Dharma Art/Phototography

[anthony_r.1]

<blockquote>

<p>isn't being without desire going to rule out the desire to communicate through a photograph?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Buddhist view of desire is more accurately described as "craving". Healthy desires are good. Otherwise, how would you reconcile the Buddhist desire to become enlightened? Unhealthy desire is what is being referred to, the type of desire that causes you to become obsessed with things to the point of being reckless or unthinking.</p>

[dfperrault]

<p>I really appreciate eveyone's responses and opinions. I have only read C.. Trungpas book in the past year. I am not an expert in this school of thought. Also, I think this approach fairly common in traditional Eastern cultures e.g. Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and Tibetan. A friend of mine is a well established Japanese calligraphy artist and follows similar principles, as well as many of my friends who are Indian dance artists and musicians.<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Matt: </strong>I think C. Trungpa is referring to term self conscious as being insecure. Which can potentially be at odds with peacefulness etc.. If you define self conscious as self awareness of the connection with you , your camera, the subject/surroundings, and ultimately the audience, then this is what it is all about.<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Julie:</strong>Maybe instead of fly paper, think of a frog catching flies. The only way a frog can catch a fly and not get eaten is to have full awareness of the fly and surroundings. Another example is the Great Blue heron that appears to be passively standing but suddenly catches the fish. Both frog and heron are total engaged in the process.<br>

What C. Trungpa is talking about isn't passive at all, it is completely opposite, one is totally actively engaged, there is no mental boundary between the artist, camera, and the surroundings and ultimately the audience. Also if a photographer is not shooting automatic modes, he/she needs to be completely aware of the relationship between camera settings and subject. The camera needs to be part of the photographer<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Fred: </strong>I agree about the metal dialog/chatter. Also, agree that this not a secret sauce it is more and approach life. I certainly have lot of mental chatter in my mind, also, instead of trying to suppress it, I actually try to use my awareness of the chatter in a mental feedback loop throug breathing to help me focus and become more on the big picture of what I am doing. As a result, the background chatter does diminish, but inevitable comes back.<br /><br />One analogy I think of this is more like a great musician during a performance. A great musician has a panoramic awareness of what is happening and as a result is able to let his/her creativity flow into the performance. For example, Jazz and Indian music is predominately based on improvisation/spontaneity and being tuned into the present is esential, and takes a lifetime be able to do well. In a good performance there is no boundary between the musician, instrument, and audience.<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>HP</strong> - Logic has it uses but also it's limitations and failures (Godel incompleteness theorum) As an optical engineer and artist, logic only gets me so far, and often keeps me thinking inside of the box. When I have to come up with a new idea for a design or solve a problem that no one else has solved before, I have to tap into the creative non logic part of my brain and be aware of external resources to come up with a solution. As well as coming up with new ideas for photographs as well.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Don said, "... think of a frog catching flies. The only way a frog can catch a fly and not get eaten is to have full awareness of the fly and surroundings. Another example is the Great Blue heron that appears to be passively standing but suddenly catches the fish. Both frog and heron are total engaged in the process."</p>

<p>Is the frog or the heron doing the catching or being caught? Are not both transfixed? See Roy De Carava's* <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Sweet-Flypaper-Life-Decarava/dp/088258152X"><em>The Sweet Flypaper of Life</em></a> (do we "capture" life or does life "capture" us?)</p>

<p>[*one of the best photographers to ever grace this earth ... IMO]</p>

[h._p.]

<blockquote>

<p>Erudite clowns. I like that. Stirs an interesting image...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hadn't thought of that. Serendipity rules, unexpectedly.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Fred said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I happen to think way too much is made of "the moment."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ah Fred. The "moment" is all we have. The idea expressed in the OP of "first thought, best thought" reflects this. The moment is now. You can only take action in the now. Yes, you can think about the future and the past, but it is in the now that action takes place. The fact that cameras take a proverbial slice of the "now" makes it a perfect medium to for this kind of endeavor. I think that's why I am drawn to photography so much. I've done a lot of photography of events, and I see each photograph as a "moment" in a sort of cinematic continuum in the flow of the event. But, an image of a particular moment can capture a feeling, a mood, or a symbol of that event, or of some of the essence of the event. </p>

<p>BTW, Julie, De Carava is amazing. Thanks for sharing.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, I'd be severely depressed if I believed the moment was all I have. I don't understand what only taking action in the now has to do with the moment being ALL we have. Action is not the only thing I have. There's memory, desire, anticipation, history. Sure, I can only anticipate while I'm anticipating but without a sense of future, I couldn't anticipate. And I do anticipate . . . and remember . . . so I, at least, have MUCH MORE than the moment. If I look at a photo and see a story, or see light, or see a play of light and shadow, or see a person and their expression, it's MUCH MORE than a moment for me. It is a fullness. It is their past, their present, and often the possibilities which move into the future. Again, Steve, there's absolutely nothing wrong with your seeing your photos however they strike you and with you seeing a series as a series of moments. But that's you. I tend to experience my own series as a much greater whole than the sum of the moments. And I don't limit a photo to a moment. I think many photos capture and express much more than the moment of shooting. An the significance of many photos is much more in the visual than in the temporal realm. As for the quote, "first thought, best thought," as I said above it has much to recommend it and also falls short in many ways. It's a good reminder but it's not a Bible verse.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>The moment is not isolated. It has space coordinates and is linked to other moments before and after. I think of what Steve is saying as <em>the present,</em> and agree with Fred. We see what we are ready to see, what we are. In that sense, all our moments count. Yes, the moment(s) of exposure can be considered by itself, but it becomes a poor cousin to the interconnected moment, with a past and a potential future.</p>

[dfperrault]

<p><strong>Fred: </strong><br>

<strong> </strong>I agree with you about looking at the narrative visual and expressive element of a scene. These are high level ideas, which can only be observed when you cultivate a high level of awareness of what is happening around you.</p>

<p>I think C. Trunpas view is to cultivate that high level of awareness, and start with a panoramic view of what is happening around you, and that "the moment" is really a continuum, and everything is in someway interconnected. When you develop this view then you can start so see the relationships between the visual, narrative and expressive elements.</p>

<p>Personally when I do try to cultivate this awareness, I start to see connection between music, peoms in other works of art in my mind and their connection to the surrounding and incorporate that into my photographs. Without that awareness I may actually try to filter that connection out or may not see the connection at all. When I don't have this view, if I am caught up in thinking about the car the cut me off on the way to the shoot, or the fact that the light has sudden changed for the worse, then I miss out on all of those things you think are important. On the other hand I try not to over think and over analyze a scene or image I am trying to create.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I understand what Trunpas is saying, Don. Something I would add at this point, just by way of emphasis, and that you likely have also considered, is that "the car that cut [you] off on the way to the shoot" (or whatever particular "distraction" could occur) might be the photographic opportunity not to ignore. For me, the best kind of focus is the one that allows for the most peripheral vision and that allows me to see distractions as opportunities at times . . . an ever shifting focus, if you will.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Some of the back-and forth-here is overlapping with other posts! <br /> If there is any doubt: being <em>in the moment,</em> or <em>first thought</em>, as in a meditative state, and <em>instantaneity</em>, as in <em>decisive moment</em> , are two manifestations of anticipation -- being prepared to<em> catch</em> an instant and being prepared to catch a sort of ineffable circumstance.<br /> These two modalities are visibly different in the work of some photographers. There are those who prefer to record the flux of things, interacting over time in a creative state of mind. And those who don't need or want to <em>create</em> because they are prepared to accept creation (small <em>C</em>) as having already occurred. Not to say that either are photographic <em>types</em> -- there are shades of either one in all of us. A "Mirrors and Widows" approach only gets us in trouble.<br /> The inescapable fact about photographs is that they are ALL about time. We manage the dialog with our physical sense of it and what we want to believe about it in the way we make a picture. Artists have since the beginning of photography recognized this. The metaphysical need for this, already ancient dialog, was seen manifested in a machine. We were primed for its acceptance. Never mind that the photograph is a conditional reality -- more of a fraud than we were willing to concede. It seems as though pulling the photograph in and out some sort of continuoum is our sole preoccupation.</p>

[dfperrault]

<p><strong>Julie,</strong><br>

<em>(do we "capture" life or does life "capture" us?)</em><br>

Both, everything is life is somehow interconnected.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>The inescapable fact about photographs is that they are ALL about time.</em>>>></p>

<p>I must be Houdini, because I've escaped it, or it's escaped me. I must have been absent the day they taught it. Nevertheless, I appreciate the passion (seriously, I do) in your dogmatism. :-)</p>

<p><<<<em>Artists have since the beginning of photography recognized this.</em>>>></p>

<p>Well, that's convincing.</p>

[dfperrault]

<p>I really appreciate eveyone's responses and opinions. I have only read C.. Trungpas book in the past year. I am not an expert in this school of thought. Also, I think this approach fairly common in traditional Eastern cultures e.g. Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and Tibetan. A friend of mine is a well established Japanese calligraphy artist and follows similar principles, as well as many of my friends who are Indian dance artists and musicians.<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Matt: </strong>I think C. Trungpa is referring to term self conscious as being insecure. Which can potentially be at odds with peacefulness etc.. If you define self conscious as self awareness of the connection with you , your camera, the subject/surroundings, and ultimately the audience, then this is what it is all about.<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Julie:</strong>Maybe instead of fly paper, think of a frog catching flies. The only way a frog can catch a fly and not get eaten is to have full awareness of the fly and surroundings. Another example is the Great Blue heron that appears to be passively standing but suddenly catches the fish. Both frog and heron are total engaged in the process.<br>

What C. Trungpa is talking about isn't passive at all, it is completely opposite, one is totally actively engaged, there is no mental boundary between the artist, camera, and the surroundings and ultimately the audience. Also if a photographer is not shooting automatic modes, he/she needs to be completely aware of the relationship between camera settings and subject. The camera needs to be part of the photographer<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Fred: </strong>I agree about the metal dialog/chatter. Also, agree that this not a secret sauce it is more and approach life. I certainly have lot of mental chatter in my mind, also, instead of trying to suppress it, I actually try to use my awareness of the chatter in a mental feedback loop throug breathing to help me focus and become more on the big picture of what I am doing. As a result, the background chatter does diminish, but inevitable comes back.<br /><br />One analogy I think of this is more like a great musician during a performance. A great musician has a panoramic awareness of what is happening and as a result is able to let his/her creativity flow into the performance. For example, Jazz and Indian music is predominately based on improvisation/spontaneity and being tuned into the present is esential, and takes a lifetime be able to do well. In a good performance there is no boundary between the musician, instrument, and audience.<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>HP</strong> - Logic has it uses but also it's limitations and failures (Godel incompleteness theorum) As an optical engineer and artist, logic only gets me so far, and often keeps me thinking inside of the box. When I have to come up with a new idea for a design or solve a problem that no one else has solved before, I have to tap into the creative non logic part of my brain and be aware of external resources to come up with a solution. As well as coming up with new ideas for photographs as well.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I actually think one of the big mistakes of most photographers is being too focused on the moment and not focused enough on other aspects of photos... Getting over Bresson....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree. Frankly, I think Bresson might be misunderstood on the decisive moment (*). The way I interpret the decisive moment is that one moment where 'the visual, the narrative, the expressive' come together, the moment where the composition of the photo reaches its best achievable state for what the photographer wants to express. The decisive moment is connected to its before and after, and integral part of it.<br />Where Alan divides these things as "two manifestations of anticipation", I think they're actually one. Creating the moment versus catching the moment in a flux are all just different greys on a gradient scale. Think serendipity. Think waiting for a moment to happen. Staged shots have their spontaneity, spontaneous shots have their artificiality. It's not either/or.<br /> <br>

The decisive moment is not necessarily a moment of action. And it is not necessarily one moment, or a short moment. There might be more. It can be long. You can shoot multiple variations on a theme, and some of them so subtly different that you might well mistake them for being identical. So, we have so much more than a moment - even if it only takes a moment to actually do *click*.</p>

<p>I think it's easy to think we're capturing fleeting moments, because it gives a photo a certain uniqueness. Something that cannot be recreated again. But this disregards your preparation as a photographer, the thought you put into the framing, the exposure, your patience and your readiness.<br>

__________<br>

(*) The other option is that I just happen to disagree with Bresson, or have a different view on the matter. I should reread his own words, probably.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Fred "Getting over Bresson may be photography's long row to hoe much like getting over Descartes was (is) philosophy's."</p>

<p> Cartier-Bresson's direct descendants evolved out of his decisive moment into other types of moments back in the 60's. His many followers still practice it. Few are aware of HCB's path into Buddhism, his politics and influences. In my opinion, "getting over" HCB is best done via immersion, by gaining an understanding of his life and times.</p>

<p>We are lucky to have a 300+ print HCB retrospective show at a museum here. I have been several times, and still learning a lot every time. They have a few films about him, and that he worked on, too.<br>

______________________________________________________________________</p>

<p>To Don Perrault: In spite of how the author got it wrong in many ways, you should read a thin little book by Eugene Herrigel called <em>Zen in The Art of Archery, </em>which was very influential with artists, and HCB in particular. It peripherally has to do with what you are interested in.</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Archery-Eugen-Herrigel/dp/0375705090</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Can't disagree with you, Luis. Getting over Descartes has required a thorough understanding of him and doesn't convey any disrespect to his contribution to Philosophy. Same with Bresson and what may be, as Wouter pointed out, a mistaken attribution to him by many of the importance of the element of time with respect to the moment and the importance of the moment to the exclusion of other qualities of photos.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>BTW, I don't know if it's the same <a href="http://www.sfmoma.org/exhib_events/exhibitions/409">show that was in San Francisco</a> a couple of years ago, but I was very happy to be able to see his prints in person, many for the first time. I learned a lot and could certainly appreciate much of what I saw and, from the stuff I've read over the years, I have a profound respect for what he did, how he worked, and what he gave to the photographic world. His photos, for me, and especially as a body of work, left something to be desired. I simply wasn't that moved and that's not necessarily to take anything away from Bresson. I found the show a bit orderly.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>This is the show we have here, and from the museum's own blurb, this is apparently the only venue it has been shown in in the US.</p>

<p>http://www.tampamuseum.org/exhibitions/man-image-world</p>

<p>I am familiar with HCB's history, prints and oeuvre, but I am loving this show. Unlike many retrospectives, he was alive for this one, and had a hand in curating it. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'm fairly certain I'm less familiar with HCB's history, prints, and oeuvre and have still formed an opinion of his work and some of the reactions I hear to his statements, but remain open to changing that opinion or to that opinion changing, as has so often happened for me over the years with photos, photographers, and art.</p>

[dfperrault]

<p>Luis<br>

Thanks for the Zen archery link,</p>

<p>I am interested to know how you came to the conclusion that the author got it all wrong in so many ways if you haven't read his book? Especially since his teaching methods emphasizes that the individuals should believe in his teachings only after they have successfully attempted to put them into practice, also whatever conclusions one has reached is somewhat subjective to one's point of view. I can see that these methods aren't for everyone.<br>

<br />These methods seem to work out quite well for me, some I have been practicing some aspects for a long time other aspects are new me, and require that rethink my approach to life. They also it seem to work out for the artists at the Miksang and Narpopa institutes... as well as for artists like Joni Mitchell, and Allen Ginsburg who were some of his students.<br>

<br />I think one of the main issues, is that I tried to summarize a book in a few bullet points to start a discussion. For those interested, I would be happy to take questions and reread his sections of his book to give more in depth responses.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Don: "I am interested to know how you came to the conclusion that the author got it all wrong in so many ways if you haven't read his book? Especially since his teaching methods emphasizes that the individuals should believe in his teachings only after they have successfully attempted to put them into practice, also whatever conclusions one has reached is somewhat subjective to one's point of view. I can see that these methods aren't for everyone."</p>

<p>You misunderstand and/or I did not make things clear enough. I mentioned this historical controversy because in this forum someone was bound to bring this forward and ridicule the entire idea, so I did it preemptively. Herrigel's Master Kenzo, whose name was not revealed in the book, was not a teacher nor practicing Zen Buddhist. This came out after the book was a success. However, his teachings, called the Daishakyodo, are first, valid in their own right, and close enough to Buddhism that no less than D.T. Suzuki endorsed his teachings as Zen, though years later he appeared to have doubts. You are also mistaken in thinking I have not read the book. I received my first copy from my archery instructor in 1964, and learned much from it, things that have proven valuable and useful through a lifetime. I have given away several copies during the years, and will be ordering another soon. It was very well received in the art world, influencing many besides HCB when first published. Once you become familiar with Herrigel (and you should read both books) you will see a lot of his philosophy in HCB's own writings. </p>

<p>HCB had a wildly varied set of philosophical underpinnings.</p>

[dfperrault]

<p>Luis<br>

I apoligize. I misunderstood, I thought that you were referring to Chogyam Trungpa's book. I look forward to reading both books you recommended. Thanks.<br>

Don</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Fred:<br>

I hate to belabor this point, but I think you are reading way too much into my statement “the moment is all we have.” I just meant to state the obvious. For instance, if you enjoy eating steak you can recall eating a steak and there is a certain amount of pleasure in that, and you can also imagine eating a steak in the future and enjoy some anticipation, and so forth. But, that moment when you actually bite into a steak is a far different experience: it is the actual moment of the action. There is no comparison. Now, you do bring into any moment the recall of the past memories and emotions, negative or positive which certainly influence how you experience the moment. I don’t think experience exists in a vacuum. I’m not in any way implying that I photograph things with no awareness of the past and the future. I also agree that the experience of looking at a photograph stimulates many things. But, when I press the shutter when everything is coming together in the viewfinder, I have that moment only, like biting into the steak, its not a memory or a fantasy. The act of bringing that act into fruition by working on the post production aspects and making a final print is a separate act of creating which allows me to share the original moment with others and to re-enjoy it myself. The beauty of art is that you can then re-taste that steak over and over again. These are “new” moments though, and not merely recalling something from memory. </p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>Well, Trungpa was a bit of a maverick, and only provisionally Buddhist. He was also a bit of an alcoholic idiot, and you have to wonder if he harmed more people than he helped w/ his "Crazy Wisdom" notions. Before I got onto the Zen path I ran w/ some of the Trungpa folks in Portland at the Shambhala Institute. The meditation sits were fine, but there was no more dharma (truth) there than anywhere else. Dharma is simply that which is, w/o our mind's projections of our past experiences, or our future hopes and fears. It's simple reality, and the enlightened mind is ordinary mind. But of course we need to wake up from our chaotic, undisciplined, incessant internal musings in order to experience ordinary reality, which is the function of meditation.</p>

<p>Someone's usually trying to make a buck off this sort of thing, or sell you a book or course.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, you're not belaboring a point. It's an interesting discussion. I appreciate it.</p>

<p><<<<em>But, that moment when you actually bite into a steak is a far different experience: it is the actual moment of the action. There is no comparison.</em>>>></p>

<p>Ahh, but there is a comparison. That's my point. The moment happened when you clicked the shutter. But the photo IS NOT that moment. I look at the photo and experience it in a DIFFERENT MOMENT. So it transcends that original moment in a very real and significant way. A photo is much more than the memory of a moment (though it can certainly be that to some, and even to a great, extent).</p>

<p>We probably differ in our approach somewhat and that's a good thing. For me, a photo is not bringing the act of pressing the shutter to fruition. It is creating something new, something that relied on and stemmed from the pushing of the shutter but that is not defined by or limited by that act. I am not necessarily attempting to share an original moment with a viewer. I am sharing a photo with them, something that doesn't necessarily represent that original moment for me at all.</p>