Photography and spirituality?

[michaellinder]

<p>Julie, it's a shame that you apparently feel like you have to lecture me in minutia. And this is not the first time. I find your style of communicating with me polemical, and it really gets us nowhere.</p>

<p>Besides, for someone who appears to be so knowledgeable in philosophy, you are conflating a tautology with a circular argument. But don't believe me - do the research and look it up for yourself.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Interesting to see how many turns and interpretations and details of cause and effect are being brought forward to explain the parameter called spiritual and its relation to art or photography. While I do not want to suggest that all of this discussion is somewhat akin to Brownian movement, it may be appropriate to remind ourselves of the latin and medieval definitions of word spiritual as being "of the spirit, soul, or mind". That seems quite simple and fruitful in this context, but how one wants to view it in regard to evaluing or interpreting a work of art is more subjective.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Arthur: Indeed, "spirituality" has broad application, whether religious or otherwise. </p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Oh, I forgot. The definition of "spiritual" Arthur provided encompasses meaning.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Arthur, I think we use interpretations and explanation to tell what spiritualism is *not.* By its negative we try to catch it in our nets ...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>A change of color in the plain poet's mind,</em><br>

<em>Night and silence disturbed by an interior sound,</em><br>

[— Wallace Stevens, <em>Note on Moonlight</em>]</p>

</blockquote>

[aplumpton]

<p>I don't catch the negative in your example, Julie (my brain has contacted the scent of only one coffee this morning....), but I think that a poet often uses analogies in a spiritual connection/creation (and from the definition I accept of spiritual, almost anything a poet writes is indeed of some spiritual content). When we allude to (and apply) symbolism and analogies in our photographic work it may gain some elements of the spiritual in its message (although often not enough). </p>

[michaellinder]

<p>See Rilke's <strong>Sonnets to Orpheus</strong> II, #29.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>In II-29 Rilke is writing to himself and is apparently referring to the difficulty of communion with the ineffable.</p>

<p>Wikipedia gives an example of the thoughts of the great German language poet in his own epitaph: <br /> <br /> <em>"Rose, oh pure contradiction, delight 
of being no one's sleep under so 
many lids"</em></p>

<p>They remark that Rilke often worked with metaphors, metonymy and contradictions. In his epitaph, the rose is a symbol of sleep – rose petals are reminiscent of closed eye lids.</p>

<p>Photography has fewer fingers and arms as does poetry and communicating a spiritual message is perhaps more difficult. I am having difficulty finding examples. Perhaps some images of Eugene Smith's Minamata Bay sickness victims and their parents are close to it? Any other examples, perhaps more powerful or convincing ones? </p>

[Julie H]

<p>"I am having difficulty finding examples." ????!!!!!</p>

<p>Seriously? Anything by Atget, anything by Sally Mann, Sudek, anything by Minor White, etc. etc.</p>

<p>Also, Arthur, while I respect your opinion, and am familiar with its logic — that symbolism, analogies are to do with communicating spirituality — my own feeling is diametrically opposite to that. For me, spirituality is what comes before any possibility of symbolism, any possibility of analogy, before ideas. That 'before/behind-ness' originary impulsion is what makes the spiritual spiritual, IMO. It is *because* it escapes ideas that it needs its own name. It's not a word for "special" ideas; not airy-fairy, New Age cotton-candy ideas that are just one category to compare to meat-and-potato ideas.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Julie, yes, seriously.</p>

<p>The role of the work of painted or sculpted art, photograph, poem, or other, is in some rather rare cases simply one of catalysing a spiritual response. I am incited by it to consider something bigger than it or me. Such reflection may not go far, but it is in a direction that many of us attempt to know more about, namely the conditions of and reason for our existence as a species.</p>

<p>Attributing a spirituality to the artist before he produces a work and we react to it may be interesting, but it is not of great concern for me. I react much more to how and why I perceive something to be greater than what it appears to be, which is more about what is happening in my own mind.</p>

<p>(I wish Fred G could be part of this open discussion (come on, dear moderator, how long a purgatory has been inflicted on a once active PofP debater?). My last sentence relates also to his own feeling on the subject, unless I am mistaken)).</p>

<p> </p>

[n_onaga]

<p >Hi everyone,</p>

<p >I was the one that posted the initial question, sorry I didn't have a chance to comment in the discussion earlier, I got caught up with various deadlines</p>

<p >There is more that I would want to say, but I'll just start with a few thoughts now:</p>

<p >First, I wanted to say that I am very appreciative of all your responses, they are so thoughtful and contain wonderful insights on the question from so many angles.</p>

<p >Julie H thank you so much for the quotes from Ghost in the Shell, I will look for the book. I am very interested in the idea that photography can show a reality, whether it's physical or abstract, secular or religious.</p>

<p >What we each consider reality, and whether "spirituality" exists or not within that reality, and within a photographer, photograph, or photographic experience or creative energy ~ that seems to be at the crux of some of the discussion?</p>

<p >For people that don't really believe that spirituality exists separately than anything else, it's better not to use the term and to use other words like mind, meaning, purpose. But for people that believe spirituality exists, separately from other things, it's not accurate to conflate it with such words. Does that seem accurate?</p>

<p >As an example, on the early discussion that Matt raised about whether it's more useful to substitute the word "mind" for spiritual -- doesn't it depend on your view world view? For many spiritual philosophies, there is a distinction between “mind” and “spirit”. Both are hard to define and understand, but I know a lot of eastern philosophies (and non-eastern ones) see spirit/soul as a separate part of the self, that is distinguished from the mind. I think a frequent type of categorization of the parts of the self are mind-body-spirit, or heart(emotions/desires)-mind-spirit-body, etc. That a person contains many aspects is a widely utilized concept, for instance in modern psychology (conscious, unconscious, ego, emotions, etc.) I think “spiritual" views add “spirit” or “soul” as an aspect to a person (and the world), while the secular does not. I think those spiritual philosophies usually see a person's will or purpose as often coming from the mind or ego. (Though as Julie said, I think they see spirituality as having the power to intervene to affect someone's will or purpose (or anything.) But they are distinct.) So while some of the discussion is about words, fundamentally we are talking about differences in world view.<br>

I agree "spirituality" is hard to talk about because it is broadly defined and each person understands it a different way. But aren't alot of words and concepts the same? Like "beauty" -- hard to define, differs for each person, runs risks of fundamentalism and imposition on others. IF we choose to talk about art, isn't it necessary to talk about beauty, at least some of the time? If spiritual inspiration, process, or impact is something real within photography, isn't it necessary sometimes to talk about it? Isn't it helpful for us to know that Glenn Gould saw his process as being "other worldly"? And that some listeners felt the music had an other worldly effect. <br>

I think the idea that Alan Zinn raised about rationalists being able to accept more mystical things when it comes in art is totally fascinating. And that a "true" photograph has a quasi-magical component. Some "spiritual" philosophies might consider that one of the functions of art -- the analogy of pointing to the window of light, and breaking it open.</p>

<p >But I totally agree with Alan Klein's comment early in the discussion that defining or broadcasting oneself as being spiritual might come from ego and can be antithetical to spirituality, and I agree that truly “spiritual” people often don't know they are. I guess my personal view is that it's not good to discuss one's spirituality all the time, but it is good and necessary sometimes, and it can be done (to the extent anything can be done), without alot of ego. If “spirituality” exists, I personally think everything and everyone is “spiritual”, but some people are more oriented to recognizing that aspect in themselves, observing its operation, nurturing it. They may or may not like to discuss it with others. The same way everyone has some kind of philosophical paradigm within which they define meaning and operate, but some people like to think and talk about it, some people like to think about it but not talk about it, some people know it's there but don't want to think about it consciously, and some people don't think it exists at all.</p>

<p >I think words are generally an imperfect approximation of what we mean, and it's a very imperfect medium of communication, but it's still worthwhile, at least sometimes, to share and exchange our views on things. That's one of the functions that art can serve, to express, communicate and to raise discussion about our views of reality, and our range of human experience? I've personally found all of your comments and discussion have been extremely helpful and has opened up alot more depth and space for me to explore, thank you, and I am sure I will reflect on them more over time. I look forward to any other thoughts and discussion. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Addendum: Julie, I think you are talking more about the spiritual as a personal attribute or experience independent of photography, while some of us are concerned with whether a work of art can evoke a spiritual quality or message, and a response or interaction of spiritual nature or kind in the viewer.</p>

<p>Religion is but one manifestation of spirituality, but it seems to have appropriated the term in modern times. Perhaps we would be more accurate in referring to "religious spirituality" when evoking the term.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>[That Jesus in the clouds looks like he's <em><strong>farting</strong> </em>on a Celestial scale!]</p>

<p>Seriously...."All this talk of spirituality will lead you to start taking photographs of sun lit mountains, clouds with jesus figures in them, misty water shots, flowers with dew, kids looking skyward and pretty animals and monks and such."</p>

<p>....ridiculizes the idea of spirituality. A minimum of knowledge on photo-history shows the above to be untrue. Sentimentality and fear of death are not the same as spirituality. </p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Kevin, I don't experience spirituality as others do and, like most things, I don't think each person experiencing it has the same kind of relationship to it. As you, I suspect that in some cases claims of spirituality are as spurious as claims of religion. Unlike you, though, I don't think it's all pretension and puffery. I think some of it is heartfelt. Though I would rarely use the word to describe my own experiences, I have a good sense of what people mean when they use it, and I don't mind describing some photos as spiritual, knowing how it's used in a lot of discourse. I could certainly describe photos as diverse as Weston's pepper or toilet, Serrano's Piss Christ (not only for the obvious symbolic or narrative reasons but for its expressiveness and womb-like transformativeness) and some of Stieglitz's O'Keefe portraits as spiritual, which I would do in the context of this thread, though I might not outside of it. I would seriously question an assumption that talk of spirituality would lead sophisticated photographers to take pics of sunlit mountains or misty water. I would consider that kind of connection a rather superficial and mythological projection of what spirituality is like, almost a Disney fantasy akin to the Disney interpretation in Fantasia of what classical music means or looks like. Are there people who have such an obvious and superficial relationship to spirituality? Yes. But I wouldn't, therefore, throw the baby out with the bath water and I'm happy to empathize with others' expressions of spirituality even if I would likely name it and think of it somewhat differently. I love reading The Iliad and The Odyssey and whether I "believe in" Zeus and Apollo is somewhat irrelevant to my experience of these literary works. What is not irrelevant is my understanding that the poet and the people of the times did believe in those things and I have no need to see that belief as silly or to judge it from my own very different context, history, and experience.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Kevin, for me, photos aren't necessarily about something. I didn't say any of this would help me make better photos. I said I understood why people talked in these terms. "Better" isn't always the goal. Nor is explaining.</p>

<p>In terms of focus, I tend to focus on my own process and not get too exercised about how other people going about becoming inspired, though I do find it strangely stimulating to hear what floats others' boats.</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>For people that don't really believe that spirituality exists separately than anything else, it's better not to use the term and to use other words like mind, meaning, purpose. But for people that believe spirituality exists, separately from other things, it's not accurate to conflate it with such words. Does that seem accurate?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The question is: what did *you* mean by "spirituality"? If one person makes a statement about a concept to another person that has a different understanding of that concept, there won't be any understanding. To be able to communicate an idea, you need to have the same understanding of the words used in expressing it.</p>

<p>Wouter pointed this out very early in the thread:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the problem is that spirituality isn't as defined as a dictionary may lead to believe.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and I have not seen anyone producing a definition of spirituality that was accepted and worked with to produce an answer to your question.<br /> <br /> Any answer, to be useful to someone else than the writer, needs to start with a definition of these vague concepts that dictionaries only explain in reference to other vague concepts.</p>

<p>A few more comments:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But aren't alot of words and concepts the same?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but that is no excuse for not attempting to explain what they mean to *you* in a way that others can understand your point of view.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Isn't it helpful for us to know that Glenn Gould saw his process as being "other worldly"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In what way would that be helpful? Can you reproduce the process or understand it because of that description?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>We can't talk about what's not in the dictionary? Then what did the first dictionary makers talk about?</p>

<p>"If one person makes a statement about a concept to another person that has a different understanding of that concept, there won't be any understanding." Find me two people that have the very same "understanding" of *any* concept ... then get back to me.</p>

<p>If we can't talk about what we don't already understand, then there goes not only poetry, but also science. Oh well.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>[<em>Note to future readers of this thread: Kevin Laracy's July 22 comment, quoted in Luis G's post seems to have been deleted by the mods.]</em></p>

<p>Let's try something 'smaller' than 'spirituality.' How about 'red'?</p>

<p>Dictionary definition of red is: 1. red colour or pigment.</p>

<p>Clear enough. But then we have G.K. Chesterton writing:</p>

<p>"<em>Red is the most joyful and dreadful thing in the physical universe; it is the fiercest note, it is the highest light, it is the place where the walls of this world of ours wear the thinnest and something beyond burns through</em>."</p>

<p>On the other hand we have Robert Rauschenberg writing (against the Abstract Expressionists):</p>

<p>"<em>How can red be passion? Red is red</em>."</p>

<p>I can agree with both Chesterton and Rauschenberg. Seeing a red crayon doesn't get me all hot and bothered, but seeing a Rothko red painting often does. Does knowing the definition of 'red' do anything to help this apparent contradiction? Not for me.</p>

<p>For many people, their conception of art or spirituality or any other such thing is closer to Chesterton's description of 'red' than to Rauschenberg's (note that this is the same Rauschenberg who spent eighteen months doing Canto by Canto illustrations of Dante's <em>Inferno</em>, so it's not a simple divide ...).</p>

<p>Lest you think that all of this is irrelevant to the making of pictures, I suppose one could ignore one's own strong feelings and get on with button-pushing (sort of like making widgets), but for those who feel it, the source of what one calls spirituality will remain, insistently, and not necessarily pleasantly, there, trying to "burn through."</p>

 

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>We can't talk about what's not in the dictionary? Then what did the first dictionary makers talk about?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The point I was making was that just because something is in a dictionary, it doesn't meant that it makes the same sense to everyone.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If one person makes a statement about a concept to another person that has a different understanding of that concept, there won't be any understanding." Find me two people that have the very same "understanding" of *any* concept ... then get back to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're missing the point again. The point was that before you start making statements about something to another person, it would be wise to check that you and the other person have the same understanding of that something. You may actually find out that if you spend the time to tune your common understanding (by attempting to define that something), whatever you meant to state either becomes obvious or was not correct in the first place. See the dialogues of Socrates.<br>

<br /> Trying to define something is the best way to discuss something. As common understanding of something deepens, statements about that something will tend to become truisms and to not be worth stating in the first place.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If we can't talk about what we don't already understand, then there goes not only poetry, but also science. Oh well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Duh, yeah, but you see, if you don't understand what people are saying to you, you're not getting anywhere anyway.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Laurentiu, you mentioned Socrates. Plato was big on agreed-upon definitions of things and the constancy and immutability of those definitions. Other philosophers saw flaws in that approach, while still respecting Plato for what he accomplished and how he set things forth in the dialogues.</p>

<p>I disagree with you, and think that plenty of understanding takes place even when two people have different understandings of concepts, particularly concepts as experiential and personal as love, spirituality, and fear.</p>

<p>Wittgenstein, partially in response to Plato, talked about family resemblances. We can't always put our finger on them or on the concepts that remain somewhat undefinable, but we can beat around the bush enough to where we reach various understandings of each other's takes on things without having to pin each other down to definitions which will usually become ineffective the minute we utter them because there's often so much more to the concept than what can be encapsulated in a sound bite or a Webster's entry. It's <strong>how we use them</strong> that is generally more significant that what we might claim they <strong>mean</strong>.</p>

<p>Discussion, not definition, IMO, is the best means to understanding.</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>Laurentiu, you mentioned Socrates. Plato was big on agreed-upon definitions of things and the constancy and immutability of those definitions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You do realize that Plato and Socrates are not the same person? We do know about Socrates through Plato, but not all the dialogues recorded by Plato reflect the real Socrates. In some of them we have more of a glimpse of Socrates, in others more of a glimpse of Plato. The idea of the immutability of definitions doesn't have anything to do with Socrates - you never see Socrates saying this thing is such and such - on the contrary, he asks others for definitions and then points out the flaws in them.<br>

<br>

Beating around the bush is an ineffective method, which is why the expression denotes the opposite of efficiency of communication. "Discussion" is a wide term - I am not against "discussion" - I am just against discussion that is lacking method and is beating around the bush instead of trying to figure out what's in it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I am not against discussion either. There was an interesting one taking place here at an earlier point . . . about photography . . . and spirituality.</p>

<p>I tend to associate photography with some level of transcendence, and that's how I can best relate to what others may call photography's spiritual aspect. In the sense that a photo often transcends its subject and the so-called reality of the subject. (I suppose we will have to define "reality" now, each for ourselves.) What we often refer to as the capture of a moment, for me, transcends that moment, as it becomes transformed into the fullness of a photo. </p>

<p>"Spirit" and "God" and "afterlife" and "hell" and even pejorative words for gay people like me can either present a roadblock or an opportunity to understand something foreign. Rather than defaulting to an assumption of BS with any of these, I listen carefully to what it means for the person using it and try to understand its use also within a cultural and demographic milieu. It keeps me more sane, less annoyed, and helps afford understanding rather than judgment.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I don't believe in God and have had huge problems with how the church has handled itself as an institution throughout history. Nevertheless, Bach seems to have had a pretty serious relationship to God and been inspired by religion. Many great composers produced for the church. Things beyond my own beliefs, tastes, and proclivities are the source of great inspiration to others, thankfully. I'm fairly sure that many things I'm inspired by would send up the BS filters (or worse) of others, if they have such filters. I'm sure I'd find it fascinating to talk with Bach about the role of religion and God in his music, even though I don't believe in God. Maybe that's an irony, I don't know. The thing is, even though the object of a belief may not be "real," beliefs themselves are very "real" and pungent. And they often guide us, sometimes unconsciously. Just as the "reality" of what's depicted in a photo is sometimes or even often not the point, the truth or falseness of a belief is often also not the point, as much as the power and influence of the belief itself.</p>

[n_onaga]

<p>I totally agree that there is difficulty of communication about spirituality because people have different understandings of words and concepts related to spirituality and spiritual meaning and experiences. But I still think it can have meaning to talk about it because it is part of some people's experience. <br>

It seems to me that people that have no interest or experience in spirituality, do not have those words in the vocabulary, because they don't understand those ideas or experiences, and therefore think discussion about those ideas and experiences are meaningless. But to me it's like how there are many different languages in the world, and each language has its own paradigm of culture and thought. There are always words in a language, that has no precise equivalent in other languages, because it's a cultural concept or phenomena that has no equivalent. The best we can do in that instance, to try to understand that word, is to get a description of the concept and its context, and guess at the best translation. We shouldn't dismiss what people are talking about as their experience, just because we don't have that personally speak that language. To me that is like saying everything that is spoken that is not English is gibberish and has no meaning unless translated into English, and the words that are not translatable should simply be discarded. Yes it's true that it's disconcerting that we won't all understand each other perfectly because of barriers in language (and experience), but it's still worthwhile to be open minded and trying to understand and hear as much about different human experiences as we can. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Getting back on topic ...</p>

<p>While I can think of many, many examples of black and white photography that is, for me, spiritual, I have a hard time coming up with color photography that is, for me, spiritual. Richard Misrach's work stands out, as well as, again, for me, Peter Fraser's stuff. But other than that, color seems to work against spirituality in photographs, for me -- not just by accident, but by design. It's part of the power of color pictures to *be* carnal.</p>

<p>A fun/interesting example of a color picture (not by either Misrach or Fraser) that simultaneously is spiritual (for me) while commenting on its inability to be spiritual (an ironic picture), is this one by Tom Friedman; <em><a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/friedman_caveman.jpg">Caveman (Photograph of a National Geographic Magazine Featuring a Drawing of a Prehistoric Man</a>)</em>, 2006.</p>

<p>The blast of the flash is photography's frontal, brute assault -- its failure and yet, in making that blown white hole, its success in opening the picture to a spiritual conception.</p>