Intuition and photography

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Anders</strong>, I think Leach is covering a lot more ground than the intuitive. I would not characterize your pictures as "mostly making design". You have a clear, strong passion (and apparently, profession) for the way people live, particular in aggregates (cities), and how they relate to each other, particularly in public, shared spaces. It is the loving vision of stewardship (IMO), and a genuine longing for a better future for all. This theme is strong and repeats in many of your pictures. In the form/content continuum, yes, form is significantly (In the English language, not Langer-ese version) present in your pictures, but it is far from overwhelming content.</p>

<p>My quotes were intended not to merely illustrate, but to expand on what Leach writes on the subject. If we were to use Langer's exclusionary and scintillatingly clear "discursive thinking" as a yardstick, all but 4-5 posters here (and no, I won't name names, we all know who they are) would be mere Leach-designers.<br>

If Leach is the map, these people are the territory.</p>

<p>_________________________</p>

<p>Ton, for me photography is a lot of things, including some I rarely, if ever, do.</p>

<p><strong>Ton - "</strong>way too deep for me because for one it leaves out motivation."</p>

<p>How do you suppose all the intuitives I quoted (and there are many, many more) found the motivation to produce prodigious work if, as you say, it is left out?</p>

<p><strong>Ton - "</strong>Why do we pick up a camera in the first place? It's a self-countious act by definition. Frankly I would go even further and call it a selfcentered act because after all, what we do and how we do it is defined by our own set of criteria, excessive or otherwise, and directed at just one thing, namely to please ourselves first and foremost."</p>

<p>I suppose there is a wide variety of reasons why we pick up a camera. In my case, I did not pick one up, it was literally handed to me. Are you saying photography is a narcissistic act? Given the day and age we live in, I have little doubt that your (ever read Ayn Rand?) ideas are true for a large majority of people that own cameras, but they are not true for everyone.</p>

<p>____________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[john_a5]

<p>I had written a fairly long paragraph about working on planned shots, commercial in my case, and how intuition and the process of planning can work together. I had just decided at the time, which was before Albert's question, that is might muddle things a bit. But later, I saw this Gursky video on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2Jwwh-99OA . It is in German, but someone translated it in the comments (I used two windows, one for the subtitles), and it is about an hour long and in 4 parts. It opens and is interspersed with discussions about his images, but does follow his creation of a specific image throughout the video, from visits to the site through decisions and reshoots to complete the image. I certainly recognized the intuitive nature of how he was working and blending the concrete aspects of working with the more internal. Maybe others will enjoy it as I did.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Phylo, thanks for looking, it was an absolutely incredible experience, both the original journey and the subsequent one to do personal work.</p>

<p>I also liked the NEN description which certainly addresses the many ways of working, that might not be all that counter to one another--in the absolute. One thing I do believe is that each person goes through the stages differently and it is different at different times and in different situations, which contributes to the continuum I suggested.</p>

<p>I agree with a lot of what Tom was getting at, but one thing did stick out and that was "and directed at just one thing, namely to please ourselves first and foremost." While I do think that is probably a pretty good general statement, it does ignore the fact that when we work intuitively, we can actually create images that we don't like at all--one's we aren't ready for. This is the reason I don't throw images away. I think the subconscious sees things we don't and we don't always know when we will see them.</p>

<p>I remember printing an image in the darkroom, considering it, and then tossing it in the trash after I toned it, when I was beginning to put things up to dry. Fortunately, I just laid it on top of the overflowing receptacle. When I came in the next morning to stack the dry prints, I looked down and saw it for the first time--it is now mounted and matted. In another case, 4 years after creating a negative and having scanned and finalized several from that day close to when they were shot, this contact just jumped off the page at me, I scanned it and worked it a bit and bang, it started a whole new series of work for me.</p>

<p>Bottom line is that I have learned to sit on things, storage is cheap--especially digital storage--although my new wife would like to reclaim the garage, living room, dining room, one bedroom and half our own from all the analog stuff!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Condescension?</p>

<p>Perhaps. I have no intention of falling in lock step behind one-liners misleadingly taken out of context from artistic heros who knew as much about thinking and hard work as they did about intuition, as proven by their work. I love Cezanne as much as the next guy, but I don't love one of his quotes misappropriated merely to ridicule those who claim individuality rather than conforming to a mythological and ideal notion of what an artist is or how an artist supposedly works. The need to describe all artists as working similarly -- in the "absolute" -- is a need to find comfort in numbers, the search for security that I'm doing it right because they all did it or spoke about it this way. I don't subscribe to the notion that we all work the same way . . . in the absolute. Mainly because I don't think there is an absolute, when it comes to photography, art, or anything else for that matter. It's an Idealist's game and I'm not one. Sorry, no blank slates for me, no matter what artistic genius makes the claim under what circumstances. Reducing these greats to quotes meant to prove a point . . . have at it if you like.</p>

<p>Artistic group-speak tends to put a premium on intuition, but if the best description of that is leaving my thinking at the door or working with a blank slate, then I reject it. My point is, intuition is not exclusive. And I also reject definitions or ways of thinking and/or describing one's working that needlessly elevate it (for everyone) and don't suggest an understanding that it works in tandem with other faculties, in degrees, and in an infinite variety of combinations and ways.</p>

<p>It's painful to watch historical artists and photographers being reduced to, and peers reducing themselves to, the collective of absolute genericism.</p>

<p>___________________________________</p>

<p>BTW, nice post, Ton. Self consciousness seems to be another one of those things that it's popular to recoil at the mention of.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>Are you saying photography is a narcissistic act?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's not a word that I would have chosen in this context Luis but if you want the answer is yes, at least to a certain extent. That is if one is into a bit more than shooting merely family or holiday snaps. I don't shoot (non-commisioned) work to please others but first and foremost to please myself. I would suggest that that applies to most of us.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>it does ignore the fact that when we work intuitively, we can actually create images that we don't like at all--one's we aren't ready for</p>

</blockquote>

<p>perhaps you could elaborate on that John because as I see it intuition doesn't come from scratch. I like to think that intuition is something that in least in part is distilled from what we are and have experienced.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Self consciousness seems to be another one of those things that it's popular to recoil at the mention of.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>true. If we weren't however everything would be interchangeable. Thanks</p>

[AJHingel]

<blockquote>

<p>the search for security that I'm doing it right because they all did it or spoke about it this way. I don't subscribe to the notion that we all work the same way . . . in the absolute</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, you might be able to find formulations above that justifies your calling to arms against 'the collective of absolute genericism" (I don't find the last term pertinent, but believe to know what your wished to say). I don't know about you, Fred, but I would often rather situated myself and understand myself and my individual approach in relationship to extremes than to the multitude of possible acts of others. By trying to understand ones own individual approach, which almost surely would be found somewhere between totally intuitively and totally planned, controlled and knowledge based, I find it necessary to define or just have an idea of what the extremes are. This is by the way near to the scientific method of investigation based on "ideal-types" of Max Weber, where "ideal" is not something to strive towards but something that helps to situate a phenomenon. Referring to Leach and the ancient Bouddist inspired tradition of art permits this better than describing less absolutes. Noone, and surely not me, would expect to find Fred as a newborn Leachian at the end of the road. </p>

<p>In the same vain of reflection, I find it useful to situated oneself and one's photographical work in the continuum between what Leach describe as "intuitive perceived essence" and "formal design". I think that some photography, and not necessarily the least interesting, is highly stylized and the result of very conscious setups of scenes, indices, codes etc and can mainly be read by those that share the keys. Other types of photography, and photographers, would be nearer to the "ideal" (in the Weberian sense of the word) of Leach's approach to intuitive work of an artist making potery. They are different types of photography surely and one is not necessarily better than the other. </p>

<p><strong>Ton</strong>, I agree with you that these matters are complicated to discuss, but I find it worthwhile, at least for me to reflect on, not least because I have so strong experiences from other art forms than photography and have a personal need for understanding the "why".<br>

You mention that "motivation" is left out in these discussions on intuition. I'm not sure I agree with you, because the whole question of motivation must be found in the very basic and very personal need of expressing one-self by means of, hopefully among others, photography. Your question whether intuition is of any practical use because you cannot control it - well, your emotions neither, I hope. </p>

<p><strong>Luis</strong> I agree with you that Leach is covering much more than the question of intuitive acts of artist. In fact I find iota even more interesting to analyze my own photography in terms of <strong>unity and simplicity of form. </strong>I found it however too complex to discuss also these principles in one thread so I tried to concentrate one. Maybe these are subjects to take up later on if there is an interest.</p>

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, thanks for the kind words on my portfolio. It is always extremely important for all of us that we sometimes find photographic eyes that see the intentions at least of what we try to do in photography. To inform that they even see it succeeded in some cases gives courage to continue. Thanks again.<br /><br /></p>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>Ton</strong>, after having seen your last post I would add one comment of narcism.<br>

I thing we all can agree on the fact that we are individuals that express ourselves through our photography. Our photos are personal expressions and could mostly not have been done by somebody else. This does not make them marked by narcissi. Narcism comes in if your photos and your comments on your photos exhibits an "excessive love or admiration of yourself" - at least that is the definition of it.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>which, as I've said to Luis, is why I wouldn't have chosen that word</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Ok Ton.<br>

The pleasing one self, I can co-sign. I have burned my fingers calling it "fun", but "pleasing" or providing "joy" might be better terms of why we do it in the first place and are highly "committed" doing it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders, I respect your way of looking at it and of working. All I'm saying is that I don't give credence, for myself, to ideals or perfection. So, no, I don't see myself in relation to those kinds of extremes. That is an honorable difference between us. When I said this, I was told by John that in fact I am just using words differently from others or others from me but that, in essence, we all really mean the same thing. We do not. I see honor in that kind of acceptance, not condescension. If I see condescension, it is in telling someone that if only they used words the same way as you, they'd see that your way applies to themselves as well.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I also don't think WE are making photographs to please ourselves. I sometimes do things because I seem to need to, whether it pleases me or not (unless by definition one is going to claim that everything we do must please us or else we wouldn't do it, which I don't buy). I also sometimes do things out of curiosity, only to discover after the fact that doing it didn't actually please me, but I wasn't thinking of pleasure at the time at all.</p>

<p>Pleasure is one of many things that sometimes motivates me to make photographs and one of many things I sometimes get from making photographs.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Curiosity is for me maybe the most pleasant motivation for using photography as a way of expressing myself. Curiosity about the world around me and about my ability to express myself in photography.<br /> Fred, when you write that you don't "give credence" (is that the right term or would respect not be more precise?) to ideals or perfection, I read this as if you still believe that ideals are their to be reached. They are not in my eyes - they would seize to be ideals when reached, then. No, they are their to put your own way of doing things in perspective.<br>

A simple analogy would be to say that understanding what grey is, it is fairly convenient to define white and black without any presumption that all should be white - or black for that sake.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Curiosity, then, is something you and I both value but think of differently, since I don't think of it as necessarily pleasant.</p>

<p>No, Anders, "credence" is the word I chose and I'll stick with it. And, no, I don't think ideals are there to be reached. I think "ideal" is a word of the classics (particularly ancient Greece) and of the past. The word "ideal" doesn't express something that I think exists or even makes much sense, that I think can or cannot be obtained. It is, I believe, a confused concept, applicable to Plato and long since discredited . . . by others and in my eyes as well. Like God, the concept of an ideal has no use to me, attainable or not. That having been said, I understand what people mean when they talk about an ideal, respect that for some it is a concept to work with, and reject it in my own thinking and methods. I prefer to think more in terms of context and more relatively.</p>

[dave_reichert1]

<p>I don't have much to add to this thread, but I'd like to thank Luis for the Minor White quote. I've never read anything that so clearly describes my state of being when I'm out hunting and gathering photos.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Dave Reichert</strong>: "I don't have much to add to this thread, but I'd like to thank Luis for the Minor White quote. I've never read anything that so clearly describes my state of being when I'm out hunting and gathering photos."</p>

<p>You're welcome Dave. You've added more than you know, thank you.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>My comment: "it does ignore the fact that when we work intuitively, we can actually create images that we don't like at all--one's we aren't ready for" and then Ton's: "I like to think that intuition is something that in least in part is distilled from what we are and have experienced."</p>

<p>Actually, my comment is not at odds at all with this response by Ton. In fact, I don't think it is "at least in part" but that anything we produce can only come from within us, even if discovered coincidentally to the act of creating it. My statement is merely a recognition of the fact that we are not always conscious of all that has been processed somewhere inside of us or that which is being processed. As the examples I gave above, sometimes we work ahead of what we are ready to recognize on a conscious level and their creation only comes from our response to impulses that we garner from a deeper place we can't access on a more deliberate level--something only available intuitively. That isn't to say that these things can't manifest themselves at different times into our consciousness, even when shooting, but there are many examples (at least in my own experience) where I have created images that I don't recognize as being important when I view them near to their creation but which becomes clear later--sometimes much later.</p>

<p>One of the things I have always found is that those things we find most bothersome to us regarding external ideas or in our art or that of others are often exactly those things we recognize more deeply but haven't yet come to grips with on a conscious level--and as such, the very things we need to pay attention to.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Fred, please go to this page and see what the <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weber/#IdeTyp">Weberian "ideal type" (section 5.2)</a> means. This is how I used it and not with reference to ancient Greek philosophy. I believe that I also wrote in that line. By the way it is the second time I refer to Max Weber during the last days. Just by chance. He is not my reference of preference in general.</p>

[Julie H]

<p><strong>Anders</strong>,</p>

<p>How do you think the word "alert" would fit into this discussion? Is it to self-consciously direct one's attention away from oneself? Is that (consequent) attention self-conscious or not or is it impossible to separate the alert being from his/her alert attention?</p>

<p>Another word: "seeking." In a book <em>Animal Feelings</em> by the the well-known autistic, Temple Grandin, she talks about "seeking" (which she always writes in ALL CAPS):</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"We know that curiosity/interest/anticipation, or SEEKING, is a positive emotion from a field of research called electrical stimulation of the brain, or ESB. ... The SEEKING part of the brain is located mostly in the hypothalamus, which is in the mammalian brain, and the most important chemical involved is dopamine, which goes up when the hypothalamus is stimulated."</p>

<p>" ... Cocaine, nicotine, and all the stimulants raise dopamine levels in the brain. Researchers assumed people develop addictions to drugs because drugs make you feel good, so dopamine must be the feel-good chemical in the brain.</p>

<p>"But now researchers see things differently. We have a lot of evidence that the <em>reason</em> a drug like cocaine feels good is that it's intensely stimulating to the SEEKING system in the brain, not to any pleasure center. What the self-stimulating rats were stimulating was their curiosity/interest/anticipation circuits. <em>That's</em> what feels good; being excited about things and intensely interested in what's going on ... "</p>

<p>"There are at least three different lines of evidence for this new interpretation. One is the fact that animals who are having this part of the brain stimulated <em>act</em> intensely curious. The second is the fact that human beings who are having this part of the brain stimulated <em>say</em> they feel excited and interested.</p>

<p>"The third is the clincher. This part of the brain <em>starts</em> firing when the animial sees a sign that food might be nearby but <em>stops</em> firing when the animal sees the actual food itself. The SEEKING circuit fires during the <em>search</em> for food, not during the final locating or eating of the food. It's the search that feels so good."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The reason for that long quote is to focus on the time of unspecific but intense attention. Before the "prey" or subject or target is found. Is that time, that "seeking" or that unspecified state of alertness, self-conscious or intuitive or spontaneous or none of the above?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I should probably include my idea of what "alert" entails: To be alert is to pay extreme attention to, and simultaneously to strenuously, urgently evaluate and sort, my, my, MY sensory perceptions. In other words, <em>all</em> incoming is 1) being paid attention to and 2) being dealt with (yes? no? keep? discard? develop? ignore?). (In the case of photography, that "all" is stripped to the visual; <em>all</em> visual.)</p>

[luis_g]

<p>It is interesting <strong>Julie </strong>mentioned Temple Grandin in her neuro-post. Grandin has said there are three types of (asperger's/autistic) specialized brains: Visual thinkers, pattern thinkers and verbal thinkers.</p>

<p>I find this relevant to the PoP Tower of Babble Fest du jour in this thread. Some who are entrenched in one camp negate the existence of the rest.</p>

<p>Ms. Grandin certainly does not engage in what Ms. Langer defined as "discursive thought". In her words:</p>

<p>"I THINK IN PICTURES. Words are like a second language to me. I translate both spoken and written words into full-color movies, complete with sound, which run like a VCR tape in my head. When somebody speaks to me, his words are instantly translated into pictures. Language-based thinkers often find this phenomenon difficult to understand, but in my job as an equipment designer for the livestock industry, visual thinking is a tremendous advantage."</p>

<p>[Thank Fred for the mammoth quotes, I don't want to be accused of leaving out context]</p>

<p>As dozens of others have remarked, Grandin is a perfect example of someone who works with a mix of intuition and science. Julie's quote provided an example of the latter.</p>

<p>Here's an example of the former:</p>

<p>"On the first day of operation at the plant, I was able to walk up to the chute and run it almost perfectly. It worked best when I operated the hydraulic levers unconsciously, like using my legs for walking. If I thought about the levers, I got all mixed up and pushed them the wrong way. I had to force myself to relax and just allow the restrainer to become part of my body, while completely forgetting about the levers."</p>

<p>[That third sentence is very similar to the Cezanne quote I posted earlier]</p>

<p> "Through the machine I reached out and held the animal. When I held his head in the yoke, I imagined placing my hands on his forehead and under his chin and gently easing him into position. Body boundaries seemed to disappear, and I had no awareness of pushing the levers. The rear pusher gate and head yoke became an extension of my hands."</p>

<p>"During this intense period of concentration I no longer heard noise from the plant machinery. I didn't feel the sweltering Alabama summer heat, and everything seemed quiet and serene. It was almost a religious experience."</p>

<p>She also has an opinion on that bad, bad word: Category... "Categories are the beginning of concept formation"</p>

<p>and..."The more pictures I have stored in the Internet inside my brain the more templates I have of how to act in a new situation. More and more information can be placed in more and more categories. The categories can be placed in trees of master categories with many subcategories. For example, there are jokes that make people laugh and jokes that do not work."</p>

<p>While it is true that certain drugs (and some fruits, nuts and veggies) raise dopamine levels, it is also a well-known fact that those prone to addiction already have elevated levels of dopamine <em>before </em>succumbing to the disease. Very high levels of dopamine lead to excitement alright: Paranoid-schizophrenic behavior, auditory hallucinations, religiosity, etc. Seeking what is not there, and a pathological self-awareness that acausally links everything with the self. I would not call this kind of seeking something that feels good.</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Julie: "</strong>should probably include my idea of what "alert" entails: To be alert is to pay extreme attention to, and simultaneously to strenuously, urgently evaluate and sort, my, my, MY sensory perceptions. In other words, <em>all</em> incoming is 1) being paid attention to and 2) being dealt with (yes? no? keep? discard? develop? ignore?). (In the case of photography, that "all" is stripped to the visual; <em>all</em> visual.)"</p>

<p>Ever see a cat sleeping with one eye slightly open? Like a slit? If a lizard comes within range, in an instant, it jumps to action and nails it, then goes right back to where it was.</p>

<p>I wonder why "my, my, MY" sensory perceptions? Whose could you have besides your own?</p>

<p>There are different kinds of attention: "A different picture emerged, however, from looking only at the most experienced meditators with at least 40,000 hours of experience. "There was a brief increase in activity as they start meditating, and then it came down to baseline, as if they were able to concentrate in an effortless way,"</p>

<p> --- Richard Davidson, professor of psychology and psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health & Waisman center.</p>

<p>http://www.news.wisc.edu/13890</p>

<p>[There are scores of similar studies with similar results]</p>

<p>It is possible to be supremely alert effortlessly, gracefully, and without worrying about your perceptions being your own. Or yourself, or talking to yourself about your options regarding "incoming".</p>

<p>_________________________________________</p>

<p>[Necessary PoP Disclaimer] No, I am not saying that those are the only two ways to be, nor that they are mutually exclusive, nor that one is better than the other.</p>

<p> </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Geez, Louise, <strong>Luis</strong>. Stop with the squid defense. Go have some coffee. I'll even be nice and tell you the part of my post at which you should be aiming your artillary. It's where I say "2) being dealt with (yes? no? keep? discard? develop? ignore?)."</p>

<p>When does that happens? One might, if one had a certain approach to photography, discipline oneself (oops, can't use that word ...) to delay that; to delay sorting; to withold "yes? no?"-- and let the input ... simmer.</p>

<p>Now say "Thank you, Julie."</p>

[luis_g]

<p>I just did, like I do every time Julie posts. </p>

<p> </p>

[Julie H]

<p>[big smile] You edited, but it's too late: I got email notification with the origiinal ... I am disarmed. It's not fair for you to go all agreeable.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>Julie</strong>, I think you put your finger on two very important dimensions of photography: ALERTNESS and SEEKING, that are very relevant for understanding how intuitive shooting might be a characteristics of what some of us, at least, do, or believe we do - or strive to do. They are closely linked in my view. However both of them are maybe, if I should keep a hold on Leach's discussion, are prior to the very act of creating; shooting a photo intuitively or not.</p>

<p><strong>ALERTNESS</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>How do you think the word "alert" would fit into this discussion? Is it to self-consciously direct one's attention away from oneself? Is that (consequent) attention self-conscious or not or is it impossible to separate the alert being from his/her alert attention?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think <strong>Luis</strong>'s definition of what alertness is, is very complete and relevant, but for me it is a state of extreme concentration and receptiveness of the seen, heard and smelled around me. This can be learned if one is receptive to the sensations of "alertness" and motivated by the satisfaction it gives. It is also according to my experience to a certain degree "programmed. If I decide to leave with one camera and only a 50mm lens, I will especially find scenes for shooting that can be shot with that equipment. Having much experience from fishing and hunting it might be relevant to mention that such "targeted alertness" is characteristics also for "seeking" under those condition and conditioned by their aims. <br>

The self-conscious aspects, as mentioned earlier in the thread is a banality in my mind, if we refer to the fact that any act and capabilities of alertness is determined by the person in the question. Where the "self-contiousness" comes in conflict (in line with the principles of Leich) with the intuitive creative act is when the SELF becomes the subject and not only the condition. </p>

<p><strong>SEEKING</strong><br>

The act is as Julie writes linked to: "curiosity/interest/anticipation“, but for me they are mainly descriptive of the quality of ALERTNESS and not a complementary factor. </p>

<p>It is no secrete that drugs have played a major role on most of the history of art. Many, not all, of the modern painters of the 19th century as well as the post-modern of the end of the 20th century used it in direct relationship to their artistic production. Some of them died of it. Some became rich and famous supported by it. A few achieved both. No names !</p>

<p>That it is the seeking phase that is the most stimulating might be right if I dig down in my own satisfaction with "seeking". This might maybe also explain the very act of pointing and shooting can be much more intuitive because the seeking phase was the essential planning phase of the "creative" act and mad the conditions available. </p>

<p>A last point on the following paragraph from <strong>John</strong>:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>One of the things I have always found is that those things we find most bothersome to us regarding external ideas or in our art or that of others are often exactly those things we recognize more deeply but haven't yet come to grips with on a conscious level--and as such, the very things we need to pay attention to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Personally I don't have that experience. I feel more that what interests me most and gives me most satisfaction to contemplate and concentrate on immediately, are those external ideas which are not in line with what I have come to grips with already. A question of attitudes to being challenged and questioned, I would believe. Bothersomeness is not something I personally find pertinent as motivator or as inspiring factor.</p>