Photography and Humanism

[alan_zinn]

<p>Arthur,<br>

You made me work! PS with three kinds of tweaking. <br>

I pass by this beauty nearly every day on my nature walk. It's for sale. I don't think it has moved from that spot for two years. You will have to tell me what the decal is about.</p><div></div>

[jonathancharlesphoto]

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter Willemse</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>... do you feel the discovery of that wider spiritual world became evident to you through photos, or by making them? After discovering it, did you see it have a more profound effect on your photography?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me it has been a cycle of development - as I take a photograph I am inspired by some aspect of the subject and when I look at the image I try to see what especially caught my eye and did the photo really capture the important essence of it ... which makes you think about what is important about the world, and yes: humanity is generally the key element - though not in isolation but in our relation to nature. And as you explore that relationship the idea that it is all the result of random chance does not seem to be sufficient - even if theoretically possible (though this requires the monstrous assumptions of the multiverse model) it makes it all rather pointless and to me life just does not <strong>feel</strong> pointless so I construct a model which allows meaning to have a place. Having done so it comes as no big surprise to find other people have done the same and this, of course, is the basis of most religions - which, at their origins, say pretty much the same thing (though mostly they are rapidly corrupted by hierarchical organisations with power-grabbing agendas).</p>

<p>So yes, a spiritual view of the relationship between humanity and nature with a sense of cosmic purpose has become a major drive for my photography.</p>

<p>Now I don't wish to cause offense but I think the idea of humanism is a bit of a cop-out: we are all (apart from a few psychopaths) humanist and it is a question of whether we are <strong>exclusively</strong> humanist <em>ie</em> atheist - if so, why not say so? If humanity is just an infinitessimal random event in a deterministic multiverse what is there to get so excited about? There is nothing very wonderful about a super-computer creating the works of Shakespeare by a random process after 10^n attempts but I do think there is something wonderful about one man doing it at the first attempt - it is the success of the intention which makes it wonderful and I feel there is something of this kind about humanity and the world we live in.</p>

<p>Anyway, enough of my personal philosophy, there is an intersting article in the French magazine PHOTO Jan/Feb 2012 pointing out that humans are exclusively able to recognise a mirror image as being themselves (which we do from the age of 12-18 months) - even the most advanced chipmanzee cannot do this. This is essentially the same as understanding the nature of an image and so you <strong>can</strong> say that photography is a humanistic process!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Jonathan, thanks for a great response; I can relate to much you say there (and add very little to it). You make a strong point in the near-inevitable being humanist to some extend. I think it's very correct, and searching for the "exclusive humanism", as some others seem to do, is just another attempt to label and categorise, rather than to see the continuous flow and mutual influences of thoughts and ideas. Religions and philosophies do not exist in a vacuum, but categorising them does make it seem that way.</p>

<p>As for the mirror, though, I read conflicting information there: <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/98/10/5937.full">great apes and dolphins</a> would also be able. Even so, I doubt whether that undermines the understanding of the nature of an image, and that being a human exclusive feature. It might well be.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Alan, in regard to the OP spin-off subject of "RSM", which we will likely agree is a photographic example of a trivial pursuit in humanism (that is, what does it signify or mean?), I think either of my projections may be true (Either RSM-Inc. or RSM-London college, as both have international extensions, as suggested by the faded ring of flags around the centered acronym), or indeed, neither. I like "neither", and am happy to regard it, like many other visual observations in the humanist world, as indeterminant. That is where philosophy and photography are important to me, in an exploration of significance (or its opposite).</p>

[ben_singkol]

<p>I would have to say both. The philosophy of humanism plays a large role in what we deem appropriate and inappropriate in photography, but the past works also govern the same ideal. </p>

<p>One can argue that the communication aspect of photography dictates what we deem humanistic, but there is an underlying norm that governs our behavior. </p>

<p>It's kind of a chicken/egg type argument, but the fact is that our standards are in place and people are constantly pushing the envelope and redefining what we think. </p>

[jonathancharlesphoto]

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter Willemse</a></p>

<p>Thank you for the info about self recognition, and the link. It's not a subject I've looked into myself and I was just quoting the article. It's interesting that dolphins have the ability - I guess they see other dolphins reflected in the water surface but not themselves so it's quite surprising.</p>

[kristina_kraft]

<p>Nice topic, Art X.<br>

your question, does humanism govern our photography? I think it does. And I don't only refer to this following link, but also talking from my own experience of making portraits. Generally, all portraits belong to humanistic style of photography. Meaning that, it all depends on photographer's personality of being able to empathise with the sitter, and also on a degree of connecting with a sitter. <br>

Here is a link to children in humanistic photography: <br>

http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/news/LL/BL/9/903/ </p>

 

[ben_singkol]

<p>There is something very personal contained with every photograph taken. Whether it is the content itself or the manner in which the photograph is taken, humanism plays a large part. Like any art form, the personal connection between artist and content is accurately displayed.</p>

<p>Great post, and great insight into what makes us tick. Art is one of the purest forms of self expression and humanism is brilliantly captured within the vein of photography. </p>

[shicane_wilson]

<p>I would not say photography is governed by humanism. Photography is an art which in turn is basically a reference of the human life around it. Pictures of a human read a thousand words and a photograph captures the essence of life in that moment.I would say photography mirrors human life</p>