Intuition and photography

[Norma Desmond]

<p>If I could, I might ask Leach why it is somehow in conflict with intuitiveness for the SELF to become the subject as well as the condition. There seems to be a nice circle of harmony and dialectic created when one allows or insists on the SELF becoming subject and condition. Intuitiveness can only point away? Since I can't ask Leach, I'd rather ask you anyway, Anders, not to hypothesize what Leach might answer, but for your own. The reason I ask is that I do some very self conscious things and have produced some very self conscious photographs and that never felt counterintuitive to me.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Anders, one of the things I believe intuition does is to push us into new areas and areas of discovery. If I am interested in something that is sort of a no brainer, I often explore contrary ideas and such because I find them interesting and rewarding. But what I have found is that at other times, something is said that creates a sort of recoil or strong reaction within me, not the chuckle sort of thing from another's naive comment, and then it sticks with me. If I find this sort of internal conflict over something, I don't write it off, but pay attention to it--maybe it is then the development of interest in it, I don't know, but it pushes me to learn something new.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p><strong>John</strong> I fully agree with you on the creative force of intuitive actions - also in photography.</p>

<p><strong>Fred, </strong>I'm with you in repeating that high self-conscious artistic expression can give promising results. Good photography (whatever that is from the photographer's or the viewer's point of view) is sometimes the result of it - as it is, in my eyes, shown by many of your photos. However, when Leach discusses the making of pottery he is surely referring to another strand of art, than that of making photography. Apart from sharing between the two arts in question, the need of adapted material and external conditions, they are very different due to the direct relation between the marterial and the artist (your hands and it's direct contact with the material, the physical feeling, it's texture, temperature etc) in pottery and the intermediate tools (camera, film, pixels, paper, computer screens...) between the subject and the photographer, when it comes to photography. The intuitive comes more easily to the fore in the first than the last mentioned - maybe!</p>

<p>When I shoot cities, I do not do it in order to expose myself in my photos, but surely I express myself. My photos tell, when I succeed, something about me, but it is not the message of my photography. I hope to say something about the subject I shoot: the city and its people, physical characteristics, social conditions, past, power, conflicts, contradictions, hopes and dreams of people. Maybe, and again if I succeed, others can recognize a certain consistency in the approach, that is marked by me, but it is not the main message of my photos. The result is that when I speak about my photos, it happens! - I would speak about the subject of the scene and its context, of its esthetic characteristics, its composition etc, rather than about me and how I felt doing it or presenting it. </p>

<p>Going back to Cezanne, who has been mentioned several times above. Also for me, Cezanne is the ideal of an artist that very consciously throughout his life worked on the basis of an radically new artistic, scientific approach to representing nature, especially, in his many still-lifes and landscape paintings - anything but an intuitive project, one would say. When he actually, as the quote of John tells, executed his paintings intuitively, according to his own saying, it might anyway be plausible. The SEEKING and ALERTNESS of Cezanne as concerns his subject and project could be expected to be fully integrated in his mind and the very execution of a painting would be intuitive.</p>

<p>When it comes to an artist like Picasso his whole production can be read as a series of stories about himself, his women, his political affiliations, his relation to his country, Spain ect. Allmost all his paintings, drawings and sculptures are clearly very self conscious productions, but as far as we know and can read from especially people near him, they are mostly (as we know surely not all) made almost intuitive without much reflection and driven by an infinite creative strength.</p>

<p>Two very different artist with different ways of functioning, that both made history by their artistic production. Take Pollock or Rothko and the variety of artistic approach will be even broadened but somewhere an intuitive approach to artistic creation is at work. </p>

<p>By the way for those that are interested, read this very informative article on Picasso and politics in the most recent issue of the <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/25/how-political-was-picasso/">New York Review of Books</a></p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Anders, thanks for expanding. For me, there's a difference between self conscious photos and photos that reveal something of myself. I would say many of my photos reveal something of myself (in addition to the subject) but only a few are self conscious in a directed way (really directed back at me). I guess all are self conscious in what you call the banal way or the way Julie seems to be discussing it, which is certainly not banal.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Anders - "</strong>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."</p>

<p>Make no mistake, for me, it is also a state of extreme concentration and receptiveness (among other things). What is different is that I am fully disengaged from Langer's "discursive thinking" (internal dialogue) and not in a non-stop "strenuous" mode as Julie is. I am relaxed, loose, chilled, but intensely alive and aware, and I am not thinking of "my, my, My" <em>anything, </em>even though I am working out of myself, of course. When it comes to seeking, I don't overdo it. I believe that which I am seeking is also seeking me.</p>

<p>PoP Disclaimer: I do not propagandize my way over any other, or think it superior. It is only how I work. I accept there are many paths, and they are all valid.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_reichert1]

<p>Luis - "...I am fully disengaged from Langer's "discursive thinking" (internal dialogue) and not in a non-stop "strenuous" mode as Julie is. I am relaxed, loose, chilled, but intensely alive and aware..."</p>

 

<p>My experience is similar. Peripheral vision plays a large part in this non-cognitive process of seeking. The subject very often "approaches" me from just outside my field of detailed vision. This was a very handy thing when I was shooting on the street, thirty years ago, and it's proven to be just as useful in my current "landscape" shooting. Sometimes it's almost as if I'm being tapped on the shoulder...</p>

[jtk]

<p> <br>

Last night I attended a gallery opening. Three of my subjects were there...two had been successes, but the third was nfg twice. I mentioned shame ...she laughed at me, AT me, said to stop whining and that she had failures her whole career (well-exhibited 70-ish painter and teacher). So, maybe third time will be the charm. For me that will require substantial thought in advance, I won't just try again. Maybe I'll use shutter drag to soften her or suggest motion, perhaps relating the photo to her paintings...not part of my usual sparse bag of tricks so I'll have to practice. <strong>"Spontaneity" is a joke concept if the basics aren't in place. </strong></p>

[AJHingel]

<p>The joke <strong>John</strong> is that the basics are in place all around you. The joke becomes hilarious because so many pass by without seeing it.<br>

No kidding !</p>

[luis_g]

<p>No one except John has suggested that the basics need not be in place, or somehow bypassed. That is John's own invention/accusation. These are crude and obvious efforts to try to link negative qualities to other ways of working in order to shoot them down.</p>

<p>I wonder what it is about the possible existence of other ways of working that has brought out the witch-burners and the firebrands here. Why does it frighten anyone into wanting to play whack-a-mole with a real mallet?</p>

<p>Never mind, rhetorical question.</p>

<p>Anders is right: The joke <em>is </em>on John K.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis, who exactly are these firebrands you keep creating as straw men who are supposedly putting down others' ways of working? Is it Leach, the guy who said <em>"There are many ways of seeing, but the truest and best, is with intuition </em><br /> <em>. . ."</em> with which Anders chose to start this thread? As far as I can tell, Leach is the only guy who elevated his own way of working or seeing, and you haven't attacked him.</p>

<p>John Kelly spoke of an experience he had last night. If you want to think that somehow negatively applies to you or others, I don't see how that's his responsibility. I took him to be genuine in saying that he blew some photos because he wasn't prepared. I've certainly been there and done that. Like John, I also practice. I don't necessarily want to use intuition as some here do and in some cases I can't yet. I'm being honest, not putting anyone else down.</p>

<p>You mentioned my own statement <em>"One can get hung up and therefore lost in searching for the photographic orgasm rather than just doing what's in front of you, which may include a plan"</em> . . .</p>

<p>and you responded by saying <em>"That seems like a ridiculization of other kinds of thinking than your own, or imposing your way on others."</em></p>

<p>But it seems that way to you because you neglected the sentence just before the one you isolated: <em>"I see a lot of photos where either the letting go or the striving to let go is obvious and, instead, a little more deliberateness and thoughtfulness (right there in the moment) would have helped."</em></p>

<p>Here's what I was saying: Sometimes I see evidence in a photo that more deliberativeness and thoughtfulness would have helped. That doesn't mean that I think it's better to work deliberatively or thoughtfully. I can assess certain photos that might have benefitted from more thought. Others, that have been created from an intuitive approach, are great and need nothing else. It would be no different from my saying that a given photo looks like it would have benefitted from the photographer getting in a little closer to the subject. It is relative to that photo, not a global direction on methodology. I don't think it's better to get closer to a subject in "absolute" terms. I think it may have been better in a particular case. In some cases, I'd encourage the photographer to do more thinking and less intuiting when I think a photo is lacking in coherence (when I suspect coherence has been attempted). In other cases I have suggested, and even reminded myself to be, a little more intuitive and a little less thoughtful. Since the thread started out with a distinct slant (to say the least -- <em>"truest and best way"</em>), I felt it worth emphasizing that a different way is just as valid and sometimes seems in order.</p>

<p>As for my interchange with John A., rightly or wrongly I interpreted him as telling me that I work the same way as him and that the reason for my differing description was a different usage of words and not an actual difference of approach. I argued strenuously about that with him, not because I think my way is better, but because I felt he was not acknowledging that my way could be different.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Fred, there's been surprising and considerable flak/resistance to the idea of working intuitively. A lot of that has been our of misunderstandings of what that is and how it works. </p>

<p>Frankly, Leach was covering a lot of ground, too much, I thought, to adress in this one post, and particularly because his other concerns, which are interesting (and worthy of their own posts) and of concern to Anders tend to muddy the intuition part, which is what the OT was, and an area of interest to me. I also thought that Ms. Langer's thinking on the matter, although more clearly expresed than many, was over the top on the exclusionary/absolutist side. Like a Line of Demarcation in art, if you will. I'm in disagreement with that. I've known and met many famous photographers and artists, and scores of the less so, and have seen a wide variety of ways of working, seen them work (and believe that <em>matching </em>the way one works to one's own energies is of critical importance) and have no trouble with any of them.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis, like I said, my own resistance stemmed mostly from the way it was introduced by Leach. Also, I hang around the critique forums here on PN a lot. I have seen the word "intuition" bandied about often as an excuse, just as is the word "art." That doesn't mean I don't think either word or concept has validity. I think they both do. But I do get suspicious often when I hear them. I think "intuitive" is often used when what I see seems to me vacuous photographs being attributed to an "intuitive" approach, where a little larnin' and thinkin' would have come in much more handy. The thrust of my argument on this thread is that intuition is not something that leaves everything else behind. I think there is a tendency for some to talk about intuition as if it is somehow separate from other faculties, which is why I don't like and can't relate to statements that talk of leaving thinking at the door in favor of intuition. I don't think being intuitive requires anything akin to that, so I find it a poor description. That does not mean I think working intuitively is in any way inferior or invalid.</p>

<p>It was interesting to hear your description of being relaxed, cool, and chilled. I am so different. On most shoots, even in foggy, cold San Francisco, I sweat profusely. A friend of mine whose portrait I did recently for his website sent me a little travel towel as a gift! It's come in very handy.</p>

<p>As for Langer, I agree with you. I'm sure you noticed that when I included that extended quote of hers in another thread, I said that she goes too far for me. The only reason for that long quote was finally to give some context to my use of the word "significance" as having a little more bite than "importance." Since it's been used a lot in various threads, I felt that context could be helpful. Quoting her on significance was not meant to suggest Langer as any sort of yardstick for these discussions. I have moved beyond much of what I learned from her 35 years ago, but still find the concept of significance and things she has to say about expression relevant to my own work and thinking.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>The thrust of my argument on this thread is that intuition is not something that leaves everything else behind. I think there is a tendency for some to talk about intuition as if it is somehow separate from other faculties, which is why I don't like and can't relate to statements that talk of leaving thinking at the door in favor of intuition."</p>

<p>I am not in total disagreement with that first sentence. In my experience, intuitive modes (I am of the opinion there are many, though they share some features in common) are more about working in an <em>integrated </em>manner, than one that is isolated from or devoid of experience.</p>

<p>What Langer called 'discursive thinking' is by its very nature, more fragmented, or in multiple, discrete compartments to use a visual description, whereas the intuitive seems to be coming out of <em>one integrated gestalt.</em></p>

<p><em> </em>I can say this because I definitely started in the discursive thinking mode. Again, I want to emphasize that there are many more than two modes, and that there is likely to be a polarity and continuum (more likely a multidimensional field(s)) between the two, because as I vectored towards the intuitive, it wasn't like throwing a switch or anything like that. It was a gradient, where one became less frequent and the other more. It was nothing like a blinding light on the Road to Damascus and an instant conversion. I hope other's mileage will vary.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>It was interesting to hear your description of being relaxed, cool, and chilled. I am so different. On most shoots, even in foggy, cold San Francisco, I sweat profusely."</p>

<p>Both ways work. BTW, where I live, it's usually hot enough that I'm already aglow, no matter how calm and serene I am. I love SF, its cool summers and the fog.</p>

<p>I think Temple Grandin had a good point in the part I quoted where she talked about three types of mind (in the context of asperger's/autism), and that these different aspects of mind (and doubtless others, things like emotional intelligence and others) are differently weighted in each of us -- and it reflects on our energies and ultimately in how we see and how we work to make photographs.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I just spent a week living with and photographing the residents and co-workers at the farming community where my nephew lives. There are people with autism, retardation, emotional and physical disabilities who I get to know a little better each time I visit. What strikes me, among the many things that strike me there, is the lack of pretense. That is especially noticeable when making photographs and particularly portraits. Fascinatingly, even those who were obviously very self conscious made no pretense about that. For me, it makes for a lot of clarity about genuineness and authenticity, sometimes because of and sometimes in spite of the self consciousness that is simultaneously present. This is not in response to Grandin so much as my own observations and experience. It goes without saying that people with autism are as varied (though there are of course some common traits) as photographers.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I am going to shoot myself if this post disturbs the balance and intelligence of Fred and Luis's exchange above, but I want to say a little bit about my perspective on Luis's approach -- because I think (if I have it right, and, I may not) that this might be useful to the discussion. And if I have it all wrong, Luis's correction will be illuminating (at least to me).</p>

<p>Because of the way that Luis often describes his working method -- because he's usually describing an unspecified occasion -- I think it (unintentionally on his part?) comes off sounding as if he's stopped, waiting, detached, disconnected. I think that (unintentional) impression is exactly wrong. It's my understanding that, on the contrary, when shooting, Luis is exactly <em>not</em> detached. He is (or hopes to be; tries to be) in perfect sympathy -- to the extent that "Luis" is forgotten/disappears and he is overtaken by that within which he is immersed.</p>

<p>The most literal experience I have had of this is while shooting college wrestling. Because I was working for the Sports Information Office, I was down on the mat very near the competitors. All my pictures used be rather violently tilted to this side or that because their strivings were so irresistably contagious. (I have done Luis-style shooting of more peaceful subjects; the wrestling case just seems to me to most vividly demonstrate it.)</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Just to take a break, two small remarks somewhat in the margin of what is being taken up above - if any interest.</p>

<p>When I first came to Photonet a few years ago, I had no experience with fora (UD speech: forums) discussions like these. I got a cultural chock by witnessing the violence of exchanges that were happening and apparent lack of respect of deviant thinking. It took me some time to find out that actually somewhere, hidden behind the rants, were interesting things going on that could be relevant for also my photography, so I started getting involved and threw myself in the maelstrom for better and worse. Don't ask me of examples and just accept that this was my impression of what is going on - seeing from mostly outside. The limited number of people that dare, or care, to participate in these discussion tells the story of a way of debating and relation to each other that is not always pleasant. I have only met this type of exchange in one other media: e-mails. We have not yet managed to master communication in digital form as we, hopefully, mostly, are able to master it in direct dialogues.<br>

One could have a dream of an event somewhere where participants in Photonet meet to exchange ideas and learn from each other, learning to know each other. We in Europe would call such an even a "symposium", you would probably call it a "fair". Such an event would surely be way more civilized than what frequently is happening around here.</p>

<p>Secondly, and more to the point. It seems to be the case that mostly we end up almost hugging each other, declaring that everyone has their own way of doing whatever in the field of photography and that everything is equal. This attitude is fairly new in the history of art as well as in the history of photography. It actually was imposed by the post-modern movements of the 60's and 70's. I think it would be reasonable to declare that such values are not objective and ever-valid. They evolve. The question therefor is, at least for me, to which degree there are out there, or among us, value systems related to for example "aesthetics" that do not accept the call that "everything is equal". For me the principles of Leach is an example of such other approaches to artistic expression, which by the way still is very much used in art schools when it comes to pottery, as far as I'm inform. If such a discussion could be done without any rants I would take my hat off (I never wear such things!).</p>

<p>Back to business as normal. Break finished.</p>

[Julie H]

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

<p>To me, it's the proces of testing -- discussion, or more realistically, attack and defense -- that are valuable in forum discussions. The posting of a provocative initial post, as you have given us here, is the keystone to such processes. The outcome -- the "final score" is, to me, of trivial significance. It's the push and pull that are, to me, valuable (to the extent that they are civil, which, admittedly is often small).</p>

<p>How much of science, philosophy and art has been fruitfully prompted by discussion -- testing, questioning, and developing -- of "false" (from the perspective of history) models? But that only happens if they're put in play by someone who advocates, believes, and presents his/her perspective. In this case, you. [Which is a long winded "thank you" in case you couldn't tell.]</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Julie, my small suggestion of a "break" was not that much a critic of what is happening in this particular thread, but a reflection on more general characteristics of the forum. I agree with you that it is surely the process of discussion which is the main "outcome" but one day I think we need to take the bull by it's horns and confront the question of all-including acceptance of everything, just because an individual presents whatever - me included and I would suggest to do that with reference to the general evolution of art, and photography. Moments of history are never absolute but always relative. So is our firm conviction of relativity of everything and all inclusiveness in the field of photography. Be ensured that I'm not trying to impose my understanding and approach to art and photography, but ...<br>

Thanks for the thanks.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Julie - "</strong>I think it (unintentionally on his part?) comes off sounding as if he's stopped, waiting, detached, disconnected. I think that (unintentional) impression is exactly wrong. It's my understanding that, on the contrary, when shooting, Luis is exactly <em>not</em> detached. He is (or hopes to be; tries to be) in perfect sympathy -- to the extent that "Luis" is forgotten/disappears and he is overtaken by that within which he is immersed."</p>

<p>What I said (and any attempt to describe these kinds of things, as Phylo knows, is going to fall short) was:</p>

<p>"...I am fully disengaged from Langer's "discursive thinking" (internal dialogue) and not in a non-stop "strenuous" mode as Julie is. I am relaxed, loose, chilled, but intensely alive and aware..."</p>

<p>Stopped? No. Waiting? No. Detached? Only from discursive thinking. Disconnected? No. I am as I am, where I am, doing what I am doing, in the world as it is (to me, of course). Immersed? Yes, and I walk or dive in. Overtaken? There are rapturous moments of illumination, but most of the time it is simply being at one with. In harmony or concert. Is it some kind of untrammeled bliss? Hardly. There is inner stillness. It is not strenuous, nor anxious. I do not break into sweat, but if I see something about to happen, I'll spring into action instantly.</p>

<p>__________________________</p>

<p>One example: I photograph a very large Halloween party that takes place in a nearby town. I have been doing it for 25 years. It is not the kind of thing I normally photograph, but I enjoy it, and have used it as a test bed for ideas over the years. Ideas that often have had little or nothing to do with Halloween, or people partying. Well before that evening, I contemplate where I am, what I want to do (and not do) with it, but by no means does that mean a reduction into a theme or themes but more of a (statistical?) cloud of possibility. I may even do some sketches, or writing in a notebook, bur nothing is carved in granite. All options are open.</p>

<p>I am not in an OM-humming trance, burning incense, or throwing yarrow stalks to assemble my gear when putting together my gear together. I took one DSLR, and a lightweight (the DSLR is heavy enough, and this is usually 6-8 hrs of walking) short zoom. Loads of extra batteries and cards. I turned off the AF and taped over the switch so as to not turn it on subconsciously. I taped the zoom at the 35mm equivalent of 28mm. I manually set focus at 4 feet, and taped that over, too. I did not use any of my Nikon SB flashes. Instead, a unit made for Olympus cameras, set in non-ttl auto mode. Why? Because the light quality of that unit was what I wanted. I put the camera on manual. I varied the flash (and aperture) from f/8-11, depending on the amount of DOF I wanted, and the shutter speed between 1/8th - 1/2 s. to bring in ambient light as wanted. Also took one of my Fuji P&S's as back-up. The object of these strictures was to free myself as much as possible from fiddling with controls so I could focus on <em>seeing. </em></p>

<p>Once there, I was wordless, relaxed, loose, chilled, but intensely alive and aware. Waves of reverence, mystery, awe, silliness, insight, everything, washed over me as I go about photographing. The Marvels and the Terrors were still there, but everything was integrated.<em> </em></p>

<p>[This does not guarantee my pictures are better than anyone's or that I have a great hit ratio by any means. It is only a way of working.]</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Anders</strong>...this forum is known (if not legendary) for being what <strong>Julie </strong>euphemistically described as "attack-and-defense". Mostly attacks. Symposium? More like a combination of Rabies, MMA fighting, and Night of The Living Dead. In short, <em>brutal</em>. There are many other places that are infinitely more civil, more meat and less gristle.</p>

<p>This forum also has a strong emphasis on the mechanistic, the straight-line "how-to" and egoes that dwarf most gaseous planets. There is very little collegiality, fraternity, respect, tolerance or humor. Oh, yeah, and we have John.</p>

<p>So why am I here? Because hidden somewhere in the mountains of coal, as Anders remarked, there are rumored to be diamonds. It works on the random schedule of reinforcement that made Las Vegas famous, which is probably why I'm still here, digging. :-)</p>

[luis_g]

<p>To be clear, I meant John Kelly, not John A. in the above post.</p>

[john_a5]

<p><strong>"</strong>The thrust of my argument on this thread is that intuition is not something that leaves everything else behind. I think there is a tendency for some to talk about intuition as if it is somehow separate from other faculties, which is why I don't like and can't relate to statements that talk of leaving thinking at the door in favor of intuition."</p>

<p>Actually, I agree with this as well. I think we tend to use crappy words to try to describe intuition. My words, "leaving it at the door" have a specific meaning but don't suggest creative vacancy if one is preoccupied or the head spinning or even because one is fully occupied in discursive thinking, there is always a moment of space where intuition gives us an answer or path--but the question is will we recognize it. Even in the middle of being frustrated and perplexed, being fully engaged on a conscious level trying to solve something, one split second can give all that is needed for the answer to appear.</p>

<p>We screw ourselves, IMO, by trying to box things up in some tidy "this is how it is" sort of description. We quote people who are no more perfect at the synopsis but do talk about how it works when we are in the midst of it at its best, when it is firing on all cylinders. There are probably times we can feel like we are working in a "trance" and things are springing out of us but most of the time, it comes when it comes. I do think that if we immerse ourselves in what we are doing and learn to slow our heads down, it flows more easily and is easier to recognize(listen to), but that isn't a prerequisite to its appearance. It is just if we are forcing things or too engaged in "solving" something--being too occupied, we are less likely to recognize something that doesn't seem to fit but which may hold the answer--from our intuition.</p>

<p>So, we get long threads like this, using words and quotes, trying to ferret it all out when it was there all along, just hidden in our own ways of distilling the experience--or objecting to it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>What Luis has poetically and personally described is integration, not intuition. Intuition is one of the faculties he integrated (HAD to use, since everyone does, not just artists) that night.</p>

<p>_______________________________________________</p>

<p>Luis, it's good to know that you think this forum warrants your stringing together belittling epithets and then singling out one particular member.</p>

<p>____________________________________________</p>

<p>For those who think this forum is too much and so much more uncivil than the real world, please remember Socrates, who was given poison both because of his thinking and because of his style of argumentation. We'rek not so unique. There's a whole lot of precedence. Remember Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein had that famous poker incident. Consider Philosophy symposia from Berkeley to Stanford to Cornell that would make these threads pale by comparison in terms of sarcasm, animosity, and downright hostility.</p>

<p>_____________________________</p>

<p>Suddenly, I feel the need to defend intuition. Intuition is not spontaneity and is not a reflex, is not the blink of an eye and doesn't occur in the blink of an eye.</p>

<p>Typically, an intuition is distinguished from a concept. It is a presentation (representation, if you will) to the mind in fullness but prior to concepts. The intellect presupposes intuitions, which are the original presentations before the intellect gets its hands on them.</p>

<p>The problem with aesthetic theories that are too reliant on intuition is that the artwork can never get made. Intuition is a receiving. Something else must occur beyond intuition for anything to get made. No shutter was ever pushed by anyone's intuition. The act of pushing the shutter is absolutely not intuitive, because it is an act, which has already required much more than an intuition. By the time you DO something, you are way beyond intuition. When we approach a scene, it is not just about how we attend to it or contemplate it. It is about how we draw it or photograph it or create a photograph having already intuited it. Those acts are not intuitive. They are acts.</p>

<p>Intuitions are private. It's what enables people to falsely claim that art is completely subjective. It does away with audiences that could possibly relate to your art or a community that could possibly discuss it intelligently. I do think intuition has a role but I think the more important role is the making, not the attending. I am happy that others disagree and grateful that we are not all saying the same thing now that it's been ferreted out.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I find myself in total agreement with Fred's last segment above (starting with "Suddenly ..."). Which is depressing. Now what will I think about all morning as I'm working?</p>

<p>One bit I disagree with in John A's post (not the only bit, but the only one I'll comment on). Where he says, "slow our heads down ..." I especially was trying to exorcise that feeling of (necessary) "slowness" from what I think Luis does. I think one can be in the vortex of a tornado and "do it." Whatever it takes (a smack on the head sometimes works for me ...) to knock oneself into ... free ... fall? flight? Wake you up? Whatever.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>[Anders, the honeymoon is over]</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Luis, it's good to know that you think this forum warrants your stringing together belittling epithets and then singling out one particular member."</p>

<p>There was a little tongue-in-cheek humor in there, oh, August one. As to Miss Congeniality, he publicly admitted and owned up to doing what I described. I should have quoted his own words.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>For those who think this forum is too much and so much more uncivil than the real world, please remember Socrates, who was given poison both because of his thinking and because of his style of argumentation."</p>

<p>[ ROTFLMAO]</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>that famous poker incident. Consider Philosophy symposia from Berkeley to Stanford to Cornell that would make these threads pale by comparison in terms of sarcasm, animosity, and downright hostility."</p>

<p>Thanks for that teachable moment. Very inspirational. It leaves us room to grow, and justifies (and glorifies) the carnage up to now.</p>

<p>_______________________________</p>

<p> I nearly- totally disagree with Fred from "Suddenly"...</p>

<p>Fred, as I have remarked several times, I think intuition is simply an integrated form of our own faculties, minus the internal dialogue. That latter part is what dis-integrates us.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>The problem with aesthetic theories that are too reliant on intuition is that the artwork can never get made. Intuition is a receiving."</p>

<p>Nonsense. That's like Zeno's arrow. It "can't" arrive at the target according to a philosopher, but no philosopher will ever stand in front of a drawn bow to prove it.</p>

<p>Fred is saying the mirror of what Ms. Langer said. He is saying that art is impossible via intuition. That to make art, it must be made one way, and...surprise! That's the way Fred does it. Yawn.</p>

<p><em>O</em>ne can act intuitively. Fred, they have these religious rituals called sports that you can see on TV. Do you think the players are engaged in your kind of discursive thinking while playing? </p>

<p><strong>Fred - </strong>"It's (intuition) what enables people to falsely claim that art is completely subjective. It does away with audiences that could possibly relate to your art or a community that could possibly discuss it intelligently. I do think intuition has a role but I think the more important role is the making, not the attending. I am happy that others disagree and grateful that we are not all saying the same thing now that it's been ferreted out."</p>

<p>Curb-stomping something is not "ferreting it out". Declaring it something that cannot be discussed intelligently<em> </em> is a cheap shot. This is exactly why the "attack/defend" paradigm is inefficient. It is, from every indication I can see, <em>old</em>-school intellectual machismo.</p>

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