Purposeful Photography

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, why would having a purpose in photographing be "pretend[ing]"?</p>

<p>I often have a purpose when I gather up my camera. Sometimes, it's more of a wait and see, but that's more rare. And even when I'm in wait and see mode, I usually find myself shooting purposefully when I do bring the camera up to my eye.</p>

<p>It helps that Kenneth talked specifically about a body of work. At least as a distinction. Because, the kind of purpose I consider when I'm shooting a one-off shot, just from a wait and see mode, and the kind of purpose I may consider when I'm doing a series, project, or developing a particular path, seems different. The latter takes a little more thought, preparation, and entanglement. The former (the one-off kind of shot) has fewer tentacles for me.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Fred, I don't know, other than that photography in and of itself perhaps doesn't really serve any purpose (beyond documentation), regardless if we find ourselves having a purpose in it or not.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Hmmm. That seems very foreign to me. A pretty broad statement that photography doesn't serve any purpose. I can understand that it might not for you, but I can't understand why that would make you think others who do use it to serve a purpose would be pretending. Am I pretending to communicate with a viewer? Are others pretending to express themselves? Are fashion photographers pretending to show dresses in a good light and try to sell them? Is a forensic photographer pretending to get a good likeness of something to present in court? If I set out to document something about middle-aged gay men in particular is that not a purpose and can it not serve a purpose? Did the photos from Abu Ghraib not serve a purpose?</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Ken, I am with you. Why do we need a theme? I don't get it. </p>

<p>Shoot whatever pleases you, whatever catches your eye -- and they call this your "vision". Uh oh, trapped again! LOL!</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Phylo & Fred - </strong>What if you do have a purpose or, say, an idea or theme as a nucleus for a body of work? Why would that be pretending? I'm not saying that a purpose or focus is required, but many photographers happen to work that way. I'm not selling the idea of working either way.</p>

<p>In the current cultural climate, one is more likely to get exhibited/published if their work has a discernible theme or focus, but again, one has to work in their own way, and that means in synch with one's energies and who they are at the moment. In reality, most photographers tend to obsess on certain things over time. Have someone else look back over your work, say a year's worth, and they'll see themes, even if you aren't.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes, Luis. You and I agree on this.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Fred,<br />Photography does serve a purpose to me ( as a maker and a viewer, and I don't doubt to you too ). In one way a strictly "utilitarian" purpose. A job to make a living with and pay the bills. I shoot a lot of real estate photography in which the purpose of the photographs is - besides being a job for me in making them - to sell houses with for the agents. Do I find it purposeful ? That's another question.<br /> Then I have my personal work, which was always there first, before any commercial considerations, and which I make because I find it purposeful. Does it have any purpose ? That's another question.<br /> What I was trying to say was that photography doesn't necessarily have any purpose(s) other than the one(s) we assign to it. Which is not saying that that assigning isn't purposeful.</p>

<p>Luis,<br /> I do try to purposefully photograph that way, with a conceptual continuity ingrained in the making of each image, each one as a stepping stone to the next, while each one preferably also being able to stand on its own.<br /> There's a <em>sunspension of disbelief </em>( better term perhaps/more subtle, than "pretending", Fred ) that I have to meet in a way for me to continue *making pictures*, as if, besides being simply purposeful to me, they'll have a purpose<em>, </em>which may be in both the sense of <em>meaning, </em>as well as <em>practical</em>.</p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>A Chuang Tzu story, which may or may not be relevant to ones need of and for purpose.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Once upon a time in ancient China, there was a man who loved horses. He loved everything about them and wanted to spend all his time with them, so it was not surprising that he became a horse breeder by trade. Whenever he was not taking care of horses, he would be watching them or talking about them.<br /><br />His most favorite possession was a stallion of a rare and valuable breed. He looked after its needs with far more attention than his own needs. He would often use a basket to catch its droppings and a container to hold its urine, so he could quickly remove the bodily wastes from the presence of his beloved steed.<br /><br />One morning, he followed his daily routine and brought top-quality feed and a sweet treat for the horse. As the horse was munching on the feed, he busied himself grooming the horse from head to tail. He admired the horse as he worked, thinking: "Look at its powerful legs! No question about it, I have done a great job with this one." He could not wait for the day of the unveiling, when he would trot out this prize stallion on display. How his peer would be envious!<br /><br />The buzzing of an insect interrupted his pleasant daydream. It was a mosquito flying around. Despite his best efforts to clean the stables, there were still too many insects. Much to his annoyance, this particular mosquito landed on the horse near its tail. "Trying to feast on the blood of my stallion? I'll teach you!" Angrily, he slapped at it on the horse's backside.<br /><br />The horse, startled by the sudden slap, reacted reflexively. Its powerfully muscled legs kicked out and struck the man dead center. Such was the force of the kick that the man died instantly. The horse resumed munching on the feed, without awareness or care that its master was dead.</em></p>

</blockquote>

[jtk]

<p>Phylo, brilliant. I think you've made yourself as clear as need be. That is, we may share similar experience.</p>

<p>I'm about to wade into <strong>David Foster Wallace</strong>, probably <strong>"Infinite Jest."</strong> There's a lot of Youtube with/about him but I've yet to read him in reality (I think he holds/held that novels are more direct than TV/Internet). I have the impression that he is/was concerned with phenomena/ideas that are directly, if tangentially, attached to yours. </p>

<p>Here's an interview that may relate to <strong>"purpose" </strong>and the increasingly onanistic (purposeless: ie just grab a camera and go for a walk) nature of most photography: <a href="http://www.stim.com/Stim-x/0596May/Verbal/dfwtalk.html">http://www.stim.com/Stim-x/0596May/Verbal/dfwtalk.html</a> </p>

<p>Note that "onanistic" relates to "Infinite Jest"... and there was a guy named Onan if someone wants to Google.</p>

 

[jtk]

<p>Here's "This Is Water" ...evidently famous in small circles ... I just listened to its two parts. Again, the author seems to me to have pointed to "purpose." And what we know about his short life <strong>may echo Phylo's horse story</strong>.<br /><a href="

[aplumpton]

<p>Phylo, I love that Chinese fable. So true. Purpose is often our downfall, certainly the downfall of those with unattainable illusions or the belief that purpose alone equals success, more than talent and (the at least quantitatively greater) perspiration. </p>

[luis_g]

<p>Seems like a story literally about pride going before a fall, but is all purpose pride-driven as it is in this case? Is it wrong to say "this, not that"? I suppose it can be all about the ego, but hardly in every case. Most artists don't seem to be spiritually perfect, at least not from the thousands I have personally met. They're just human, chopping wood and carrying water, with all the imperfections that make most of us so.</p>

<p>Is it wrong, egocentric, flawed thinking to set out to make a chair? A house? A bucket? To weave straw for a sleeping mat? To stuff a pillow? To groom (no, not heavy make-up!) oneself? Chop wood and carry water? Those are all purposeful actions -- and more than that, explicitly goal-centered. Will the horseshoe kick kill the Master searching purposefully for a cave to live in? I doubt it.</p>

<p>It is stilted thinking to see purpose as specifically being goal-oriented, where it can be process-oriented. Also, while purpose, specially obsessive, ego-driven kinds can ferry one into oblivion, there is also purpose which can take us out of ourselves. Many will realize that being in the service of something outside ourselves is a different thing. I will be the first to vouch for the contemplative state, and also for the fact that it's not all there is.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Thanks, Phylo. I now think I understand what you were getting at, though am left with a bit of uncertainty, which is great, and probably part of the point of the story.</p>

<p>If the takeaway from the story, however, is that purpose is or can be our downfall (as Arthur says), then I reject it. I understand purpose as being something very human. Now, perhaps our very humanness is our downfall, but that's a cup half empty approach I prefer not to take. Unattainable illusions are one thing. Purpose is another. Perhaps the story of the horse-keeper is a bit hyperbolic, perhaps he was overindulgent with the horse and this, in a twist of fate, led to his demise. He also let his love for one animal allow him to mistreat another, I suppose, though I wouldn't make any moral judgments right there. I think one can have more humble purposes than obsessions. And obsessions can sometimes advance us to where we need to be as well.</p>

<p>I will say sometimes purpose has deceived me. I have set out photographically to do one thing and realize only later that I actually did another or that others found something else in it. Nevertheless, purpose often has to do more with intent and motivation -- it goes with human action and freedom -- than with specific results.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>[Luis, we were writing simultaneously but I think we're of similar minds here.]</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Fred</strong> seems to me to have gotten to the point in his last paragraph.</p>

<p>Chang Tzu's man worked intensively and purposefully around Chang Tzu's horse, and died. How badly did Chang Tzu feel about death? Did he teach aversion to it, or did he teach living?<strong> Was he ignorant or, perhaps, Taoist</strong>? Look it up.</p>

<p>Chang Tzu's man was killed by Chang Tzu's horse in one moment's <strong>inattention.</strong> Passionate, the man believed he did good work but was imperfect. He focused on his work, took pleasure in its results, didn't navel gaze. Imperfections can be treasures: raku' pottery. The story of this life and death is a treasure. The man lived well.</p>

<p>The first things taught when near a horse are awareness of the animal and your position in relation to his ass. <strong>Until one moment's lapse of awareness,</strong> Chang Tsu's man undoubtedly did that. From what we know he lived fully, ended instructively and poetically. Would you rather die in a hospital or in a stable.</p>

<p><strong> "Talent," </strong>a pop judgment ("America's Got Talent"), is not hinted at. The man cared intensively for horses, did his best, congratulated himself for what he believed to be good work. Must have been very gratifying. <strong> </strong></p>

<p><strong>"Chop wood, carry water" was misused here. </strong>It is famous zen advocacy of work for itself, the direct opposite of working for a goal.</p>

<p><strong>"Purposeful" is at the center of zen and taoism</strong> ... and at the center the David Foster Wallace recording I linked. Wallace, like Arbus and Hemingway, elected to live and die. The same people who judge "America's Got Talent" judge their deaths and that of Chang Tzu's Accident Man, missing the point.</p>

<p> </p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>My take on the horse story is that the man made his love too precious and gave it such isolated unreality that the slightest misstep brought the whole thing crashing down.</p>

[jtk]

<p>I don't think the "whole thing" "crashed down." The horse lived happily, the man died in an instant. Love is never wasted, and doesn't anticipate reward beyond the doing of it (purposefulness). I do know some horse people, appreciate their passion, and don't think Chang Tzu's story had to do with "isolated unreality." But that's just me :-)</p>

<p>Cats are another matter : http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2002/03/05/recipe_cat/</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Our passion - which may translate itself, not to purpose, but to an attachment to purpose - can easily consume us. I think that's more or less the moral of the story.<br>

Thanks for the <em>This Is Water</em> link John, gonna sponge that one up.<br>

-----<br>

<em>Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.</em><br>

<em>After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.</em></p>

<p> - Zen saying</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>So you don't think catching feces and urine in a bucket isn't isolating the reality of said horse just a bit? And this happy ever after horse. After being so spoiled by the man? The "whole thing" did certainly come to an end, because it was a unique event. If Zen ever taught be anything is was to stop being so fancy about layered realities. And of course I'm attached. Thats what I is. Consumed and consuming. </p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>As someone who spent many years studying teleology (the Aristotelian notion of natural purpose, as opposed to divine purpose, as in the 'that for the sake of which'), I'd say you could scarcely do anything without having purpose, or purposes, in doing it.</p>

<p>The OP's question I think has more to do with artistic or aesthetic purposes, and how those purposes might be expressed in one's actions as a photographer. By reflection, you can understand your own purposes better. </p>

<p>Many people are fulfilled in photography by adding beauty to their own lives, which enhances their aesthetic experience, and often adds beauty to the lives of others in the process. Some are motivated to communicate using their photography. Some express their anger, outrage, or concerns. Some see their purpose as to reveal what is otherwise obscured. What the mix will be is in part determined by personality factors.</p>

<p>In my case, I seem to have an affection for my portrait subjects, and generally see them in a positive light, though not blindly. I see a lot of photographers who use the camera as a weapon of aggression, and in using it, they express hostility for their subjects under the guise of socially-concerned artistic photography. But too often, this comes from merely misanthropic motivations, and their subjects are dehumanized, taken advantage of. I think that having the right combination of personality factors, combined with cultivating an artistic vision, makes for that somewhat rare combination of purpose /par excellance/ in an artistic endeavor. Most here either aspire or strive for that.</p>

[luis_g]

<blockquote>

<p><em><br />"His most favorite possession..."</em></p>

<p><em>Operant word: 'possession'. Not his favorite horse.<br /></em></p>

<p><em>" He would often use a basket to catch its droppings and a container to hold its urine, so he could quickly remove the bodily wastes from the presence of his beloved steed."</em></p>

<br />

<p>He is disgusted by the horse as it is.</p>

<p><em>"No question about it, I have done a great job with this one."</em></p>

<p>Patting himself on the back. This is not about the horse.</p>

<p><em>"How his peers would be envious!"</em></p>

<p>P-r-i-d-e. It's all about him.</p>

<br />

<p>The horse owner sees the horse only as an extension of his ego. The horse is a useful abstraction, a mirror.<br>

______________________________</p>

<p>Kenneth Smith, good points.<br>

______________________________</p>

<p><strong>Phylo - "</strong>Our passion - which may translate itself, not to purpose, but to an attachment to purpose"</p>

<p>That's what I was referring to in my post. Thanks.</p>

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

</blockquote>

[jtk]

<p>Luke, interesting perspective. Congenial with Taoism/zen in fact, though they may more openly consider work for its own sake. You're the scholar, I don't know.</p>

<p>I do know that some of us think about broader or different "purposefulness" in the work we choose to do or not to do. That is, we don't think of it primarily in terms of "body of great work" or excellent craft, or about turning on viewers, but we don't ignore that.</p>

<p>Some of us do perform the work itself, for itself. I shot some film recently (and will again today), stand processed in Rodinal, scanned and printed. The results were very bad but the work itself was a nostalgic pleasure and one frame managed to relate coherently to my body of work.</p>

<p>Like many here I play guitar, hacking at bebop and gypsy jazz. Recorded, I'd argue that I almost achieve mediocrity, the files are a body of work. I will purposefully revisit bluegrass (Clarence White's Soldiers Joy has been on my mind), and that will become part of my body of work. But my purpose is to play more than to achieve.</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>My question was corrupt from the start. I'm haunted by an unfulfilled career, hence feel guiltily compelled more than genuinely inspired to do exceptional work. Ironically I have no problem doing the work itself and am easily able to find a groove. But it all seems to fall short by the time the comparative mind steps in. Hence the question is corrupt. I'm not interested in changing my approach to photographing, I'm only interested in impressing myself. I therefor tender my resignation as a viable candidate for stableman.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I form attachments, sometimes passionate ones and, yes, attachments to purpose. I try to be mindful of the transitory nature of most (all?) of these attachments. I don't think I am consumed by them.</p>

<p>When I make a chair, I am attached to the outcome fulfilling the purpose I had in mind. If I don't get a chair I can sit on, I am disappointed. Sometimes purpose meets results. It's not all about process for me. Sometimes, I'm disappointed with the results of a photo shoot for similar reasons. I learn from that, too.</p>

<p>(I've never made a chair. It's just an example. I don't have much farm or stable experience either, though I recently have visited a farm a few times and seemed to be drawn to the cows more than anything. Seems like the guy who milked the cow was attached to a couple of things: getting the fresh milk for his community and helping provide some purpose to the lives of the people with mental disabilities he was teaching -- with hands on -- to milk the cows.)</p>

[jtk]

<p>When someone mentions "passion" they usually do know what the word means (unlike "art" etc).</p>

<p>Passion is theoretically something to avoid if one is a zen practitioner and often if one is a Taoist (but some Taoists are heavy into passion and the most famous of American zen practitioners were passionate as hell in their own cool-cat way ...Suzuki Roshi and Alan Watts, for example).</p>

<p>Passion is not a negative in my book (not being a zen practitioner or Taoist). My system is more like that of Dylan Thomas:

or Christopher Hitchens. I especially resonate to Hitchens because he is bright enough to be able to entertain multiple perspectives on the same ideas...he's not dead yet.</p>

<p>As to the pleasure of horses, it's undeniable if one welcomes it, as Chuang Tzu's horse man did.</p>

<p>Horse manure (P.N robot rejected the anglo-saxon) is no more of a problem than it is in Philosophy of Photography.</p>

<p>As to "envy," it's a pleasure to note it in others, as the horse man did.. Being envied is different from having envy, which one on this thread overlooked earlier in his effort to reposition his thinking (I await V.III with amusement).</p>

<p> </p>