The role of desire in photography?

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Another word came up in my mind today that could be interesting in this context: curiosity.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>there can be desire for the ethereal</em>>>><br /> <br /> Sure.<br /> <br /> We may be going back and forth a little between the desire itself, the feeling of the desire, its cause on the one hand, and the desire <em>for</em> something on the other hand.<br /> <br /> In using sexuality, I was not necessarily talking about what the desire was <em>for</em> or what the photo was <em>about</em> but rather what the desire felt like. The desire can emanate from a physical source, whatever it is my camera is pointed at, and yet it can move toward that ethereal you're talking about.</p>

<p><br /> A photo can pass through to the ethereal, be spiritual in nature, transcend the physical subject matter that was before the lens . . . or not. In my own experience, it's through being in touch with what I'm photographing, being intimate with it, establishing a connection (which is sometimes done in a very fleeting and barely noticeable moment) that something ethereal (I might prefer <em>intangible</em>), imaginative, spiritual, or transcendent can ensue. <br /> <br /> _____________________________<br /> <br /> Does curiosity have the <em>passion</em> of desire? For me, no. But I could see how it might for others.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Curiosity doesn't quite have the burning passion, true. But as with anything, there are degrees - I just offered the thought as maybe it could lead to an aspect that might well be a driving force behind their photography for quite a lot of people. It wasn't a very "organised" thought yet, though.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>I just offered the thought as maybe it could lead to an aspect that might well be a driving force behind their photography for quite a lot of people.</em>><em>>></em></p>

<p>Yes. I think there are many motivations for photographers. Curiosity and exploration seem to have something in common in that there's a sense of the unknown at play.</p>

<p>Interestingly, while the motivation to photograph for some might be curiosity, that might also be just what a photo stimulates for many viewers.</p>

<p>Also, I think almost the opposite of curiosity can be at play, motivationally speaking. A lot of photos seem to be taken to preserve a memory or as a sort of confirmation . . . I was there . . . This happened. Of course, there may be elements of curiosity at play even with these motivations as well. And doubly of course, there are many, many other motivations for people to make photos.</p>

<p>I am thinking there's a categorical difference between desire on the one hand and curiosity, exploration, or memory on the other. I could be romanticizing or mythologizing and would have to think about it more. If anyone has any thoughts to help me along on why or whether desire stands out, please help.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>So, what your folks are saying, healthy egotism is o'kay and compassion we don't have to bother? Can this be true?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Wouter, if you can stand a little bit of poetry, these bits (I'll try to keep it to a minimum) show what I think is the difference between (artistic) desire and curiosity. This is the beginning and ending of Mark Strand's poem, <em>The Idea</em>:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For us, too, there was a wish to possess<br>

Something beyond the world we knew, beyond ourselves,<br>

Beyond our power to imagine, something nevertheless<br>

In which we might see ourselves; and this desire<br>

Came always in passing, in waning light, and in such cold<br>

[ ... ]<br>

And we stood before it, amazed at its being there,<br>

And would have gone forward and opened the door,<br>

And stepped into the glow and warmed ourselves there,<br>

But that it was ours by not being ours,<br>

And should remain empty. That was the idea.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The "ours by not being ours" seems to me to go to desire; where I think curiosity would be about opening that door, would be the hope of making it "ours."</p>

<p>[in the middle of the poem, Strand writes, "And never once did we feel we were close / Until the night wind said, 'Why do this, / Especially now? Go back to the place you belong';" -- which is when they see a warm cabin of the poem's ending.]</p>

<p>Ilia, it seems to me (if you also can tolerate poetry) that compassion would be *from* those inside the warm house looking out at those souls possesssed by desire -- not vice versa. What do you think?</p>

 

[iliafarniev]

<p>Julie. Thanks. I can tolerate poetry very well, even to the point I often enjoy it to great extent.</p>

<p>Well. I kind of expected, most of folks were not going to hump on compassion like crazy, but hey - that's what poets are for ...</p>

<p>Thing is, this thread really need to shift the sylabic balance towards wider opening. As a first and coarse prompt these may be concidered: empathy, will, wish, need, talent, urge, destiny, faith, law of nature.</p>

<p>And, yes. It's Christmas time.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ilia, if you want to shift the thread, I'm sure many of us are open to it. Instead of telling US to do it, why don't YOU do it. Perhaps it would require a bit more than your simply throwing out words here and there, with no context or description of what they have to do with the topic of desire. Form an idea of what you're thinking and talk about it. Then you've substantively moved the direction of the thread and I'm sure will add to it. But throwing out a few generic words that you'd like US to discuss is not likely to accomplish much.</p>

<p>You've mentioned the word compassion several times now without once saying what you think it has to do with desire or with photography. Does it play a role in your photography? It certainly does in mine, but I don't relate it to desire which is the topic of this thread. So I'd probably be more inclined to start another thread about the role of compassion in photography. But if you think it's relevant to desire or to this thread, please make the connection. If you were to actually talk about compassion in terms of photography and/or desire, you might stimulate some interest in it here. </p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>Fred. Many thanks for your kind suggestions. Without going too geopolitical on your prefered capitalizing, have to say: word desire does have synonims and synonims do differ in etymology. I you wish to costrict this thread to "desire" line singular, I will have no problem with it but IMO such a singularity will limit the value, perhaps mislead the thread altogether.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ilia, I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I was not suggesting we restrict the thread at all. I was suggesting you talk about compassion, since you've brought the word up several times. I was hoping you could expand the thread by actually discussing compassion rather than telling US to do so. We may then follow your lead.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I find myself drifting in and out of this topic, perhaps an indication of a personal lack of desire? In any case, I see the word desire and the feeling of desire as accomplishing the role of a verb in a thought or sentence. Desire is directed to other things or stimulated by them or thoughts of them. So Wouter's example of curiosity is perfectly good and I can imagine it being either weak of very strong depending upon the desirer (or the desired). At the height of an exploration of how some specific chemistry affected a reaction under study I can remember the curiosity being so strong that I slept over in the lab to be able to return to the study as soon as I woke, had dressed and had downed a morning coffee. That level of curiosity can also engage other humans, as it is when you meet someone who fascinates you (humanly, sexually, intellectually, whatever) and you cannot wait to satiate your curiosity further. Same for a subject matter briefly seen and projected for a second visit and image-making.</p>

<p>Perhaps my sense of altruism and sensitivity to others may not be as high as for others, but I can understand desire driving or being driven by compassion for others, as I think Ilia is referring to. Desire is a function of what is important for each of us and it can manifest itself in many ways, some of which haven't been referred to in this discussion. The object of, or subject of, desire is I believe less important in many cases than the intensity with which desire moves us, and, in relation to photography, how we apply it, sense it and/or are affected by it.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The desire can emanate from a physical source, whatever it is my camera is pointed at, and yet it can move toward that ethereal you're talking about.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The statement needs extension. I am sure that Fred did not ignore the mental source of desire as well, as ethereal is but one small part of that mentally induced imagined desire, which doesn't even need to be sourced in some physical subject matter in front of our lens.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>The statement needs extension. I am sure that Fred did not ignore the mental source of desire as well, as ethereal is but one small part of that mentally induced imagined desire, which doesn't even need to be sourced in some physical subject matter in front of our lens.</em>>>></p>

<p>Arthur, I was talking about my own process only, and not speaking for any other photographer or all other photographers. As a matter of fact, in that moment I <em>was</em> ignoring the mental source of desire. I was talking about a desire which comes specifically from who or what I am pointing my camera at. I understand that this is somewhat limited in scope and perhaps even more concrete than it needs to be, but I was and am purposely avoiding the abstract. For me, and for me only, Philosophy has a level of abstraction that photography does not, or at least that I don't want out of photography. I want that contact, that very physical contact, with my subjects and that's where my desire seems both to point and to emanate from. Photography can very concretely deal with things that Philosophy was not able to do for me. Its sensual (and that is more physical to me than idea oriented) nature is what led me to it and preoccupies me about it. I have actually longed for that in my life and am finding it through my photographing and photographs. It's precisely, for me and at least for right now, not an idea from which my desire emanates. It's from my connection to the person or thing I'm photographing. Now, of course, I can't and wouldn't want to completely separate the idea of this thing from the physicality of it. They both co-exist and may not even be all that different. But, yes, again, I did mean to shortchange the mentally-induced desire in favor of emphasizing the desire induced by my subject, as you say, the very "physical subject matter in front of our lens." Well, not OUR lens. MY lens.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ilia, I did not jump on compassion because to me, it doesn't connect (yet!) to the way I experience desire. I find them different things. To me, desire has something egoistic. Not in a simple, singular "me me me me" way, but in a way where the desire is really about what I want. Now, that does not exclude compassion, but it also does not include it. It lives side by side, and part of being a human being is balancing between them.</p>

<p>Julie, poetry is usually fine with me, and I think you choose this one well as it seems very fitting in this thread. I see what you mean with "<em>The "ours by not being ours" seems to me to go to desire; where I think curiosity would be about opening that door, would be the hope of making it "ours.</em>" - and I can fully understand making the distinction. But personally, I don't. The way I read your words (do correct me if I'm wrong): The ours-by-not-being-ours is inherently strange, un-me, outside. It seems to conclude to me that desires should not be fulfilled, as this would alienate me from myself.<br>

For me, desires aren't that outside of me. They can be big doors to open, or incredibly small; they can cause change or just give me a new toy to play with. But they're not some sort of discontinuum between me-before and me-after. They're an integral part of me, and some will be fullfilled, some partially, some never. Some make beautiful dreams, some make torment. None of them is really devoid of emotion.</p>

<p>Arthur, thanks for picking up on curiosity, and how it can connect to others. Fully agree with that. But in my previous post, and in the above reply to Julie, I keep on finding one major difference between a desire and curiosity. One is an emotionally-driven unguided missile. The other is an intellectual want - it can come from a desire, but it is the tamed and guided version. <em>Sensual</em> (to quote Fred), versus the reasoned, is a critical difference here.<br>

This might seem to downplay curiosity, and to be clear: no, curiosity is a value I much appreciate. I think most of my photos come out of a sense of curiosity, rather than desire. I love learning, I love diving into some subject to gain insight - curiosity drives a lot. But curiosity typically makes me <em>know</em> things; it's a key to physics, mathematics, computer programming and such things. Desire makes me <em>understand </em>- it's the key to philosophy, poetry, art.</p>

<p>P.S. Yes, a little exaggeration, the difference is more subtle than this.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Wouter, you say, "It seems to conclude to me that desires should not be fulfilled " Yes, that's half way to what I'm thinking about (and I understand what you've described; this is simply another path ...). What I am thinking of is desire as an experience in and of itself; to be "in" that condition and to explore it for its own sake.</p>

<p>Think of Odysseus lashed to the mast as he sailed past the Sirens, begging, screaming to his men to let him go ... He wanted to <em>experience</em> desire. Was that curiosity? Just to have the <em>feeling</em> of wanting to lose himself?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Julie, I always figured Odysseus to be curious there; a desire to experience the Sirens, who would invoke a desire - but that desire wasn't Odysseus' <em>own</em> desire. Apparently, it was a generic accepted effect that Sirens have, in those days. Nowadays, sirens makes me want to pull over the car to let the ambulance pass. There, a bit of compassion ;-)</p>

<p>But true, it's different paths, and certainly interpreting Homer is a thing of many paths. As said, I can understand what you say, I just experience it different.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>One is an emotionally-driven unguided missile. The other is an intellectual want - it can come from a desire, but it is the tamed and guided version. Sensual(to quote Fred), versus the reasoned, is a critical difference here.</em>>>></p>

<p>Wouter, I relate well to this.</p>

<p>I think it was Thomas Hobbes who said, "Curiosity is a lust of the mind." Now, please forgive me for this, but maybe desire is a lust of the soul -- or at least the senses -- or some combination of the soul and senses.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Asking someone if they can "tolerate" poetry seems condescending. <br>

__________________________________________</p>

<p>I think I understand Ilia regarding what he has said about desire and perhaps about compassion. SSFM (Speaking Strictly For Myself), desire, although present, is not the biggest thing going on between me and the photograph, or what I photograph. </p>

<p>There is curiosity, and no, no closed doors, nor the desire to possess or acquire per se, but more to interact with, experience, or know in the sense of gnosis, the Platonic gnostikos, which to me includes both the abstract and the concrete. </p>

<p>Everyone else's mileage will vary, I know.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>desire, although present, is not the biggest thing going on between me and the photograph, or what I photograph.</em>>>></p>

<p>Luis, agreed. I hope no one thinks that because I start a thread on desire, I think it's the biggest thing going on for me or anyone else.</p>

<p>What is your understanding about compassion here? I'm being honest when I say I don't know what Ilia's getting at.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>I did not think desire was ranked at the top by anyone, but just wanted to make clear that it isn't for me. <br>

___________________</p>

<p>Compassion, from the Greek meaning "to suffer (or bear) with". It is close to, but not identical to something we've discussed here before. Empathy is kind of a subset of compassion. The effect of all this is to identify with whatever we imagine the subject is experiencing, narrowing the distance between us and the Other. This collapses a lot of barriers and safeguards we put between ourselves and other people. I am not implying that this only applies to documentary, portrait or other figurative photography, but landscape, still-life, abstracts, etc.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Though I think true compassion is a gift, the skeptical side of me is concerned with its sense of bearing with suffering, or feeling sorry for or about. As relates to photos, for example, I tend to relate to photos that are empathetic vs. compassionate. There are many compassionate photos, for example, of homeless people, that turn me off, precisely because of the distance they create between the one receiving and the one providing the compassion. Often, they wind up exaggerating and even caricaturing the "feeling sorry for" aspect and at worst can wind up (if even unintentionally) exploiting their subjects or at least be laden with false or superficial pathos.</p>

<p>I wonder if Arbus is an example where people expected and may have wanted her to adopt a more "compassionate" view toward her subjects, and she was having none of that. She was roundly criticized and I think a perceived lack of compassion on her part was part of the reason for that criticism. I see empathy in her work, not much compassion, and I'm fine with that. Compassion is often what many think they are supposed to offer when empathy would suffice. Compassion is often NOT appropriate and misapplied, more to gratify the desires of the giver than being of benefit to the receiver. Often the receiver of compassion doesn't need or want it. They'd prefer simply to be seen, heard, recognized, or acknowledged. Some very powerful photos look directly at and don't involve that layer of compassion which can often go awry, IMO.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Compassion is directed toward something we're glad we don't have. Desire? I think not.</p>

<p>Luis says, "I did not think desire was ranked at the top by anyone ..." How about Nachtwey's Romanian orphanage pictures? Salgado's workers? " ... to appeal, to alert, to upset, to cry out." [from Natchtewy's <em>Inferno</em>] </p>

<p>My feeling is that what Ilia is after is what happens because of compassion. Revenge is possibly the most powerful desire of all. Compassion can motivate revenge.</p>

<p>"And you, my father, there on the sad height," is compassion for a dying man.</p>

<p>"Rage, rage against the dying of the light." is the desire to "cry out"; to venge or revenge (however impossible the outcome may seem).</p>

<p>Nachtwey's work is described as a "moral mission" and *that* is driven by a burning desire.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>The reason I became interested in this thread was it seemed at the time offering an intriguing possibility to investigate the true motive of our photographic and, by extention, creative endevours in relativelly close circuit of dedicated practitioners who are prepared to look deeper without fear and trimbling of denial. The original offer of 'desire' as a start point seemed relevant but functionaly limited because of lacking in deffinitiveness. Yet, there is a rigid structure in the language we use, as we know it, and as instrument of logical construction has to be conformed. Consider, for instance, words: 'desire' and 'wish'. The former, in my understanding is usually used to signify physical or psycho-physiological and rather well determined emotion which can be persuated and rationally fulfilled. It can also be a source of emotional exsess, even to an unhealfy degree. Close synonym would be 'ambition'. The later, 'wish' is more ambient and has to do with fantasy, imagination and may imply creative action of passive kind. Then 'will' is of certainty, structure and action.</p>

<p>All three IMO do not describe the nature of original impuls which makes us to do what we actually do in the field of creative photography as we / each know from personal experience which, in turn is of a same nature, IMO.</p>

<p>So, my intention here is to frame this nature in words and therms of language, exposing it in clear and logical way. Say, I am trying to craft a complex syllogism which can lead us to meaningful and acceptable conclusion or, at least, an extended metaphor which might help somebody to arrive to a greater personal understanding in the matter.</p>

<p>How about that?</p>

<p>Well. What's up with 'compassion' / 'passion', then? Assuming, logically, we actually do share our creative work with basically anyone who cares to look at it here on PN or elsewhere, I think, it can be presumed that at least one part of mentioned creative nature (CN) is the compassion - in essense, we are trying to share aesthetic emotion apparently with people whom we personaly do not know, never met and most likely are never going to meet in person. In this case there's a strong irrational aspect on the plate.</p>

<p>Why 'desire' seem to be too simple. The original question Fred has posted can be correctly answered in trivial way without running a chance of discovery of any phylosophical truth.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Julie: "Luis says, "I did not think desire was ranked at the top by anyone ..." How about Nachtwey's Romanian orphanage pictures? Salgado's workers? " ... to appeal, to alert, to upset, to cry out." [from Natchtewy's <em>Inferno</em>]"</p>

<p>Please...I thought it was obvious from the prior post from Fred that I meant anyone <em>in this discussion/thread up to that time.</em> <br>

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

<p>Fred, the example of homeless photography and compassion doesn't work for me because I very, very rarely see what I would call a compassionate picture(s) of the homeless, although I see zillions <em>claiming</em> to fit under that rubric. Empathy has a similar, perhaps greater emotional connection, but is passive, maybe less judgmental, and more attentive, which has a deep connectivity with many things, including photography. There is some crossover between the two, or they can alternate in some people, which makes it complicated.</p>

<p>Although I did not know Arbus personally, I knew a photographer who worked with her during her time at Esquire, when many of her best work was produced (not all for the magazine). From the prints he owned, those I've seen in museums, and the many conversations we had about her, I think Arbus experienced compassion and empathy towards her subjects and humanity in general. Her formal objectivity ( derived from the Neue Sachlichkeit) and prophetic (for the time) non-conformity in manipulating subjects in the service of her vision made it difficult for many (I do not mean Fred in this) to appreciate the depth of her work.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>The original question Fred has posted can be correctly answered in trivial way</em>>>></p>

<p>It certainly can. Most questions can be responded to trivially. Thankfully, in most cases in this thread, I found little to be trivial. I found it an engaging thread.</p>

<p><<<<em>All three IMO do not describe the nature of original impuls which makes us to do what we actually do in the field of creative photography</em>>>></p>

<p>You speak as if the original impulse that drives all of us is or should be the same. That makes no sense to me. Why are you speaking in terms of "us" rather than in terms of "I"?</p>

<p><<<<em>I am trying to craft a complex syllogism which can lead us to meaningful and acceptable conclusion or, at least, an extended metaphor which might help somebody to arrive to a greater personal understanding in the matter.</em><br>

<em>How about that?</em>>>></p>

<p>That's fine. You have been no more clear, meaningful, or enlightening than anyone else in this thread. Your input is as appreciated as all who have contributed.</p>

<p><<<<em>we actually do share our creative work with basically anyone who cares to look at it here on PN or elsewhere, I think, it can be presumed that at least one part of mentioned creative nature (CN) is the compassion</em>>>></p>

<p>I don't agree. While there may be compassion at play in some of my sharing (certainly I think there is some compassion at play in my own work at times), I don't experience much compassion in terms of sharing photos on PN. I do it to share. Sharing is not necessarily done out of compassion and doesn't necessarily pertain to compassion. For me, it's about expression, sharing, communication, exchange, connection. I don't see compassion at play all that often. If I experience compassion, it's much more experienced in terms of my relationship with my subjects than my relationship with viewers on PN. I'm not saying there is none at all here, by any means. I'm just saying much of the sharing of photos I do here has little to do with compassion.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ilia,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The original question Fred has posted can be correctly answered in trivial way without running a chance of discovery of any phylosophical truth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True.<br /> But so can the outcome of "<em>an intriguing possibility to investigate the true motive of our photographic and, by extention, creative endevours in relativelly close circuit of dedicated practitioners who are prepared to look deeper without fear and trimbling of denial</em>" be very trivial - or (more likely in my view) become too big, and hence all answers start to collapse under their own weight.<br /> Fred's OP is digging into one aspect out of many that can drive us in our photography and possibly other creative expressions. There have been many threads, including one on empathy that revealed a lot of interesting revelations. They might have a limited scope, but that allows a better focus on the subject too.<br /> My first questions to your suggested topic, Ilia, would be:</p>

<ul>

<li>is there a true motive, or are there several? Is there a single 'force' driving me in my photography?</li>

<li>do they contain a philosophical truth, or do they contain many of those? (and that is carefully sidestepping the actual question, what is truth anyway)</li>

</ul>

<p>And I think we'd be at 7 pages of writing before even coming close to an answer on that. I am not trying to ridicule what you're suggesting to look at, but I am having serious doubts about how doable it is, how likely it is we find some common ground to move a discussion forward.<br /> It's in this light of sheer practicality that threads like this one are valuable. The question you ask (the 'big motive') is in the back of my mind, but the limited scope makes it easier to formulate thoughts, shape ideas and move ideas forward.It gives insight, without boggling the mind - slowly zooming in on the big topic lurking behind it.<br /> In short, I think where we might disagree is whether bigger questions will lead to bigger answers. I doubt so.</p>