The Riddle of the Sphinx.

[alan_zinn]

<p>Before photography, educated persons commonly knew how to write neat cursive and make descriptive , if not <em>artistic</em> sketches. The expression, <em>take</em> a picture preceded the camera. Well-off travelers even employed sketch artists to accompany them on tours to take pictures. <br /> Why do we impulsively, and for sure <em>increasingly</em>, <strong>collect what we see? </strong> Is it an instinctive urge? It is not a stretch of the imagination to suppose that our need to record and collect what we see is important to our survival and really is instinctive. Comes around to the question again of essentialism and art.<br /> I was at the MFA this week to see the Mario Testino photographs show that closes Sun.. All I can say about that is I knew I would hate it and did. The only help for me after that was to rush to an ER. (Egyptian Room) and find something really old to gaze in wonder at. <br /> There is a small bowl that caught my eye first. It would stand out in a contemporary boutique, it was so fresh and modern looking. I have a bowl like it made with the same materials, craft and perfection. Could have come out of the same shop. My bowl is, of course, derivative of that classic genre. But we are looking <em>back</em> in time. Why is this ancient Egyptian bowl so pleasing and so familiar an aesthetic expression to our modern sensibilities if it is not essentially and unarguably <em>correct</em> ? I find ancient objects of this <em>perfect</em> nature in museums all the time. Some going back to the Paleolithic. <br /> Getting back to collecting and photography<strong>. Is collecting an instinctive </strong>(as in <em>genetic</em>) <strong>human trait ?</strong> If so, why do we <em>need </em>to do it? I have a theory and it pertains to aforementioned instinctive aesthetic essentials, what's yours?</p><div></div>

[alan_zinn]

<p>The bowl. My photo.</p><div></div>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I'm not so sure on your premise...</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Is collecting an instinctive </strong>(as in <em>genetic</em>) <strong>human trait ?</strong> If so, why do we <em>need </em>to do it? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bowls might be needed to eat, store things, the museum just chose a pretty one among the plain ones. Most people take photos for memory sake, not just to collect. I used to collect things for various reasons, but never just for collecting sake...</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I'm screaming through the tunnel of life and we all know how this has to end ... so I stick out my hands (or visually, my camera) and grab hold of whatever goes whizzing by while screaming NOOOOO !!! or rather YESSSSSS!!! or maybe SLOW DOWN!! or GO BACK, JUST FOR A MINUTE!!! or whatever goes best with trying to hold onto life however and in whatever form I can (see the mummies still holding on ...)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<Why do we impulsively, and for sure <em>increasingly</em>, <strong>collect what we see?</strong>>>></p>

<p>I find myself doing it less and less the more my photographic drive becomes about other things than collection and preservation of memories. My friends, when I'm around with my camera, are often nudging me, asking, "don't you want to take a picture of that?" My answer is often, "No." It's led to some good exchanges . . . We may be back to the "capture" discussion.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Could collecting anything (like pictures) be instinctive or just a habit? Or just 'cause you can?<br /> Feed your inner insect. :-)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Alan, how would collecting images of things we saw be important to our survival? In which way is that about essentialism and art? How does an Egyptian bowl reflect on that? I'm sorry, you're raising a lot of questions in your OP that do not seem to connect to your actual question. Maybe it would help if you would give us your theory, as it could possibly make a good starting point to discuss and might help making your first posting into something more cohesive.<br>

___</p>

<p>In short, whether it's all about collecting, I doubt. I find through photography I sharpen senses and find a sort of self-reflection and a form of enjoying the world around me, that doesn't seem to happen in the same way without. Most of my photos aren't memories-to-be, or collecting moments. They're made to be photos.<br>

But I fully know that my reasons for liking photography and shooting photos are not everybody elses. I haven't formulated any theories myself, but I tend to stay away from these 'humanly embedded'/"genetic" reasons. They're generalising wide sweeping statements, and frankly I find such explanations frequently to be smoke and mirrors to avoid looking into cultural and social processes that shape us.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think there's a reason why museum collections are generally more interesting than photos of museum collections. The museum is a place where a collection comes to be appreciated in a certain way. I don't think a photo of a piece in a museum often quite grasps the vitality of what the museum experience has to offer, and the photo often doesn't achieve its own kind of vitality either. Many "collection" photos lack such a vitality and are therefore more about deadened memories than memories that seem alive. Most museum objects are part of collections which have been curated, with a rationale and a vision. A photo that is made with some rationale and/or vision is usually more evocative than one that is made merely to collect stuff, though if collection is the only goal that's good enough for the collector if not of much interest to the viewer. </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>We are social beings. "Collecting" images can be for the purpose of sharing and connecting with others. I think facebook makes this obvious. I collect an image in order to re-experience it again at a later time, and to share with others.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>The question stems from my thought that we collect <em>every</em> picture to show someone where we were and what we saw. You may say that you don't . Then who's going to look at it? That's not the point. The point is where does the collecting impulse come from? Is it genetic or what? The old bowl may be an example of the seemingly built-in aesthetic sense derived from natural selection. We frequently mull over whether art has essential qualities. It has been suggest before that it has and I'm making a connection between that and collecting things such as images. MY answer to my question is "maybe".</p>

<p>I think keeping note of location is essential, going back as far as you want -- ant and bee behavior being the most familiar. It is there in our genome -- we're all descended from nematodes. Hominid hunter gatherers no doubt made records, if not graphic ones, they were, like ants and bees, able to pass on recollected sensory information. I am guessing that more refinement of whatever mode of expression followed. Those with more skill at understanding and communicating were selected out. </p>

<p>Clarity of expression would be an <em>iffy</em> part of the natural selection process. Why do sophisticated naturalistic forms appear so early? We've only got 30-40,000 years to think about! -- a short span for natural selection to happen. </p>

<p>Natural forms in two dimensions, while abstract, are the simplest to visualize. The key word is simplicity. Dimensional stuff could imitate in contour or symmetry the more economical forms. Economy of form rather than complexity is most often a selected trait. Is that’s why gazelles look <em>beautiful</em> to us? Their abstracted graphic form most vividly resembles their shape and motion. Do we inherit that appreciation in order to succeed at … …what? </p>

<p>Does joy and excitement at the prospect of food give us a better chance of passing on our genome? The answer may be that once the most basic element of form was understood culture took hold and, ever after, all was subject to either refinement, additive, or degenerative influence. Natural selection with regard to aesthetic essentialism no longer matters and <em>yet</em> is in our behavior.<br>

Does it matter that art that <em>throws out all the rules</em> will not, could not, be as satisfying as something that follows some <em>built-in </em>formalism? We can assume there is more to art than serving the cultural needs of the times. Otherwise, why is some art lastingly affecting?</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I think collecting images does come from genetic wiring. It doesn't have to stem from finding food either. Rather, as I mentioned above, collecting and sharing increases social interaction and group cohesion. We survive as a species because we work together as a group. I also think there is a "built in formalism" that is genetic too, even if modern art "throws out all the rules." The visual world has always had its constants that our brains are wired to respond to, such as the horizon, and sunsets, etc. We also have a strong response to facial expressions in other people. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>The question stems from my thought that we collect every picture to show someone where we were and what we saw. You may say that you don't . Then who's going to look at it?</em>>>></p>

<p>Someone may want to see not where I was and what I saw but what I created. Also, what THEY can see in the photo.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>Can be nothing but a simple habit.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>I doubt there is a single reason for the creation/collection of images. Photography's (and the other means of visual depiction) role as a mnemonic fetish is perhaps its primary reason for existence. Long before its invention, people were plastering over skulls and placing them on niches in their living or ceremonial spaces. Using notches on bone to annotate lunar/calendrical cycles, etc.</p>

<p>I do not think all photographers think alike. For me, functional and/or ancient art forms may not have the attraction that they do for others. Some photographers, like Vivian Meier, found satisfaction in the process without a lot of sharing.</p>

<p>Assuring the passage of genes seems a reasonable imperative, but what about the flip side of that? The dreary geneticist's interpretation of genetics often leaves out what is perhaps their most important (and least understood) aspect: Their expression. Not their physical expression, but their behavioral expression. Without that, they're just like unreadable sheet music replicating. I a way, photographs are the same.</p>

<p>I remember my first photograph. My father took me out to one of his construction sites (he was an architect) and handed me his battered Leica IIIf. It was preset for exposure and DOF, and told me to photograph whatever I wanted. He had gone to this site to document the construction of the building he had designed. We walked around, the heft of the camera entangling in memory with the sense of pride and belonging I felt at getting to join Dad in this activity he cherished. He stopped and began photographing the foundation. I looked and looked at what he was doing, then I saw, off to the side, a tall cone of glistening white sand a truck had just unloaded. It was a visual/formal/spiritual revelation -- and my first picture.</p>

<p>For me, photography is a kind of dialogue. </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Luis.<br /> I'm not being overly deterministic about the idea of instinctive sources for human behavior. I am skeptical most times about socio-biology, etc. I find starting with genetic evolution at the smallest plausibility -- way further back than selecting for conviviality -- is a good place to start though. We ARE collectors. We DO take things back to the nest. Camera tech, like cell phones, may have revealed new depth and dimensions to that trait. Might be a mild form of genitic acquisitiveness <em>gone viral</em>!<br /> Why do we collect what we sense? In riddle form the Sphinx asks:"What can you take of mine that I can't give you?" An ant knows the answer.<br>

Where do essential ideas about form come from? I looked and saw insects.<br /> <em>Every</em> picture is collected. There is not some sort of hording pathology going on. We are just returning with whatever was there even if it was only our state of mind at the time.</p>

<p>I go to museums to be inspired <em>and</em> collect. It clears my head. Humanity seen in the best light.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>We are just returning with whatever was there</em>>>></p>

<p>A lot of people think this. It's pretty narrow thinking, regardless of whether you utilize and italicize "every" or not.</p>

<p>You're returning with a photo, which is something that was not there. You're confusing a photo with something else, the thing it's a photo of. Classic conflation.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>We ARE collectors. We DO take things back to the nest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. My wife proves it's genetic.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Alan, a broad motive would be "proof" ... of ... [your good taste, how experienced you are, how lucky you are, you <em>fill in the blank</em>] possibly defined in the word "vanity" as a motive for collection. Witness how we de-collect:</p>

<p>When <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola">Savanarola</a> convinced the citizens of Florence to get rid of their art collections, it was not sufficient to just put the stuff in a closet -- there had to be a 'Bonfire of the Vanities.'</p>

<p>And when one is dumped by a lover, one must at least tear-up, probably scissor and often burn all photos of said dumper. As well as remove all photos of places, trips, events, holidays, relatives of said dear-departed. There's something more going on in de-collecting than just not-doing-that-any-more that might suggest what underlies what's going on in its forward version of tastefully being inspired at the museum.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I still have photos of most of my ex-lovers. I've never even considered taking a scissor to them or tearing them up, though I likely considered knocking the teeth out of a couple of the real people. I just don't confuse pics with the people they're pics of. And, though I may feel hostile toward people, I don't tend to feel hostile to their photos. I'm not really into the voodoo stuff. The photos seem to occupy a different place in my heart and psyche. The pics I have in my scrapbooks and drawers are NOT a collection of people. They are a collection (very loosely considered) of pictures. I want them around for different reasons than I want people around. And, though I keep (not so much collect) some pics of people I've known over the years, <em>every</em> picture or photo is not like that or possessed for similar reasons.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Alan Z, sincere thanks for expanding on your original post. It gives much more meat to your thoughts, and I appreciate that.</p>

<p>My thoughts are a lot like what Luis said, and I think Fred is pointing at the same too.<br>

I simply don't agree to your premise we're all collecting. When I say I make photos to be photos, not recollections of a space-time-moment, how can that be dismissed as some anamoly? What do I share with others? Images. And the likelihood that anybody is interested in those is par with anybody being interested in where I were and what I saw. I find the assumption that the "where were you" part is vital to a photo a rather stiffling notion - it (severly!) limits the conclusions in a discussion as this one.<br>

___<br>

As an aside note. Your notions on things being genetic; I'm sorry, I am no biologist by training or profession, but what you read into genes is something completely different than I learnt about it. Evolution isn't like "ants gathering stuff into the nest, and hence so do we". Genes are about adapting to needs (to be as fitting as possible for survival in a given environment). Collecting smartphones has got really nothing to do with survival, and will not drive genetic evolution. Genetics aren't a cause for behaviour; if anything, genetics is about change, not about constants.<br>

Behaviours like gathering and collecting are much more tied in to social and cultural structures. Nomades do not collect, since mobility is more important. Yet, they're not genetically modified people - they're the same. So to me, the scepticism about socio-biology seems rather misplaced.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Why do you write your thoughts or experiences? Not normally to collect them or some day to recollect them. Perhaps more to funnel or arrange them such that they make sense to you or please you. Making (or taking) a picture, is that not a similar exercise? It is an activity that does not need to be done to collect anything. Sometimes the feedback to the photographer is as instantaneous as the photograph itself, or as temporary an experience as the scent and sip of a 2005 Lafitte-Rothschild or an unknown Bordeaux. Sometimes it is longer, languished, but why does it need to be a collectible?</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Aurthur,<br>

Read "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Plausibility-Life-Resolving-Darwins/dp/0300119771/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360002211&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=the+Pausibility+of+Life">The Pausibility of Life</a>. It is beautifully written and you will see why I'm interested in the subject. I do not believe most people keep the difference between cultural and genomic evolution far enough apart. The first is linear the last is random. Ascribing human behavior to essential qualities is more of a whimsy for me. Especially when people insist on rules. :-)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Alan, honestly, it seems the only one insisting on rules here is you. You seem to be looking for the genetic rules that form the basis for every photograph. Maybe I've missed something. I also seems a denial of your own voice in why you choose to photograph . . . your answer being that my genes make me.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Fred,<br /> I think I explained that I'm only proposing a genetic source to formal aesthetic assumptions contained within the <em>collecting</em> topic. <br /> Some insist they are <em>built in --</em> then where's the source? It isn't a burning issue with me, only a way that question could be looked at. A case could be made for the <em>collector</em> part but I've made clear enough that <em>natural</em> formalism is a stretch. And there are no certainties about anything. That is or isn't what art is about.<br /> The question I asked about collecting seems a good and obvious question for photography.</p>

[Julie H]

<blockquote>

<p>"Purchase has become the touchstone of [affection for art]; like marriage, it is a practical token of sentiment, and even to the artist, this evidence is generally more important than the impulse that inspired it."</p>

<p>"They stood in huge stacks against the walls, one behind the other: ... to be counted by the hundreds, the French masters of 1830 by dozens, there were exquisite examples of Millet, Corot, Daubigny, Courbet, etc, and Whistler. Although the stacks of pictures were held up by muscular servants, the enjoyment of these treasures was a tremendously exhausting physical process. One walked between pictures; one felt capable of walking calmly over them! After five minutes in the musty atmosphere, goaded by the idiotic impulse to see as much as possible, and the irritating consciousness that it was impossible to grasp anything, every better instinct was stifled by indifference that quenched all power of appreciation. The deathly calm one broke in upon, as one toiled sweating through these bare gigantic rooms where there was no space to turn, the whistling of the engines [storage was above a train station], the trembling of the floor as the trains ran in and out below, seemed to inspire a kind of strange fury, a silent longing to destory the whole lot."</p>

<p>-- <em>Julius Meier-Graefe describing the "late Forbes collection" in 1908</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think possibly that the claim that "this evidence is generally more important than the impulse that inspired it" might point toward the ingredient of the act of "collecting" that might lead to the biological source of the drive to do so.</p>