Convergence and fantasy

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Julie, yes, it's at the least an useful thought. Not a very positive one, though! And whether in photography (or art in general possibly), it completely works out, is a second step too, I think. But for the media, yes, it's too bleak a picture it draws, but there is something to it, I think. I'm just letting thoughts flow, because it's rather tricky to catch this butterfly of ideas.</p>

<p>In the light of your earlier questions, the sequence of imagination to expectation is to me highly interesting. It sounds like Platonic Ideai, with the twist that we only see what we hope to see.<br>

Without wanting to sound arrogant (in knowing better), a lot of people do seem to expect too much. They expect things to happen to them, rather than setting the scene for themselves which will enable things to happen. Hoping that live will come to them, rather than going out and grab life by the proverbial peppers. Expectation, or hope, is a perfect way to loose common sense.<br>

On the other hand, isn't it just being human: seeking comfort, rest, calmth, balance, a sense of being protected at home? And aren't we looking for confirmations of that? Are we, then, self-deluding in seeking that, and in wanting to hear and see messages confirming that?</p>

<p>I'd say, to some extend: yes.<br>

I wouldn't call it extravagent expectations. More a balancing act, between realising how much you can change the world, versus how much you want it to be different. A mental construct to keep things do-able, understandable, graspable. Wanting to stay positive and not give up.<br />I also wouldn't say we expect more than the world can give us - we're not that doomed, I hope. But yes, we're willing to believe our imaginations to gain hope for a better tomorrow. Illusions that give us shelter against the difficulties in life. So, we enter Plato's cave knowing we'll see shadows on a wall, and it becomes comforting to accept the shadows as real, or real enough. Willing to trade down, to reduce complexity.<br>

But, then again, all this still assumes something is actually "real" - and maybe that's the illusion?<br>

The first point in the quote, I am not sure I fully get it, though. It sounds so horribly negative. Are we expecting too much of the world, even without imagination telling us about a lot that isn't there? We're deluded before we start deluding ourselves? Or is it the Platonic Idea, versus the perception of it in point 2?</p>

<p>To step back a bit from what media feeds us, and how we want that food. Does this change from imagination to illusion also happen in photography? I think for most of us here, no. We're not believing what we see in the photo, but we like to play with the options. It stays imagination, and does not need to become more real than the photo itself is. It could be too strong to say all art is like this, but for me, it is. Art does not depends on some notion of reality, or a desire for reality. It escapes it.</p>

<p>One thought creeps up. Is there such a thing as too much imagination? I always liked the idea of it being limitless. As long as the common sense keeps working.</p>

<p><em>(This quote, by the way, made me think of a the type of media we earlier discussed as being an overload in explicitness...hollywood movies. I always liked how the Matrix movie played this theme. For an action movie, it planted an above average nice thought.)</em></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Julie and Wouter, you are having a very enjoyable discussion. Ignorant of Dr. Boorstin (touché, he was possibly (sic) ignorant of me...), it was therefore interesting to read the following in someone's Wikipedia profile of this obviously learned man: "In <em>The Image</em>, Boorstin describes shifts in American culture — mainly due to advertising — where the reproduction or simulation of an event becomes more important or "real" than the event itself." Without going into (read: more fully understanding) his reference context more than that, I find that this neatly fits into that butterfly of ideas Wouter ac/knowledges as progeny of his OP. I think that in general, the available multimedia have been appropriated by culture/advertising, to simulate and tell us what people are believed to want (Ibid for the newspapers, or most of them, most of the time).</p>

<p>An example comes to mind of extravagant expectations: Artist Henri Rousseau ("Le Douanier" or customs officer) rarely if ever set foot outside his French place of work/life yet imagined fantastic and beautiful images of Africa, which he had never visited, and paintings that expressed that unreal but powerful imagined beauty. I have not read the full text surrounding the three cases given by Boorstin of extravagant expectations, but I feel he is placing too many limits on the power of the human spirit and ignoring (as a librarian!) the extravagant discoveries of the past, in which imagination may have had its source in illusion, but overcame that 'albatross' to provide extravagant creations. In the 1700s there were something like ten thousand books already in existence and wise men were prone to say that we know everything there is to know (or can create or invent) and everything we know cannot be absorbed by one person in his or her lifetime. They were right only about the second part of that (admittedly paraphrased) statement.</p>

<p>"We tyrannize and frustrate ourselves by expecting more than the world can give us or than we can make of the world." I think the trick here is to have smaller expectations about what the world can give us (to have great expectations in that regard is no doubt an illusion) but on the contrary to have great expectations about what we might imagine. Boorstin, who studied for a PhD, should be expected to have had the high expectations of a researcher and a fertile imagination as a tool. That route was one of the more difficult things that I ever attempted, but one which was lit by the light of expectation, even if it was rather small, sensed as existing but distant, and hidden by a mountainous horizon. Julie sees illusion and imagination as existing in some form of tension, which is no doubt true, but it may also be good to view expectations and illusion in that same bipolar struggle. Whatever, Boorstin is too pessimist for me and I think perhaps he spent too much time in the silence of his great library, with imagination having to bear the weight of so many already discovered accounts already in the stacks.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Julie and Wouter, you are having a very enjoyable discussion. Ignorant of Dr. Boorstin (touché, he was possibly (sic) ignorant of me...), it was therefore interesting to read the following in someone's Wikipedia profile of this obviously learned man: "In <em>The Image</em>, Boorstin describes "shifts in American culture — mainly due to advertising — where the reproduction or simulation of an event becomes more important or "real" than the event itself." Without going into (read: more fully understanding) his reference context more than that, I find that this neatly fits into that butterfly of ideas Wouter acknowledges as progeny of his OP. I think that in general the available multimedia have been appropriated by culture/advertising, to simulate and tell us what people are believed to want (Ibid for the newspapers, or most of them, most of the time).</p>

<p>An example comes to mind of extravagant expectations: Artist Henri Rousseau ("Le Douanier" or customs officer) rarely if ever set foot outside his French place of work/life yet imagined fantastic and beautiful images of Africa, which he had never visited, and paintings that expressed that unreal but powerful imagined beauty. I have not read the full text surrounding the three cases given by Boorstin of extravagant expectations, but I feel he is placing too many limits on the power of the human spirit and ignoring (as a librarian!) the extravagant discoveries of the past, in which imagination may have had its source in illusion, but overcame that 'albatross' to provide extravagant creations. In the 1700s there were something like ten thousand books already in existence and wise men were prone to say that we know everything there is to know (or can create or invent) and everything we know cannot be absorbed by one person in his or her lifetime. They were right only about the second part of that (admittedly paraphrased) statement.</p>

<p>"We tyrannize and frustrate ourselves by expecting more than the world can give us or than we can make of the world." I think the trick here is to have smaller expectations about what the world can give us (to have great expectations in that regard is no doubt an illusion) but on the contrary to have great expectations about what we might imagine. Boorstin, who studied for a PhD, should be expected to have had the high expectations of a researcher and a fertile imagination as a tool. That route was one of the more difficult things that I ever attempted, but one which was lit by the light of expectation, even if it was rather small, sensed as existing but distant, and hidden by a mountainous horizon. Julie sees illusion and imagination as existing in some form of tension, which is no doubt true, but it may also be good to view expectations and illusion in that same bipolar struggle. Whatever, Boorstin is too pessimist for me and I think perhaps he spent too much time in the silence of his great library, with imagination having to bear the weight of so many already discovered accounts already in the stacks.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"My reaction towards Allen might have been a bit strong, but to me, that Capa quote is quoted too often, and it's too single-sided. Photos aren't better because you smashed your wide angle in somebodies face. Photos made up close can be very good if you interact well with the subject, but that's personal skill and not virtue of subject distance." Wouter</p>

<p>I don't think your reaction was a bit strong it felt very honest to me.</p>

<p>I never said, neither did Capa, that photos are better if you smashed your wide angle in somebodies face. What I'm saying is that the closer you are the more involved you are in the street scene....you are part of it, and can feel the rhythm of the street. Standing at a distant with a telephoto you are best a remote viewer (google street comes to mind) or, a sniper with little feel for what you are doing. Personal skill has little to do with it.... it is about being able to blend in and acting in a natural way.... you just have a camera not a ticking bomb.</p>

<p>The photos that Fred linked to are excellent examples of superb compostion and that is their strength. However, for me there is a far away remote look to them more attuned to urban landscape photography than street.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Allen, I know that Capa didn't mean a wide angle up the nose, it was a figure of speech. I simply do not agree that closer means more involved. Nor that being at a distance means disconnected. The reverse can be equally true. I've seen people in the middle of partying crowds looking lost, alone and not getting what happens around them. And the reverse. Feeling the rhythm of events is not defined by proximity, but by... feeling it. So, my point is: I dislike the simplification.<br>

And sorry, but being able to blend in and act natural is a personal skill, in my view. Some people can, some people can't.<br>

So, i think we simply disagree on this subject. Which is OK.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Yes. I keep distance and getting closer I do feel too imposing. It's where most of my attempts at streetphotography fail" Wouter.</p>

<p>Just trying to be helpful in response to your own words. It's my practical nature.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Allen, sure, I did not mean to say I object to your saying it - and you're right to quote me since I opened the door myself there.<br>

Me, personally, most streetphotos fail because in the end, I do not manage to connect to people that easily. As a result, I feel imposing (20cm longer than the average in this country - does not always help!), hold back, and instead, choose the safety of distance. Bottomline: I won't blend in, or won't feel blent in. At that point, it isn't just a matter of physical distance, it's about being disconnected and not engaged enough; and that can happen at half a meter distance, or at 20 metres. I think that's the part where we seem(ed) to disagree.<br>

I appreciate the practical advice, and might still kick myself in the rear for giving a serious attempt at this kind of photography.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Allen and Wouter,</p>

<p>I have never taken Capa's "not close enough" quote literally. To my mind, what he's after is control of content -- which, in journalism is mostly done via moving closer. This doesn't mean you should be "close" in any absolute sense. What I think he means is that you should try to get rid of "extra" stuff; leave out what doesn't need to be left in.</p>

<p>And, in an interesting way, that boundary, that what's-left-out, and how/whether/in what way that left-out stuff is available to viewers is what this thread has been about.</p>

<p>Suppose a photograph is a river. If I (a viewer) am going to swim in your river, you should (I request) make it such that it doesn't kill me (too deep, too raging, too unformed, too undirected) but also such that it's worth swimming in (not too shallow, or small, or boring). When you make the kind of multi-media presentation that Wouter is fussing about, I think it often puts the viewer into a boat. He doesn't get to be "in" the river, he floats on or along it and he (may be) piloted, too. There is a degree of separation, a degree of lost control, a degree of directed ness and loss of immediate interaction with the raw water. There's a shell, a gap, an interval; on a multi-media "boat" perception is mediated.</p>

<p>As in the Capa quote, this is about boundaries; who defines them, how permeable they are, how much access the viewer is allowed to what is left out by being "close."</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Addendum: I should have made clear (what is obvious but, I think, needs to be said ...) that "access ... to what is left out" necessarily, <em>by definition</em> means to the viewer's own construals -- <em>in his own mind</em>. What is <em>not there</em> in the picture is only "there" in the viewer's (own) mind. Access means at least a permeable boundary and at best an active invitation to ... go.</p>

<p>[As opposed to Sermons, and Guided Tours.]</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Multimedia opens up additional channels, or broadens existing ones. It extends the range of potentials for all the channels involved, provided there's synergy involved and allows for modulations between them. It does not necessarily have to put you in a boat, the shore or underwater. That depends on the artist's work and the viewer.</p>

<p><strong>Julie - "</strong>Suppose a photograph is a river. If I (a viewer) am going to swim in your river, you should (I request) make it such that it doesn't kill me (too deep, too raging, too unformed, too undirected) but also such that it's worth swimming in (not too shallow, or small, or boring)."</p>

<p>The world is full of certified safe rivers, cars, people, websites, drugs, jobs, architecture, significant others, vacations, philosophies, learning experiences, and most of all, insufferably boring and safe photographs. Not "too much" or "too little". While that is legitimate and part of the landscape, I also hunger for and seek out danger, being killed (figuratively), resurrected, whitewater rage, too much, too little, limitless, formless abysses and heights, challenges to the things I hold dear, the unexpected and more than I can imagine. I do not seek safety in art.</p>

<p>To me, Capa's quote is about not being too safe when it comes to making pictures. Before exposing the film/sensor one has to expose themselves. Humans are instinctively understand the perspective of intimacy. </p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Luis, Julie, good point in not taking the quote too literally, and I think at that point we're quite saying the same: be connected to your subject, know it, seek to understand it.<br>

On the multi-media presentations, I already previously indicated that my OP wasn;t very well constructed in that sense, and already agreed (discussing with others) that it can be an added value as well, when done right. As Luis basically said above.</p>

<p>A lot of what I state is driven by personal observations on how I experience photos, how I think I come to make them and things I aspire to learn. They're not meant to be generic statements on how I see photography, or multimedia. It's about my photography and my experience of multimedia. So when I react hairy on the Capa quote, it's just an opinion, because I feel that in my photography, it's not some universal truth. I don't mind disagreeing on it at all, a good argument is more beneficial than a silent agreement. But the difference between discussing the personal experience and approach versus the wider philosophical/'art in general' sometimes makes for switching between "contexts" too much, and obstructing a full understanding of what one another is saying. Not saying the discussion is useless, au contraire. Just putting it up for consideration.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Luis,</p>

<p>When I said "killed" (raging, unformed, undirected) I had in mind "messy" as in poor craftsmanship -- for example gratuitous abuse of color and tone.</p>

<p>Wouter,</p>

<p>I understand what you're sayiing. My feeling is that you, we, anybody should take the discussion wherever and in whatever way you like (as long as it's civil); there's plenty of space on photo.net ... we won't run out of paper ... I hope my posts haven't seemed to pressure one way or the other. They're just me thinking about what I'm reading. (And thank you for being an attentive thread meister.)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Julie, sure discussions can go anywhere and in no way do I want you to not write...My apologies if I seemed to say that. Also absolutely no pressure felt on my side, no worries. I just blurted it out to ensure we sense those small differences in approach; they can taint what we say. (and thanks, it is an useful discussion that has given me a lot!)</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"good argument is more beneficial than a silent agreement"</p>

<p>True. I think like any good street photographer Capa liked to be part of the of the action. The Normandy landings were a classical example he was taking photos as it happened. His photos reflect how he felt and others around him giving true insight to the human condition. Street or War Zone he was part of it.. '''not just listening to the music but being part of it". Being close to him was literally being close (no distant stick people) and spiritually as well.</p>

<p>At least that is my take on him.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p><a href="http://www.skylighters.org/photos/robertcapa.html">http://www.skylighters.org/photos/robertcapa.html</a></p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Allen, sure Capa was a great photographer, I'm not arguing there; I think his emotional closeness though is what makes the photos, and the insight he gained from doing the war zone work. I don't think our take on his work and his approach differs all that much ;-)</p>

<p>I'm off for a little break, so I won't be responding for a bit.</p>