thing, every kind of light, every behavior depicted always arrives in the camera embedded in and with its own history.</p>

<p>However I do not in any way think that this degrades photography's claim to artistic worth. For me, the power or value of an object as art is tied to its ability to make and contain,and to make transportable across time (with apologies to the "happenings" artists), experiences that enrich or expand my mind [ <em>this space left empty for the black hole of "what is art" questions</em>].</p>

<p>Note that there is always a degree of creativity in such a "containment." After discovery there will always be some amount of effort taken to frame and choose. Note also that in creativity there is always some discovery that must have happened before. Creativity might be described as a circling back and then, only then, a making of something beyond history. An active stripping out of (or amplification or other kind of distortion of) history.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>[i've been overlooking this thread...]</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>The No Words forum is an example of such a conversation."</p>

<p>I am not so sure that it is, because the elements of the "conversation" are already extant. It's as if we went to a cafe to meet a friend. each of us carrying a set of written responses, done well before we meet, and we "speak" exclusively by reciting from those snippets only. It's a kind of exchange, but not anything I would call a conversation.</p>

<p>W/NW could be totally different if it was limited only to <em>new</em> photographs taken only in response to those already up & the theme. Yes, I am well aware that such a requirement would make for a s-l-o-w "conversation" compared to what we have now, and might encounter serious resistance.</p>

<p>_____________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Julie - </strong>[ <em>this space left empty for the black hole of "what is art" questions</em>].</p>

<p>Thank you. If nothing else does, that alone will make my day. I was just asked: "why are you smirking?"</p>

<p>Beautifully written, Julie. Good points re: history.</p>

 

[AJHingel]

<p>Very well written Julie (7.06 a.m.). A pleasure to read. <br>

History or rather time is surely an inherent element in creativity and discovery because of the simple fact that we are talking about something new - new in relation to what was known or done before. I would however rather use to terms like <em>innovation</em> (new ideas applied successfully) and <em>invention</em> (new ideas made manifest). Both demand creative individuals or groups of people carrying qualification, skills and competences like: autonomy, flexibility, preference for complexity, openness to experience, sensitivity, playfulness, tolerance of ambiguity, risk-taking and risk tolerance, intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy and wide interest and curiosity. </p>

<p>So what has that to do with the interesting basic questioning of <strong>Landrum</strong>. In my view we are taking a wrong approach if we believe that those that actively construct scenes of photography necessarily are making anything that comes near to neither innovation, nor inventions. You can actively construct setups and scenes to shoot without having made manifest any new ideas or succeeded to make new applications of old ones. On the other hand you can as Landrum describes it make images of reality without moving a leaf or asking people to smile, and abruptly, without warning, new ideas are manifest for all by the very fact that reality ends up in a photo composed and seen by a creative being. So, creativity is as far as I see it not in any way related to neither active or passive approaches (bad terms, I know!) of shooting photos. Both approaches are equally creative, or not, depending on the "artist" - mostly not, in fact.</p>

<p>As far as I have seen, noone have referred above to the <strong><em>demiurge</em></strong> - the creator of the universe - half divine/half craftsman) that Hume extensively discusses and not least Karl Marx (the young one!) uses for denouncing industrialism and the destruction of the skills of the craftman. It might be relevant in a discussion like this to be aware of the relation between the creative skills mentioned above and the mastering of the technical tools we have at our disposal: our cameras, lenses, lights etc - and our mastering of them. Too often in my eyes do we forget and even reject the importance of our technical skills as photographers which to a certain degree defines what creative initiatives that are at our reach.</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Luis, I don't think only something else can make threads in the No Words forum into conversations. Many, if not all, of the threads are already "conversations" between photographers based on their existing portfolios. There is a place for "conversations" where we exchange whatever we have of shots of locomotives or cathedrals or any other subject matter that is proposed. I find the result interesting because we are photographers of so many different background and cultures. We can meet across these barriers in such simple exchanges of shots on subject matters and not least the approach permits that a maximum of people can contribute. A more select approach would definitely discourage some.<br>

That the No Words forum also could be something getting nearer to "conversations" that invite for for example metaphorical approaches is as mentioned to be promoted in my view. We have regularly themes like "shadows" that could open up for such an approach. It only demands that someone takes the initiative.<br>

Such themes should be explicitly announced in the title and the theme should be "pictorial" - not to be subject to editing by Walter, as far as I understand the way it functions now.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis, nice refinement of "conversation." A good conversation requires new input, not just reciting snippets that we've pre-made. In talking about going out and making <em>new</em> photos for a conversation actually to take place, you seem to be suggesting that these new photos would not be like those already-prepared snippets. It sounds like the new photos wouldn't be like quotes.</p>

<p>Julie, I, too, love your description. I learn a lot about your way of photographing from hearing such a description. My own would differ, as it should. I photographed two guys on Friday. John has a big house, incredible lighting, wonderful spaces. We "got to work" by getting to know each other, talking about all kinds of stuff, and walking around the house. I "discovered" things about the house . . . and the guys. I had a couple of visualizations already considered in advance. So I was looking for ways to realize them and was also open to new stuff. Sometimes, a "sudden" instant would happen and I'd shoot it. Sometimes, I'd approach a room and see a combination of furniture and light and then use the two guys to form a scene around it. There weren't clear distinctions of method behind each shot. The lines of approach were sometimes clear, sometimes blurred.</p>

<p>I wouldn't describe the majority of the day as "wandering around with" my camera. We were mostly making things happen. I was eliciting different responses, expressions, and gestures, either by asking for them or by saying things or setting up a dynamic that I figured could result in something worth photographing. They were also offering different sides of themselves and different dynamics, "playing" along with me. Ian, in particular, sees his role as collaborator. The process felt much less entrenched and more free than what you're describing, Julie. "Now take off your shirt." "Can you sneak up on him?" "Look away, then suddenly look back." "Walk quickly toward the door." "Open the door with a jerk." And, while you're taking off your shirts, I'll shoot the in-between moments. I'll still shoot while you're taking a break. There were "Oh! I see!" moments. There were more "Wow! We did it!" ones.</p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>A good conversation requires new input, not just reciting snippets that we've pre-made. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you underestimate in both qualitative and quantitive terms the portfolios of many photographers here on PN. The No Word forum is one of the most active and successful forums on PN and it fulfills clearly already in its present form an important role. For those that are not very active contributors to invest time and efforts in the forum by uploading photos and it might become even better.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders, I understand what you're saying. My purpose here is not to discuss, and certainly not to denigrate, the No Words forum. It came up as a side issue. I think Luis is right that a verbal conversation requires not simply reciting old lines that have been used before. But I think the No Words forum operates quite well when the participants utilize already-existing photos. </p>

<p>My main point is that, for me, photographs are not like quotes. I don't take them that way and don't view them that way. Julie's describing her process and my describing mine, I hope, relates to Lannie's questions about creativity, discovery, and also gives insight into how Julie's and my imaginations work.</p>

 

[AJHingel]

<p>Fred I believe you are right. I took the reference to the No Word Forum too literally. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Reference my imagination, <a href="http://www.unrealnature.com/">my work</a> speaks for me.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>Julie</strong> not withstanding the quality of your work, which I have admired at several occasions, we could all agree to state that "our work speaks for us" - and we would not anymore have the pleasure of reading beautiful text as the one you just wrote above.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Thanks Anders and Luis (so much butter!!).</p>

<p>Below is some further creative quoting:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"... In ordinary observation ... all too often the observer simply gets a general impression of the forms of bacterial colonies growing on the gelatin plate -- and then, on the basis if this cursory look, declares that he is done with his investigation. In a photograph, this frequently unjustified winnowing of the "important" from the "unimportant" will not stand. Reexamining the photograph can lead the scientist to reevaluate what is actually in the image. The photomicrograph acts pedagogically by extending -- in fact revising -- the process of observation. In short, the photomicrographic trace becomes an archive as a drawing could not; the photograph is a resource for further inquiry." [1]</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"... The presentation of man's natural setting had been one of the achievements that justified the existence of the movies next to the theater. Naturally, the silent film also had often shown the actor in close-ups. But more importantly, it had created a union of silent man and silent things as well as of the (audible) person close-by and the (inaudible) one at a far distance. In the universal silence of the image, the fragments of a broken vase could "talk" exactly the way a character talked to his neighbor, and a person approaching on a road and visible on the horizon as a mere dot "talked" as someone acting in close-up. This homogeneity, which is completely foreign to the theater but familiar to painting, is destroyed by the talking film: it endows the actor with speech, and since only he can have it, all other things are pushed into the background." [2]</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"... In Rorschach's test, it is imperative that the patient not be given any instructions about what to see or how (or how little) of the image to report. [ ... ] Essentially, the examiner (E) should speak without saying anything, presenting the subject (S) with a studied calm that put the card in the light of apparently unmediated presence:</p>

<p>S: Can I turn it?<br>

E: It's up to you.<br>

S: Should I try to use all of it?<br>

E: Whatever you like. Different people see different things.<br>

S: Do you want me to show you where I see it?<br>

E: If you like.<br>

S: Should I just use my imagination?<br>

E: Yes, just tell me what you see. (It is more appropriate to use the word see rather than reminds you of to questions of this sort, stressing perception rather than association.)<br>

S: (After giving a response) Is that the kind of thing you want?<br>

E: Yes, just whatever it looks like to you.<br>

S: Is that the right answer?<br>

E: There are all sorts of answers.<br>

S: Does it look like that to you?<br>

E: Oh, I can see a lot of things." [3]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>[1] Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison; <em>Objectivity</em> (2007)<br>

[2] Rudolf Arnheim; <em>Film as Art</em> (1957)<br>

[3] Peter Galison; "Image of Self" (2004)</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>In talking about going out and making <em>new</em> photos for a conversation actually to take place, you seem to be suggesting that these new photos would not be like those already-prepared snippets."</p>

<p>Yes, I was suggesting that the new photos would be different. Like a conversation, sans words, the exchanges would be closer to real time, evolve in a bespoke fashion, not generically, and more.<br>

Anders, it had <em>nothing whatsoever </em>to do with the current W/NW as it stands.</p>

<p>_______________________________</p>

<p><strong>Anders - "</strong>History or rather time is surely an inherent element in creativity and discovery because of the simple fact that we are talking about something new - new in relation to what was known or done before. I would however rather use to terms like <em>innovation</em> (new ideas applied successfully) and <em>invention</em> (new ideas made manifest). Both demand creative individuals or groups of people carrying qualification, skills and competences like: autonomy, flexibility, preference for complexity, openness to experience, sensitivity, playfulness, tolerance of ambiguity, risk-taking and risk tolerance, intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy and wide interest and curiosity"</p>

<p>The above is almost classical 1950's Modernism. I do not think it "a simple fact" that we're talking about something <em>new</em>. In a way it can be said that every photograph is "something new", but it is obvious that in other ways very, very few are. And some deliberately aren't. The past is sticky on both sides.<br>

______________________________</p>

<p><strong>Julie - "</strong>(so much butter!!)"</p>

<p>[Can't hep it]</p>

<p>Those quotes are a sumptuous breakfast unto themselves. I can only imagine what your library (or list of bookmarks) must be like.</p>

 

[AJHingel]

<p>Inspired by Lucie's gracious offering of reading material, maybe the short text below could be read as an input to the discussion above on complexity of: thematic dialogues by/through images. </p>

<p>The text is on how "works of art" support thinking (no need to define "art" - just read "photography", even when "theatre" is mentioned).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Nothing is more annoying than the ease with which it is said for example that theater presents "the problem of politics" simply because it puts people together in one room or that such work poses the problem identity and borders because it takes as material, flags ... Any effort put in relation with the problem itself remains to be done and the words "subject (or theme)" means basically this lack of thought that links the work of art to the act of thinking that it is supposed to initiate. </em><br>

<em>No, that's not how contemporary art "thinks", nor that anyone thinks of anything. It is necessary that the problem arises in the very work of art itself, in the logic of its production so that the work of art in itself is a treatment of the problem, likely therefore of substantiating a problem or leading to other treatments of the problem, treatments that usually begins heterogeneously, because they pass through concepts, symbolic writings, experimental research .... </em><br>

<em>A main thought of inspiration has guided us: art, not as objects of thought, but as a tool for thinking ... Opportunity not to think of art, or even from it, but to think with art...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The text is very freely translated from French and therefor in it's English version not in quotation marks. If it is not readable, shoot on the translator!<br /><br /><br>

And here the original French text for those that can appreciate it</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Rien n'est plus agaçant que la facilité avec laquelle on dit par exemple que le théâtre "pose le problème du politique" tout simplement parce qu'il se contente de mettre des gens ensemble dans une même pièce ou que telle oeuvre pose le problème l'identité et des frontières parce qu'elle prend comme matériau des drapeaux... Tout l'effort de mise en relation avec le problème lui-même reste à faire, et le mots "thème" désigne au fond ce manque à penser qui relié l'oeuvre a l'opération de pensée qu'elle est censée effectuée. </em><br>

<em>Non, ce n'est pas ainsi que l'art contemporain pense, ni d'ailleurs que quiconque pense à quoi que ce soit. Il faut que le problème se pose dans la matière même de l'oeuvre , dans la logique de sa production que celle-ci se présente à sa manière comme un traitement du problème, susceptible à ce titre de s'étayer sur ou de dériver vers d'autre traitements du problème, traitement qui se présente d'abord comme hétérogènes, parce qu'ils passent par exemple par des concepts, des écriture symboliques ou des recherche expérimentales .... Un mot d'ordre nous à guidés: l'art non pas comme objets de pensée, mais comme outil pour penser... Occasion non pas de penser l'art, ni même à partir de lui, mais de penser avec l'art, de créer avec la recherche théorique."</em> (Critique (Août / Septembre 2010 page 761)</p>

</blockquote>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, I have difficulty of seeing any use of words like creation and discovery / innovation and invention without "novelty" somewhat being in play. The term "novelty and new" can be relative and restrictive but whatever definition some different from what previous was practiced or known would have be involved.</p>

<p>I find it interesting that you refer to Modernism because I have often the impression that what is at stake in many of our discussion is in fact the continuing confrontation (if I dare use a word) between Modernism and Post-modernism. I might in fact to a certain degree have affinities to the first more than the second. One can of course be a trustful follower of Christie's and Sotheby's who in 1998, after common agreement, made the commercial announcement that since 1960 everything "arty" in the world would be to be considered post-modernist. We are some that resist. Modernist and post-modernist art and artist are both active.</p>

<p>By the way the concept of art that is used in the previous post of mine is a genuine post-modern concept, which I would fully support.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>An alternative, giving some indication of why I don't accept likening photographs to quotes* and am more often suspicious of them than persuaded or moved by their use . . . <br>

_________________________________<br>

*To be clear, I often appreciate the original statements that were made. I am generally more suspicious of the second-hand use (quoting) of those statements. And, no reminders necessary, I am well aware of the irony of my using the following quotes to make my point! ;)))</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"A quotation, like a pun, should come unsought, and then be welcomed only for some propriety of felicity justifying the intrusion."</em><br />-- Robert Chapman</p>

<p><em>"Next to the originator of a good sentence is the first quoter of it. I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."</em><br />-- Emerson</p>

<p><em>"He wrapped himself in quotations- as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors."</em><br />-- Kipling </p>

<p><em>"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."</em><br />-- Oscar Wilde</p>

<p><em>"It's like a quote: it's the nearest any of us gets to being in the movies...."</em><br />-- Nick Hornby</p>

<p><em>"In its grossest and most servile form quotation is a lazy folly; a thought has received some signal or notorious expression, and as often as the old sense, or something like it, recurs, the old phrase rises to the lips. This degenerates to simple phrase-mongering, and those who practise it are not vigilantly jealous of their meaning."</em><br />-- Walter Raleigh Style. (1904)</p>

<p><em>"If, as we who study ourselves have learned to do, every one who hears a good sentence, would immediately consider how it applies to his own case, he would find that it is not so much an excellent saying as an excellent blow at the usual stupidity of his own judgment; but we receive the precepts and admonitions of truth as directed to the common people, never to ourselves; and instead of applying them to our morals, do only very ignorantly and unprofitably commit them to memory."</em><br>

-- Michel de Montaigne. "Of Custom" Essays (1575)</p>

</blockquote>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Julie, </strong>one more thing: I think I understand and like the quote concept. Like all analogs, this one falls short at a certain point, but it is useful.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>After having read the comments of the past few days, I am inclined to believe that many of us are not only searching too hard for subtelties in creating our work, but perhaps even more so in attempting to describe the processes of imagination, creation and discovery. In the final analysis, it is hardly what we write, or how intricate, elegant or gilded that may be, but what we photograph, and the personal creativity and sense of discovery (each being unique in each of us) that we bring to that table.</p>

<p>For Einstein and many of us lesser scientists, the goal was/is one of simplicity. He finally could not describe the universe in a unified field theory, as he had wished, but he did recognise the beauty of that simplicity of approach and that ultimately the greatest ideas will be found to be the simplest (although perhaps not the "42" of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe). When I reflect on the often pretentious, pompous and to a large degree nonsensical descriptions of artistic approach verbalised by many artists I have come across, or by their critiques in our local "high level" art magazines, I am glad to seek recourse of the simpler views, as those of an Einstein.</p>

<p>Lannie may be relaxing his shoulder injury and writing arm, but I would suggest to him, as to others here, that they will have a best idea of imaging and imagination, of creativity and discovery, by simply spending 5 or 10 minutes in the portfolios of their fellow contributors. There, the thoughts on these subjects of others are more directly materialised, helped also if one goes to the image with a relatively free mindset and a desire to understand the position of the photographer. Apart from what they may say in writing, which often is the theory that the practice does not always emulate, I have learned more about others by those observations and hope to privilege that activity more in the future. Some photographers show the usual paradigms of approach or subject in many images, but sometimes provide the flashes that show what is their creativity (or whatever term you may substitute with that and imagination).</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Are we quoting ourselves in our photography, is that what you are asking <strong>Arthur</strong> ? In most cases the answer is probably yes, but can it be seen directly by others or are ambitions always, by definition, beyond our present abilities ? That is what ambitions are for. Ambitions provide directions and inspiration.</p>

<p>This brings us back to the infamous small novel "<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/23060">The unknown masterpiece</a>" (<em>Le Chef-d’œuvre inconnu)</em><br /> of Balzac on the painter Frenhofer and his unreachable search of perfection.</p>

<p>Let me quote a small "simple" text of Paul Barolski on failure and artistic work that also refers to the novel of Balzac.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We should not forget that 99 percent of all art-making attempts are failures." Thus declares Phillip Lopate the essayist in his recent book, <em>Portrait of My Body.</em> Although the phrase "art-making attempts" offends one's sense of prose style, Lopate's statement seems reasonable enough, and we accede to its apparent truthfulness—even if we do not have the faintest notion how many works of art are in fact failures. We think of art and failure together, however, precisely because their conjunction is one of the deep themes in the history of modernism, one of its commanding plots, especially in the writings of artists themselves, authors of imaginative literature who anxiously but tellingly return time and time again to the theme of the failed artist. Born of the historical circumstances in which it is written, inevitably given form by them, fiction is true to these circumstances and thus helps to shape and define our understanding of history.<br /> Balzac's "The Unknown Masterpiece," a central fable in this larger story, is the tale of the aged, deluded, indeed quixotic, painter Frenhofer who labored for 10 years on a portrait of a courtesan which, when it was finally revealed, emerged as a confused mass of color and jumble of lines, a work the artist burned when he came to see that, in the end, it was "nothing." Filled with "doubt," as Balzac said, Frenhofer aspired to the absolute, to the realization of what was "unknown" to painters, to what was beyond their ability to achieve, an artistic perfection impossible to realize in the modern world. Associated by Balzac with both Satan and Prometheus, Frenhofer is no less a transgressor, himself a Faust among painters, seeking to fathom the very secrets of his art.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote></blockquote>