Passion, Ecstasy, and the Heart-o-meter: The Way of Dionysus.

[aplumpton]

<p>Perhaps a quote of Edmund Burke allows another light on the subject:</p>

<p>"There is a boundary to men's passions when they act from feelings; but none when they are under the influence of imagination."</p>

<p>Imagination. When a photograph itself incites you to imagine something, not only emotionally, but also with all the attention of your mind, I think it can be a good example of a passionate image and response. Unlike what some have mentioned, I don't have too much trouble in finding such images. While the Capa photograph I referenced can be perceived on many planes, including the simply dramatic, it also arouses passionate questions in the mind of the viewer (this man has risked everything for what? Was the Spanish civil war important for the people of that country? What was so important that this man left everything to end up here? Was his quest for freedom from Fascism a passionate pursuit? And so on...). The romantic Boubat examples can be considered simply for their atmosphere or cuteness or other less passionate qualities, but they can also lead one to relate to his subjects (and his vision) and forcefully to imagine one's own life, its values and its nature.</p>

<p>Inciting the imagination and the passion of the viewer is something that I think is well within the role of art and photography (It is probably my own principle reason for being engaged in it). Apart from the success of the image, the different responses of viewers may be related to whatever is able to trigger our imagination, or not. Just as passion that is Dionysian or wild is not the unique property of a hormone-rich teenager, passion can be more universal and often milder and more subtle, related to that which has passionately provoked or incited our imagination.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I wonder if the body doesn't play an important role in passion. Does passion reside more in the sensual, sexual, textural, and visceral than it does in the intellectual or rational?</p>

<p>Arthur, IMO, forcefully imagining one's own life, its values and its nature is Philosophy. Passion would be in the way I write about it, the inflection I use, the tone of my voice, how lost I get while thinking and talking about it, the flush of my face as I ponder these things.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>Hi all. <br /> passion is a word i use carefully. It is an important word for me in art. It is one pinnacle, measure of a memorable image or series. I (<em>did</em>) have a love hate relationship with what it represents for me and it's often overwhelming character. The highs and lows are extreme. Passion has an ability to present as dark or light ... etc. My take / Ecstasy is a transcendent state unto itself.</p>

<p>To me passion is primarily is an amping up, a uniquely heightened & maximized state of awareness and sensitivity. At it's best it has an amazing ability to <em>focus</em> me. Not a lack of control as it may appear. I learned I can tap it - wield it and learned to express it in my <em>voice</em>. As others have pointed to previously it can be generated from the deeper recesses of ourselves or it may be inspired by external sources. What it always has for me is a deeply deeply personal trigger. With my own art i can only achieve a passionate piece(s) (aside from the happy accident) when i am in touch with my core, in places many find uncomfortable. So sometimes it may present as 'dark' even taboo. Passion is a favored tool and I have learned to reach for it but know that there will often be a price. I read "Got to pay your dues if you want to sing the blues". in the way of Bromberg " you have to suffer...." - it was a good natural starting point for me. Sometimes it is bliss and sometimes it is pain. sometimes expressed as nuanced poetry other times as a scream...</p>

<p>Kertesz series 'from my window' presented a quiet personal passion to me.<br /> Fukase 'solitude of ravens' cut to my core. on 1st viewing it felt like a look at a photographers passion laid open. Shortly after the US release i stumbled on the book in a nature audubonish section. An intense accident.<br /> both spoke of passion to me before I learned the back story. before it began an obsession to study the why. I encounter passion in photography surprisingly often but primarily the passion that has been 'imbued' . much more unusual is the successful image (by my standard) that passion IS the subject. And that is only accomplished if it is also imbued by the individual imo.</p>

<p>by the way of <a href="http://www.inoneeye.net/PN/passion.html">dionysus</a></p>

[._kaa]

<p><strong>Wouter:</strong> G<em>iven Kaa's standard of passion, I do not want to know what ecstacy would be like then.....</em></p>

<p>I dislike word inflation. It annoys me to read "Today I had a most amazing experience which lifted me to a pinnacle of joy and allowed me to experience totally wonderful sensations as I ate a perfect sandwich, best in the entire world" when it's pretty clear that what a guy means is "I ate a tasty sandwich today".</p>

<p>Passion is a big word, it signifies big and important things. I don't want to cheapen this word by applying it to mundane feelings or likings. "Mild passion" is an oxymoron.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur:</strong> <em>When a photograph itself incites you to imagine something, not only emotionally, but also with all the attention of your mind, I think it can be a good example of a passionate image and response.</em></p>

<p>That's quite a different approach. We used to talk about how the passion of the author shows up in his work and can be transmitted to a viewer. Now the author drops out of the picture and you're talking exclusively about the impact of the image on the viewer. If I don't have to consider the issue of author's passion and just have to think about whether an image grabs me and makes me focus, feel, think, imagine -- well, that's basically just a definition of good art :-)</p>

[warren_l_west]

<p>I believe Kaa stands on solid ground.<br>

I am not high on quotes but I stand by this one:<br>

"Art should be independent of All claptrap - should stand alone, and appeal to the artistic sense of eye and ear, without confounding this with emotions entirely foreign to it,as devotion,pity, love,patriotism and the like. All these have no kind of concern with art."<br>

James m. Whistler 1834-1903</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>"Does passion reside more in the sensual, sexual, textural, and visceral than it does in the intellectual or rational?"</p>

<p><strong>Fred:</strong> I definitely think not, and without pondering any more precise breakdown, which may exist, I would say that they are equally important. By the way the intellectual does not necessarily mean rational, when imagination, poetry and fantasy (amongst others) are involved. Some of the most passionate intellectual actions and thoughts of man are no doubt not 100% rational.</p>

<p><strong>Kaa: </strong>The work of art is more important to me than its author, although I will sometimes admire the process of the author, his creative ability and will want to know more about him. Not to change my perception, but to understand a bit where he is coming from. The passion perceived in the work is what really matters.</p>

<p><strong>Warren: </strong> Not sure the exact context of Whistler's remarks, but I don't fully understand how one can remove those considerations from the message of the work of art. My impression of art is that if it has one quality it has no imposed boundaries of what it can represent. Can you elaborate on Whistler's thoughts a bit more; maybe I am missing a point or the context of his statement?</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[aplumpton]

<p>Perhaps someone can tell me which key I accidentally hit to unintentionally put everything into the "land of grey?" Thanks. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes, Arthur, at the top of the message window where you type your post, there is a button with quotation marks on it. You likely hit that. It is the second button from the right, just to the left of the HTML button.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Warren, I believe Kaa has no visible means of support. He made this clear when he said: "Maybe I can't see. Maybe I am blind to it (passion) -- how would I know?". That was remarkably honest. </p>

<p>You can't see it either, but amazingly feel compelled to attempt to dominate the discourse and tell us that if you and Kaa can't, no one else can. That Whistler quote was published in 1890, railing against the notion that art should embody certain morals. Today it's a quaint, retro notion.</p>

<p>Ok...let's play: How about a link to one (forget about passion) photograph that "stands on its own". Please be sure to name the qualities that are "its own", unless you think we should all stand around art like the apes by the monolith in <em>2001, A Space Oddysey </em>in chimping awe.</p>

<p> </p>

[charleswood]

<p>I feel passionately about how a camera transforms a subject when the light is right. Here is an example: <a href="../photo/15015732">http://www.photo.net/photo/15015732</a> . That view of the park just isn't what I see with my eye. In the wrong light, the camera records exactly what my eyes always see, dullness. I think it a freaking miracle. I just get jazzed, man. That piece of crap park looks in the picture the way the birds must see it. No wonder they are so damn happy. I just love it.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Kaa, maybe you should consider that your definition is yours, and not universal:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I dislike word inflation.... I don't want to cheapen this word by applying it to mundane feelings or likings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fine. But the word and its weight is not defined by one person alone. Others offered their definitions, and offered to discuss. You, instead, keep repeating your definition of passion. Why would I have to adopt your definition? It would be equally inflating.<br>

Try to convince by arguments, rather than repetition and insistance.<br>

_______________<br>

Fred,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does passion reside more in the sensual, sexual, textural, and visceral than it does in the intellectual or rational?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, for the rational, but the intellectual is another case I think. I disagree with Arthur they may be equally important. In my idea, passion will dominate, and it is not driven by ratio, but by emotions and instinct. The sensual, sexual etc. are equally driven from that. They don't emerge from thoughts, they emerge from within, they're instinct responses. If anything, rationality would block passion.<br>

The intellectual... more complicated. Intellect seems to be always there, it conditions even those instinct responses. However, if one is mainly rational and intellectual, I wonder whether one can endulge equally easy in passion. I know I can't - there always remains the thoughts "but what if...", an urge for nuances and a need to understand.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Luis what do you think of the work of Eduardo del Valle and Mirta Gómez -- you know them personally, perhaps? Do you find their work to be passionate?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I think that ...</p>

<p>Passion should not be confused with its manifestation (is that guy having an orgasm or was he just stung by a bee?). I have no doubt whatsoever that quadriplegics experience passion; I would guess in many instances, passion is all that they have.</p>

<p>Therefore, the passion of others is always inferred. It's always a projection of the viewer. It's presence or absence seems to be important; I think people take it as a sign of authenticity -- that, because passion happens before/without calculation, they are not being lied to (<< just a quick guess).</p>

<p>As when a jury tries to decide whether they are hearing about a crime of passion or premeditated murder (how far can the accused go to acquire a weapon before he's no longer in the grip of "passion"?), I think one's belief will be very much dependent on empathy, personal experience, etc. The evidence is "read" according to one's own personal projections and I don't think one can be bullied into agreement (as seems to be happening between the parties in this thread).</p>

<p>On the other hand, the quadriplegic's expressions or displays of his inner passion would perhaps be heavily mediated by third-party helpers and yet be able to be communicated to an audience -- yet would still have to pass a degree of skepticism. It all depends on the viewer; it's not going to be "there" in the work because it's not really about the work. It seems to me to be about the maker.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Today, I saw an exhibit at the De Young Museum of paintings from the Venetian Renaissance (on loan from Vienna). Included were works by Titian, Giorgione, Veronese, Tintoretto, Mantegna.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.italian-renaissance-art.com/image-files/pietroaretinotitian.jpg">Example 1</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.abm-enterprises.net/titian_danae.jpg">Example 2</a></p>

<p>One of the introductions to the exhibit mentioned the passion of "lustrous color." <em>Radiance</em> is part of the definition of lustre. Passion and radiance? Light emitted (more than reflected). J.D. Wood mentioned "generated from the deeper recesses of ourselves." What else, visually speaking, makes us feel as if "stuff" is coming from within?</p>

<p>It's interesting to consider that there may be historically passionate eras in art. That doesn't mean that there isn't passion in every era. I don't believe we're in a particularly passionate era right now, though I do think every era, including ours, is significant. Era of computer technology?</p>

<p>These Renaissance paintings are the epitome of what I think of when I think of passion. I may be viewing it somewhat narrowly. I may be old fashioned.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>it's not really about the work. It seems to me to be about the maker. --Julie</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, then, how do you make this determination: <em>"I would suggest most of Peter Fraser's work as exemplary of someone who loses himself in the visual."</em></p>

<p>I'm assuming you don't know Fraser personally, so you've inferred it from the work. Whether we say it's in the work or in the maker is irrelevant. It's the work we're looking at and, from the work we're inferring passion, wherever it resides. So, it seems to me that, when discussing photographs and passion, what we <em>see</em> is pretty much what we have to go on, no matter where we eventually say the passion actually IS.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Julie - "</strong>Luis what do you think of the work of Eduardo del Valle and Mirta Gómez -- you know them personally, perhaps? Do you find their work to be passionate?"</p>

<p>They are (sort of) the analog of Bernd and Hilla Becher in South Florida. I've seen some of their work in the Yucatan Peninsula, and a couple of works outside of that. Their Yucatan work is the kind of that needs to be looked at over several pictures because while each one is about a specific structure, it is also about a type of structure. It has what I see as a distinct Latin sensibility about indigenous cultures. The ambiguity between the analytical, the passionate interest in the architecture, conscious context, attention to light, color and design, balance between deadpan illustration, the studied, felt and the lyrical are what make this work distinct. The passion about what they're doing is clearly evident to me, but on the whole it seems more on the analytical/rational/Apollonian side. Some of their earlier B&W work leaned more in the other direction.</p>

<p>I do not know them personally.<br>

___________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Julie - "</strong>Therefore, the passion of others is always inferred. It's always a projection of the viewer. It's presence or absence seems to be important; I think people take it as a sign of authenticity -- that, because passion happens before/without calculation, they are not being lied to (<< just a quick guess)."</p>

<p>How do we gauge anything if not through its manifestation? If it doesn't manifest, how do we know it's there? I'm sorry, but I think I can tell the difference between someone being stung by a bee or having an orgasm. One time while skinny dipping, a bee got in my shorts/undies and it stung me in a very private place linked to orgasm. Not one of the others present misunderstood the bee sting for a big O. I can't separate the maker from the work, or the viewer's baggage (including projection) from his experience.</p>

<p>When I referred to the nexus between performance and authenticity, I was not using the latter as something conferred by passion, but more along the lines of preceding it.<br>

________________________________________________</p>

<p>There are may different kinds of passion, as we can see from the examples cited and/or proposed. There are Apollonian passions, too, (which is what I see in the lustrously radiant in Fred's first link. The 2nd did not work) though I distinctly wanted to explore more of the Dionysian kind in this thread. This is not a complaint, after all, contrasting with the opposite is a good way to understand it.<br>

____________________________________________________________</p>

<p>As to the wysiwyg thing and photographs, in the usual viewer/gallery/museum interaction, that's largely true, but... As we've read in this forum before, photographs can extend beyond the frame, which is extra-visual. At exhibits/openings, the artists are often present, and give talks. In books, context for work therein including critical essays, bios, forewords, etc. are given. When I see art, a significant amount of the time the artist is present and I talk with them. I am familiar with the times, culture, geography, etc. Art cannot stand alone any more than we can. Everything appears like an island as long as we don't look below the surface, and if we do, we discover everything is connected.</p>

<p>_________________________________</p>

<p>[bTW, This week what is perhaps the earliest figurative painting ever found was discovered in a cave in Spain. Depictions of six fat seals in red reportedly painted by Neanderthals, no less, onto a white stalactite 42,000 years ago. They seem passionately depicted to me]</p>

<p>_____________________________________________</p>

<p>When the artist is not present, nor any information about him (though plenty is encoded into anything man-made), whatever the viewer experiences is partially in the work and its title, where it is being seen, how it is presented, and in the viewer himself. I do not think the photographs carry much of a narrative (in this case about passion). Instead, it carries triggers that loosen, catalyze or unlock narratives already existing in the viewer.<br>

____________________________________________</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The second link is this:</p>

<p>http://www.abm-enterprises.net/titian_danae.jpg</p>

<p>It's also here:</p>

<p>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Titian_-_Danae_(Hermitage_Version).jpg</p>

[._kaa]

<p><strong>Wouter:</strong> K<em>aa, maybe you should consider that your definition is yours, and not universal</em></p>

<p>Oh, but I do. You may have noticed my use of the first-person singular when I was talking about the meaning of passion :-) I was explaining myself -- not claiming universal truths. I do not want you to adopt my definition, but I want you to understand what do *I* mean when *I* use the word "passion".</p>

<p><strong>Wouter:</strong> <em>Try to convince by arguments, rather than repetition and insistance.</em></p>

<p>You misunderstand me. I do not wish to convince you. The purpose of discussions like this is not to convince other people, the purpose is to jointly explore something, gain access to other-than-your-own points of view, frameworks, contexts... It may be that someone changes his positions in the process, but that's a side-effect, not a primary goal.</p>

<p>Terminology is a frequent source of difficulty in such discussions because to understand somebody's point of view you have to know what does that person mean by the words he uses and that's not necessarily obvious. A great deal of disagreements and arguments are about nothing more than definitions, does world A mean X or does it mean Y. That's why I prefer to get (some) clarity about terminology -- it allows everyone to focus on interesting issues as opposed to argue about labels.</p>

 

[._kaa]

<p><strong>Luis:</strong> <em>He made this clear when he said: "Maybe I can't see. Maybe I am blind to it (passion) -- how would I know?".</em></p>

<p>Let's be a bit more precise about it, shall we? I am talking not about passion in general, I'm talking very specifically about the <strong>passion of the author as seen in his works</strong>. Notably, this is different from passion just depicted in an image. It is also different from passion in viewers which an image arouses. I am certainly not blind (well, I think so :-) ) to passion in real life.</p>

<p>To put it crudely, I don't know how would you distinguish something produced by real passion from something produced by highly skilled and cynical manipulation of symbols -- if you know nothing about the author's person. Yes, of course, Mozart and Salieri. But at the same time, I am sure there have been LOTS of very passionate people who couldn't actually produce anything worthwhile, and there's been some technicians who made what's universally accepted as good art.</p>

<p>Of course, art reflects the personality of its creator. Passionate works of art do not "prove" but they do hint at the passion of the maker. Often that connection is true. But not always.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>"One of the introductions to the exhibit mentioned the passion of "lustrous color." Radiance is part of the definition of lustre. Passion and radiance? Light emitted (more than reflected). ........ What else, visually speaking, makes us feel as if "stuff" is coming from within?" <br /><br />Evocative thinking Fred. So a little rambling and brainstorming.....sussing<br /><br /> . Your words and link to Titian made me think of <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=brassai&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=AUM1T9hJqJaIApXsna8K&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1811&bih=1055">Brassai</a>. He/his work seems laced with passion.... by way of Photographer and very often the subject/content. The level of engagement Brassai had with his subjects (photographically) and the obvious (to me) level of engagement that his subjects had w/life feels passionate. His easy to overlook 'technique' rarely gets in the way of his content. Primarily gentle tonal strokes with a punch as i see it. The light often notably radiates from the image. The passion of his subjects (a deep level of engagement with life) is allowed to blossom and reach out by his craft. I learned and dedicated more time to craft via photographers like Adams but learned even more valuable lessons (still inseparable as a whole) from photographers like Brassai.<br />And as you know i lean to bw. but passion does have wings in Color photography .... some,many cuban or spanish (often lush saturation) almost smells of passion, corporal (referring to your comment Fred "I wonder if the body doesn't play an important role in passion. Does passion reside more in the sensual, sexual, textural, and visceral than it does in the intellectual or rational?"). Latin passion in art is in color and content rich And engages the body imo. Even in 2 dimensional work. I always thought your <a href="../photo/10108115">Gerald-2</a> was knockin at that door.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Josh, funny that you mention Gerald-2. That was my first choice for my own knocking on the door of passion. I didn't use it because I was afraid the more literal elements of passion might get in the way here.</p>

<p>So, I'm especially glad you talked about Brassai in the terms you did. Because I think relationship to content/subject is vital here. I've avoided content for fear of seeming too "literal" about passion. It's why I chose the first example from the Renaissance exhibit I did, precisely because it's not a typical passionate "subject" but I do see it as a very passionate painting.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>litral aint a bad starting point.<br /> where did the photo go? it was a nice adornment imo</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Oh, thanks. I realized you had linked to it, which I didn't realize at first, and just didn't want to be redundant.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Luis, <a href="

Sally</a>.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>I've been away from Photo.net for too many months now. No sooner did I finally grasp Luis use of "lacunae" in some long buried thread than I make my first foray back into the Philosophy forum and stumble over "cthonic". </p>

<p>Not being flip. I am aware of all the words and viewpoints that preceded my post, but "cthonic" sparked a personal take on where/how I find passion and possibly ecstasy. I don't want to cherry pick and get sidetracked by other posts. Doesn't mean I don't care or am not interested, just that many have already done so and we all have only so much time and space to devote to this discussion. </p>

<p>Cthonic, Dionysian, Appollonian no, Cthuluesque, yes. (Bastardized from long forgotten readings of H.P Lovecraft, a mnemonic spark struck by Luis use of cthonic) <br>

<br />Yes, passion and/or ecstasy in neurosis and paranoia. Anxiety over unseen horrors, tragedies, catastrophes that hover at the periphery. Chained, or sleeping, or, for the moment, thankfully unaware or uninterested in my presence. Make the image and move away before it awakens or notices me. It has nothing to do with subject or place or time of day. It's not taking photographs of dangerous places or people. (Though it can be all these things.) It's the way the world feels at the edges. </p>

<p>I find it in the work of others, whether they intended it or not. And there is often a rough joy at this fear and anxiety. A melancholic wonder at the shared state of our fragile and transitory moment. Celebration of a flailing, stuttering perseverence in the face of so many unknown….things…that may unexpectedly emerge from the darkness, the unseen edge, to crush us. Sometimes there is no joy at the weight of it, just depression or pointless anxiety over things that may never happen (cancer, rape, a mugging, loss of a limb, war, a car accident, bankruptcy), or over things that are inevitable (aging and death) but at other times there is a catharsis, a fatalistic celebration. And in those moments when we can let go of the fear and anxiety and just experience the sheer wonder of it all…it becomes ecstasy. Mad laughter and mad tears. I find it in Woody Allen, Delmore Schwartz, Susan Burnstine and Francesca Woodman, among others.</p>

<p>Lest I sound like a perpetually depressed neurotic, there are other moments of ecstasy, though they did not translate to my images. One example:</p>

<p>For a couple of years, I've been involved in doing documentary work involving Chicagoans, or Greater Chicagoans (outlying burbs), who are from, or descended from, Balkan countries. Much of it involves Balkan folk dancing. I started attending and photographing rehearsals of a particular troupe. One long afternoon at the University of Chicago, completely forgotten by the dancers around me (a cherished state, natch), crouched down going back and forth to catch this, that, moment, my chest suddenly filled with an ache and a senseless joy. Awe overcame me, and tears filled my eyes. I would call it zen-like, but for the fact that it was not calm and serene. It was more like a religious rapture, perhaps it was similar to what Christians mean by a state of grace. I just was. Nothing that was before or after mattered in those moments. There was no thought, just ecstasy in being there, surrounded by the dancers energy and swirling movements. I know how simplistic and naïve this may sound, but I have no other way of describing it. This may be a common experience with some people, but it is not with me. </p>

<p>Did that feeling translate to the photographs I took in that period of time? Honestly, no. But it didn't matter. It doesn't matter.</p>

<p>As far as my photography goes, I don't know that it is informed by passion. I'd call it more of a compulsion, which is not really what we're talking about here. It is strange, though. I was thinking about why I do what I do just the other night. It's certainly not money or fame. It's not even photography for the sake of photography (because there are many types of photography I have no interest in doing). It wasn't always this way, but it feels lately a little bit like being pushed by an unseen hand. Not unwillingly, just that the drive to do it comes unbidden and almost feels like it comes from outside myself. That, alas, is no guarantor of quality, genius, or significance. </p>

<p>Some brief examples of images of others where I sense passion, rightly or wrongly.</p>

<p>The first, from Chicagoan Paul D'Amato, is part of a years long series of images he took of Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood (an area once recommended to me for it's standout hispanic dining by Luis). A documentary study that goes on for years demonstrates a more rudimentary type of passion than may have been intended for us to discuss, but I find passion in this image in and of itself.</p>

<p><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jeSuLa5ZscU/ScYM4i2WC9I/AAAAAAAAMCM/bidCnU28LfA/s400/Paul_DAmato_Barrio_Junior_and_Janessa_2111_102.jpg">http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jeSuLa5ZscU/ScYM4i2WC9I/AAAAAAAAMCM/bidCnU28LfA/s400/Paul_DAmato_Barrio_Junior_and_Janessa_2111_102.jpg</a></p>

<p>From one of Ishimoto's more iconic images:</p>

<p><a href="http://web.ncf.ca/ek867/yasuhiro.ishimoto.steps.jpg">http://web.ncf.ca/ek867/yasuhiro.ishimoto.steps.jpg</a></p>

<p>Robert Frank:</p>

<p><a href="http://blog.ricecracker.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ntm5-1-16.jpeg">http://blog.ricecracker.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ntm5-1-16.jpeg</a></p>

<p>Susan Burnstine:</p>

<p><a href="http://web.ncf.ca/ek867/susan.burnstine.when.jpg">http://web.ncf.ca/ek867/susan.burnstine.when.jpg</a></p>

<p> </p>