Photography and spirituality?

[n_onaga]

<p>I am interested about what people think about the relationship between photography and spirituality. Do you think there is a relationship generally, and/or do you think your photography has such a relationship?<br>

I feel like there are a significant number of photographers who articulate a relationship with spirituality, such as feeling a spiritual motivation or purpose to photograph, feeling that spiritual practice impacts their photographic technique, or feeling the source of their photography is spiritual (for instance, the photographs come to them from a spiritual source.) I've also seen a few books about photography itself as a spiritual practice (for instance, the practice of seeing and the world with more care, which is required for photography, can be a contemplative practice). I have a feeling that there are more photographers out there that don't normally talk openly about their relationship with spirituality.<br>

I'm also interested in why this topic seems to be under-discussed. Is it because of contemporary art trends (as well as world trends) devalued such ideas? I wonder for instance, whether there was more discussion on this topic when Minor White was a prominent figure. And whether some views that are critical of his work and his significance is related to the devaluation of the idea that photography does/should have a relationship with spirituality?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I can't answer your question, but I can offer some background to them, <strong>non-religious</strong> and <strong>religious</strong>.</p>

<p>First the <strong>non-religious</strong> from the Preface and Coda by Robert A. Sobieszek to the book <em>Ghost in the Shell: Photography and the Human Soul, 1850-2000</em>:</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"... In order, then, to differentiate between the container and the contained, let us consider the human machine, or more particularly its face, as something of a malleable shell that encompasses and reveals the unnameable ghost(s) residing within each of us.</p>

<p>"<em>Ghost in the Shell</em> is the title of a Japanese graphic novel (<em>manga</em>) and the animated film (<em>anime</em>) based on it. Both include a discussion of just how many prostheses or synthetic components may be added to a human and how much intelligence or emotion may be programmed into a cyborg before any real distinctions between the two cease to exist."</p>

<p>"... "ghost in the shell" echoes an important essay by John Welchman:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>For the 20th century the photographic became the crucial domain of conflict between the real and the reproduced. It put on a series of masks ranging from the supposedly pure social presence of the documentary to the pure abstract materialism of formal experiment. ... But both extremes of the photographic stage their signification through an implicit notion of the absolute: thus photography becomes the ghost in the machine of rational and universalist knowledge, the very flicker of the God-form.</li>

</ul>

<p>[ ... ]</p>

<p>" ... What lies behind the face does not matter so much as what the face lies behind: it rests behind speech and has become the philosophy of both language and body."</p>

<p>" ... When it comes to discerning what is beneath the surface that hides the human psyche, there are countless clues and no solutions: The "puzzle is not the lack of meaning but its excess." François Dagognet, a philosopher and medical doctor, is convinced that the "psyche emerges from the most complex corporeal structures": the "interior overflows; mental energies always spill over. Let us learn to recover and interrogate that overflow." Nothing is concealed; everything is there to see, and the possible theories are numerous. But sometimes, as in "The Purloined Letter" by Edgar Allan Poe, even careful searching will not reveal what is most obvious: the eagerly sought letter remains safe, resting atop the surface of the mantel, hidden in plain sight to all the detectives looking for it."</p>

<p>" ... Forget about skin, bones, and muscles. Ultimately there is only the <em>irido</em>, the iris that looks out and sees the other's face, and the eye that receives and returns the glance. At this point the surface is indeed profound: at this juncture between the interior and exterior, there is a ligature of mind and body, consciousness and countenance, camera lens and human eye, the iridic surfaces of platinum prints and the carnal surfaces of human faces."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.</p>

<hr />

<p>And, now, the <strong>religious</strong>, from the Preface, by Thomas Keating, Abbot to Saint Joseph's Abbey, to the book <em>Presence</em> by the photographer Shirley C. Burden:</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>" ... The light of faith may resemble the rays of the sun filtering through a stained-glass window and illuminating the various tints and delicate intricacies of the glass, as well as its cracks and flaws. Thus, faith filters through our human faculties manifesting, along with the evidence of human frailty, the beauty and goodness of our personhood by the quality of the thoughts and actions that it inspires.</p>

<p>"Faith can also resemble the rays of the sun pouring through a transparent glass window, an experience of light that is much more powerful. At times the glass seems itself to be transformed into light. Thus, surrender to faith leads to a more intimate relationship with God — even to a kind of identification that deepens the experience of presence, giving it a wholly new meaning and perspective.</p>

<p>" But there is a further possibility. Suppose that somehow the glass is shattered, leaving in place of the window a great open hole. Presence would no longer be a relationship between two parts, but a oneness. Such is the ultimate destiny of human presence. Love is what changes the perception of ordinary reality into insight, and presence into unity. As love grows, therefore, so do insight and unity. Art seeks to assist this transformation by pointing to it or by expressing it. Everything depends on the artist's level of insight and openness to reality. Is the function of the art of photography to preserve the artist's moment of insight or simply to let reality speak for itself? Perhaps it is not for the photographer to reply, but to open himself and to present his lens to the light."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>To the extent that photography is just another form of communication, it can be as involved (or not) as speaking, writing, dancing, music, sculpture or any other form of expression in conveying one's world view. Compassion, reflection, empathy, remembrance, judgement, passion, or any of the other things that flow from the human mind (I don't find the word "spirit" to be necessary, really) can be influenced and strengthened (or diluted!) by communication. Certainly photography (like poetry) can be a powerful vector for stirring contemplation or conveying its results.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a feeling that there are more photographers out there that don't normally talk openly about their relationship with spirituality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps they prefer to let their photographs do the talking. Or, they don't consider themselves to have a relationship, per se, with a construct they've created within their own brains (is it meaningful to say you have a relationship with yourself, as opposed to simply being yourself?).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...related to the devaluation of the idea that photography does/should have a relationship with spirituality?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It might help if you provided your working definition of "spirituality," in this context.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p> I have a feeling that there are more photographers out there that don't normally talk openly about their relationship with spirituality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The moment you point yourself out as being spiritual, you lose it because being spiritual comes from humility, not from ego. The truly spiritual don't know they are. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Three answers, three different takes on spirituality. The question is very valid, the problem is that spirituality isn't as defined as a dictionary may lead to believe. Easy short descriptions won't catch exactly what it could mean, and most probably every next person has an ever-so-slightly-different take on what it is, and what it isn't.<br>

And, in my view, there is probably also the core reason why it is discussed so little - the real meaning any individual gives to spirituality differs, the value of it differs, the scope differs, the impact on their psychological well-being might even differ - and then the big pink elefant Julie already touched upon: religion (or not) - with all the risks of running into a fundamentalist proclaiming singular truths. It's a tricky subject.<br>

It's also more and more a very individual and private subject; it's about hopes, fears, doubts and rock-hard beliefs. How far are you willing to open up on the internet, where any anonymous insensitive bully can have a go at you? Plus, what would you get out of the conversation?</p>

<p>Really, I don't think it's undervalued, and I think spirituality (in any shape or form) is a red herring in art and in personal creative expressions (and photography can be both that). But it's a discussion better done between friends, people who know each other well and can be empathic and non-judgemental about it. People who don't offer statements as a reply, but are more willing to ask you questions to gain a mutual deeper understanding. Web forums tend to be the wrong medium for that.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The pianist Glenn Gould didn't want to play music in any standard way. He created some sort of spiritual communication in the music of Bach, Schoenberg and some other composers by seeing between the musical lines and interpreting the music in his own, and one might say, other-worldly way. For me that is about as good an example of spiritual presence in the arts as any. He apparently did not succeed in that sense with Mozart or even Beethoven, but did with the other composers mentioned. Apparently his vision was formed before he reached 20 although he wasn't released to the public until 23.</p>

<p>Taking the listener or viewer to an other-worldly perception/interpretation exists in all arts, albeit infrequently. No reason why it is not present in photography.</p>

<p>It is encouraging to have made a photograph and then realize later that it has something that was only partially intended, or even not. If we see something new or unique it may be akin to a Gould performance or just something random and less significant. Some of these experiences may have a spiritual content, although it is dangerous to suppose all may be of that nature. I like to think that many of the more positive results may be more by chance than by intent (with high level artists it is probably by intent). Yes or no, it probably doesn't matter which, as how the image affects a viewer is what is important (in addition to the process enjoyed by the artist).</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>The word is overused in too many ways. Where's a better word? I impulsively close my BS filters when I see or hear it. Having to stop and consider the use of what has become such a<em> junk</em> word by an otherwise sincere, feeling, reasonable person, the word asks for a <em>wait, wait they didn't really mean that reflex.</em></p>

<p>There needs to be another single word in our vernacular (besides "awesome") to distinguish transcendent from the merely ineffable feelings that everyone fully human experiences.</p>

<p>In the creative realm work may evoke wondrous feelings or present the author's experience of them without being explicitly transcendental.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Alan, your points are vaild, as are any concerning the non-adroit usage of words, but the case for spritual, at least in the non-religious use of the term (religion allows a specific usage of the word as much as a general one), is not compicated.</p>

<p>Herewith three definitions that pretty well speak in simple terms of the same thing:</p>

<p>Google définition :<br /> "Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things".</p>

<p>Oxford dictionary (the secular definition option)<br /> "Relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things":</p>

<p>Wikipedia discussion of spiritual :<br /> The term <em>spiritual</em>, matters "concerning the spirit", is derived from Old French spirituel (12c.), which is derived from Latin spiritualis, which comes from from "spiritus" or "spirit".</p>

<p>So, these adjectives can pertain in admittedly rare cases to any creative activity of man, whether thought or deed.</p>

<p>So, again, why not in photography?</p>

<p>(Or in another sense, can anyone show that some photography CANNOT allow a spiritual communication or result for the viewer?)</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Arthur,<br>

I could testify that, indeed, I found photographing something sooo spiritual, meaning nothing at all transcendent. Trying to evoke a wondrous, feeling or an epiphany is challenging. If I stumble across something THAT affecting to me I just enjoy it. Like telling about a dream, it can't measure up and is nearly always boring.<br>

My first photography instructor was a Minor White devote. I remember one thing in particular. He pointed out the importance of symbolism in pictures, like circles. A prominent circular shape gave a picture a spiritual boost. Symbolic <em>tokenism</em>!</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Ah, Alan, therein lies the difference that I think is important. A warm and wondrous spiritual feeling sensed by the photographer is not the same I think as something from the spirit of the photographer and something that the ensuing creation may evoke in the viewer.</p>

<p>I understand your point I think, and have at times come across artists who seem to enjoy speaking (or writing) of how they have had some spiritual experience in making their works. Often that has seemed to my ears and mind as just so much BS.</p>

<p>If spherical forms give the picture a spiritual boost, we should all run out and buy a 6mm or 8mm fisheye lens. Symbolism is but a visible component of the image, like the use of red versus blue to evoke passion or danger as opposed to calm or peace. Well used, symbols are important but they can also be simply superficial icing on the cake (nothing wrong with icing in some cases) and not as deep as it can get when the image has a more spiritual content or message.</p>

<p>Isolating a subject within an environment is a sort of circular or point compositional approach that can sometimes help in raising the spiritual nature of the message, at least if the photographer and that subject have made contact in a less material and more intimate and incisive way. But that is only one of the possible conditions in the realisation of a spiritual photographic communication and by no means sufficient in and of itself. Getting closer to the solution or cause renders analysis even more difficult. If I can digress, those at the 1959 Berlin concert of Gould (or so I am told) noticed at least one mistake in his playing, but the rest, and his youthful creative energy, was "awesome" (a disliked and overused word...) and bordered on the spiritual, as it did when he made the Russian composer Scriabin and the German composer Schoenberg known for the first time to a Moscow audience.</p>

<p> </p>

[maris_rusis]

<p>A friend watching me photograph with an 8x10 camera pointed out that the entire process had many parallels with a kind of secular sacrament.<br>

First there is a recognition of inspirational subject matter then an intense contemplation of it followed by enough ecstatic rapport to motivate setting up the camera.<br>

The camera on its tripod is a portable shrine that is erected worshipfully in front of evocative subject matter.<br>

In the small dark private space under the focussing cloth the photographer and the glowing image on the ground glass engage in a binding communion to make the photograph.<br>

A large piece of expensive film is an offering to the subject. It is an offering that will be "burnt" at the moment of exposure.<br>

The "burnt" film contains something that a moment before was part of the subject. It is a like the relic of a saint.<br>

The finishing of the negative and the subsequent positive completes the ritual and culminates a homage to reality that, for an atheist, is as near to a religious experience as can be deeply experienced.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Spirituality effects conversion of the will.</p>

<p>To the extent that one feels that one's will participates in one's creativity, spirituality (in one form or another) will be the root source that impels (compels).</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Couldn't you then, Julie, just substitute "purpose" for "spirituality" in that context? </p>

[Julie H]

<p>You feel that "purpose" precedes "will" and not vice versa? What impelled the "purpose?</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Judaism contains a directive for people to engage in <em><strong>Tikkun Olam</strong></em>. This Hebrew phrase usually is translated as "repairing the world," but I vastly prefer "transforming the world." In a religious sense, this refers to acts that confer holiness on an object, an action, a person . . . within one's experience. More generally, just substitute the word "meaning" for "holiness".</p>

<p>Can the above be applied to photography? You betcha. Any time a photographer presses a shutter, there is at least a tacit expression of the photographer's hopes, dreams, preferences, values, etc. Making a photograph is tantamount to engaging oneself in dialogue, whether it be external or internal.</p>

<p>I probably need to provide a considerable amount of unpacking regarding what I said above. So I do apologize for what may appear to be an incomplete line of thought. Fire away, and I will do my best to respond.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Michael, I enjoy what you've introduced into the discussion, but how on earth can you suggest "just" substituting "meaning" for "holiness"? That's like saying, "just substitute 'rational' for 'irrational'."</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>You feel that "purpose" precedes "will" and not vice versa? What impelled the "purpose?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Purpose is shaped by both biological need (baked-in, DNA-based drives/motivations) and, with development, a value system tied to one's understanding of the world. <em>Will</em> is something (like strength or pain tolerance or quickness of mind or any other manifestation of many complex intersecting qualities) that is a measure of one's ability to act on the purpose in question. But it can be messy: a strong-willed person with rudderless purpose or a world view built on mixed premises can seem dangerously irrational. A clear-thinking person with integrity of purpose, but lacking in will, can allow the irrationality of others to swamp them.<br>

<br /> Having no coherent purpose, I think, weakens the will. Like getting no muscle one from being too conflicted on which direction to jog, and thus getting no exercise. <br /><br />Photography, and every other form of communication, can be used to reflect on or communicate about all of that. Having a flash of insight or clarity about it while creating or consuming such communication might be called a "spiritual" experience by some, but that word choice brings along far too much baggage and implied mysticism, I think, and muddies the waters. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Matt wrote: "Having no coherent purpose, I think, weakens the will." I would claim that having no will weakens the purpose.</p>

<p>How do you get creativity out of your formulation? If we already know what we want/need to say, why do we need creativity at all?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>I would claim that having no will weakens the purpose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We're starting to split some hairs, here, but I'd argue that having no will weakens the ability to <em>act</em> on the purpose. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>How do you get creativity out of your formulation?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Creativity is a complex phenomenon. It's like being "smart," which is to say it shows up in varied forms. But generally speaking, I'd say that creativity is that well-evolved trait that came along with things like opposable thumbs and a big enough brain to outwit, rather than outrun or overpower game for food or predators on the prowl. Making even simple tools required innovation. Creative thinking is a selected-for survival trait in us naked apes. Once it's got some free time on its hands that capability, it can be put to work in the service of more than just day to day survival.<br /><br />In the same way that creative hunting skills increased the odds of thriving and reproducing, creative communication skills increased one's standing and influence within the group (and among potential mates). At the evolutionary level, for early humans, creativity was right up there with athleticism or a solid immune system. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If we already know what we want/need to say, why do we need creativity at all?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We know what we need to <em>accomplish</em>, and use creativity to find the most efficient or motivating ways to do it and/or communicate about it.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Matt wrote: "We know what we need to <em>accomplish</em>, ... "</p>

<p>We do?</p>

<p>Or, when/if, to the extent that we believe that we do, I would claim that it is the spiritual that effects conversion of the will to, and then impels the will toward, that which is, as you say, "what we need."</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>OK, I'll rephrase. When one <em>decides </em>(based on one's value system) that there is something one needs/wants to accomplish, one <em>also</em> needs the will to act upon that decision.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Making reference to the wonders of life, as artists we might accept mystical views of things not fully understood without embracing them ourselves. We are rationalist, as far as that can take us, and then give way to satisfying alternatives of the metaphysical kind. We forego reason, making a ritual or symbol out of an idea, to give it a satisfying cultural fit. Is our work seen as metaphor disguised as a <em>true</em> belief or the just opposite?</p>

<p>I use the term "photographic mystique" to describe my admittedly narrow, essentialist view of film photography. I could say " Film is like the potter's finger print on a vessel." To me there is a quasi-magical component to the <em>true</em> photograph.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p><strong>[H]ow on earth can you suggest "just" substituting "meaning" for "holiness"? That's like saying, "just substitute 'rational' for 'irrational'." <br /></strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>As you stated, my substitution was merely a suggestion. I did not make any truth-claims.</p>

<p>For some people, there is no meaning in human life without holiness. Other people take the position that there is no such thing as holiness, and that whatever meaning may exist in human life is what we impose upon it. Still others, like me, feel that holiness and meaning are not mutually exclusive concepts. You, on the other hand, seem to think otherwise. </p>

<p>As I recall, there are many shades of gray in between black and white. We don't need to make the current matter a black vs. white issue. I think we both can be happy living with the gray.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>You have to have that sort of mindset before you would ever "see" spirituality in something. I would not say it's been undervalued or under discussed in photography, or any art medium. I would say it is totally irrelevant. Art is about just that, not side issues. Someone with no knowledge of Christianity, for instance, would read the Western world's work of Michelangelo's time very differently than a Christian would. Someone w/ no knowledge of Buddhism would see something different in a Buddha statue than a Buddhist practitioner would. In fact, a Zen practitioner would see it for what it really is, a statue. Someone w/ a devotional Buddhist practice would also see it as a statue, and also as what it may symbolize to them. Spirituality, as far as I can discern, is learned, not innate, and different cultures have different teachings on it. It's up to each individual to accept those teachings as their own truth, or go another way. Of course the earlier someone is indoctrinated w/ a teaching, especially in a culture which enforces that teaching, the more it is somewhat hardwired into an individual, a fact that is not lost on religious and political leaders.</p>

<p>Minor White was an exceptional artist, and one need not subscribe to any particular spiritual belief system to appreciate his work.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Michael, what <em><strong>gives</strong></em> meaning (i.e. holiness) cannot = meaning. If what <em><strong>gives</strong></em> meaning = meaning, you are circling (you have a tautology).</p>

<p>I am very interested in what <em><strong>gives</strong></em> meaning.</p>