Photography and spirituality?

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While it seems to disagree with what I wrote a good while back, I fully agree to this. My point (and I think also to some extend Laurentiu's) is to zoom in a bit on what spirituality is within the context of this thread as present, as a framework for discussion and as a way to understand one another clearly. The deleted posts by Kevin were well beyond the outer edge of what I thought might happen, but it's the word 'spirituality' that for some seem to be like a red cloth for the bull (<em>all airy fairy stuff bla bla bla</em>). Just the word itself already, without consider what it could mean to someone. Likewise, some might start to ramble true-isms from their religion - in both cases, the discussion gains nothing but closed minds and flase dichotomies.<br>

But luckily, you gave feets and hands to the word, which makes it (to me) at least a bit easier to start organising thoughts:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really like these words. They unleash a nice string of thoughts, and inspire to dive deeper into the profoundness which a culture and cultural heritage has on shaping us as individuals (but that would make a nice thread in itself). But... spiritualism, in part for me transcends also the culture we're part of. It's beyond those untranslatable words. <br />For myself; my upbringing is Catholic, I recognise the values I have and hold as being largely inspired by the Catholic teachings; but I usually don't regard myself a Catholic. Large part also coming from North-West Europe, where a certain emotional restraint and intellectual criticism is quite highly valued. I'm a typical blend of those backgrounds, I guess. I do not find any spiritual meaning in this. However, in learning about other religions, in visiting (or experiencing) other cultures or how other cultures celebrate the same religion, I found there are a great many things different, but also a great many things the same.<br>

It's in those culture- and religion-transcending things that I find spiritualism; it's not the particular instance of the "divine" (*), but a glimpse of the divine itself. It's not about the love between Romeo and Juliet, but about love, period. About what connects, not about what divides. To openly abuse the mentioning of Plato before, it's entering the cave and looking the other way.<br>

It's the words that are in the dictionary, but you'd never look them up because their meaning seems so clear, until you start to think about them and how we feel about them. Or finding those words that represent "cultural concepts or phenomena"in fact do have an equivalent in other languages - but not in the phenomena itself, but in how people <em>experience</em> them.<br>

<br>

Does this find its way into photography? Trickier question than it may seem - part of me would say "how could it not?", but it's not that apparent. Ultimately, our photography is in large ways defined by our culture, by that "instance" of the (shared) spirituality - for starters, for simple and practical reasons as the availability of subject, but also cultural defined reasons as the point of view used, colours (or not) and so on. Spirituality lies behind all that. It's there, but not for the naked eye. <br>

___<br>

(*) I know, a tricky choice of word, but my vocabulary ran out of ideas. I mean it in a non-religious specific way, so any reference to any specific religion is not implied ;-)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Wouter/N Onaga, rather than defining it, we might simply ask questions of each other, which will likely elicit direct and indirect answers but get us moving. Julie's last statement, which is significantly something about photography and welcome here, may be a good springboard. She and others won't be surprised that I don't look at color and black and white photos as she does, but that doesn't matter. A question I would have for those who consider themselves spiritual or at least have some understanding of and/or empathy with those who do is whether carnal and spiritual are in contrast with each other and/or separate and/or mutually exclusive. To my mind, spirituality envelopes, and so the carnal would be as much a way to and a part of spirituality as anything else. If <em><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg/220px-Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg">Piss Christ</a></em>* is spiritual, and it would be in my mind, it is its carnal nature that helps it achieve its spirituality, as it depends upon and also transcends the former, in part, to get to the latter.</p>

<p>___________________________________</p>

<p>*One reason I like this particular example is that it seems superficially or almost too literally spiritual because of its subject matter, but the photo itself, and the use of inherently photographic qualities, even while offering said subject matter, actually sort of abstractly transcends that subject matter as well. There are clearly carnal matters in the photo, which one can't deny (the body and the piss) which would help <em>me</em> in arriving at a spiritual place and would not disappear but, in fact, would remain, for me, deepening rather than weakening whatever spiritual nature it had.</p>

<p>__________________________________</p>

<p>Assuming this particular photo wouldn't work for everyone, rather than simply trying to approach the "meaning" of spirituality as theory, would it be of value for others to take a particular photo or a particular photographer (as Julie did) and talk about its spirituality, or in lieu of that, a photographic action or aspect of photographing that feels spiritual to you?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Fred, for sure no objection from my side on that approach; mine wasn't an attempt to 'seal off' a definition but rather to give an idea where I place spirituality. But indeed it's an approach that leaves little room for 'mutual exploration'.<br>

___<br>

Piss Christ, to me, is a photo with two distinct faces, one leading to something spiritual, the other one far more earth-bound. The earth-bound side is that I cannot ever escape seeing it *also* as a protest against the church. I don't know if I'd use the word carnal (fitting, though, as it would be), but very earthly and very human it is. I think we're just using different words there for pretty much the same idea. And yes, for me that is in contrast with the spiritual. Where the spiritual transcends, the carnal bounds back to earth, makes things more literal, more "real" (yeah, ooops), more down here. But it's a contrast with the spiritual, not an opposite (no mutual exclusion). The spiritual is still 'within' it, it's just to attempting to (or aspiring to) transcend into that.<br>

The spiritual side of this image is the light. That brilliant glow. The Catholic upbringing rears its head - it is the transfiguration, liberation. Maybe a schizophrenic reading, but in a way, this light puts the crucifix in exactly the context the church wants it to be seen in. I do find spirituality in that message. Making light visibly a subject in a photo for me fairly often works; Weston's Peppers spring to mind.<br>

____<br>

To offer a bit of photographic foundation on my ealier posting. To me, an image as<a href="http://photo.herrimanarts.com/files/2012/03/BRESSON-Rome-1959.jpg"> this one</a>, despite having elements that seem universal (the closed nature of religion, the inequality of sexes), it remains too much tied to a single culture, and specific period in time. I see it as an image of women overcoming the bias against them; but the context wears too thick (*).<br>

While <a href="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2012/11/7/1352295787307/Henri-Cartier-Bresson-Bro-010.jpg">this photo</a> does bring me some reference to spirituality. There is something more universal about it, a simple humane humility and submission that's not specifically tied to the background culture of the photographer; a geste that has a similar meaning wherever and references (even if subtle) to something more profound behind, out of time and place. As a viewer, I feel more free to interpret into it, less bound by the actual subject it shows (I know this sounds vague, but I hope it's a bit clear all the same).</p>

<p>(*) <em>Not saying I find it a bad photo, in many ways I find it better than the second example.</em></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Wouter, some great thoughts to chew over, especially relating to universal and culturally more specific photos.</p>

<p>The spirituality I'd find, if I did, in the second photo would be somewhere around the connection/disconnection between the bald, faceless head and the hat. Though the hat lies on the table, it's animated (animation seems related to spirituality) by my knowing that it would usually be found on the man's head. The tension between what is and what could be or what usually is sets up a world seemingly ethereal or in some sense elusive.</p>

<p>Spirituality, for me, is elusive and I have more questions about it than answers . . . so, on the universal tending to yield a more spiritual experience than the culturally or temporally specific, I wonder if there isn't a counterpoint to that as well. Some of the most spiritual acts are small, local, individual, simple, not grand and not necessarily applied universally. The spirituality of the acts of a Mother Teresa might seem to be spiritual in part because of her wide reach and the universal acceptance and adoration of such acts of "goodness." Yet, what about this . . . ?</p>

<p><em>"Zen doesn't confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes."</em><br>

--Alan Watts</p>

<p>It could be that it's more in the specific and grounded acts we perform than in the universal symbols and situations we experience or imagine that spirituality exists, if it does. Which would mean that Bresson being caught up in (maybe better to say "at one with") his culture and milieu is, in fact, a very spiritual place to be.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Out of Wouter's posts, I will agree with this fragment: "not specifically tied."</p>

<p>Spirituality is not tied. It is not what arrives; it is the gap that allows "what" to arrive. It is the opening; it is not what comes through that opening.</p>

<p>"If you close the gate you know no one will cross the road; it does not follow that you can predict who will cross when you open it." — <em>Henri Bergson</em></p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Julie, I think you captured quite well what was missing in my descriptions. Spirituality isn't the action itself (big or small), but an opening to a wider experience (a realisation, revelation, lightning strike of understanding,...) of emotional significance, transcending the action into something of far bigger value (to me).<br>

____</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Spirituality, for me, is elusive and I have more questions about it than answers</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That, for me, is certainly true too; all I wrote before is still in doubt and under scrutiny. And frankly, I hope it will stay that way :-) It's among those things where the question simply seems more important than the answer to me.</p>

[laur1]

<p><em>N.Onaga:</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are now accusing those that asked you to explain your understanding of spirituality for lacking any understanding themselves. That is disingenuous. All that you were asked to do is what you suggested on your own later, in the same paragraph:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So what is your description of spirituality and its context?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but that is not the problem we are having here. Spirituality as a word exists in all languages I am familiar with. We are not talking about a term specific to one culture and one language. A quick look at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality</a> shows the complexity of the topic - click on the language specific pages for even more takes at explaining it.<br>

<em> </em><br>

In my experience, if people cannot explain things, it is because they do not quite understand them. Or otherwise put, I did not yet find something that I could say I understand without being able to explain it and thus pass my understanding to others. If this thread is about sharing knowledge, it can do a better job about it. I cannot help but remember HCB and his goal of capturing the decisive moment - somehow he found a concise way of expressing his approach to photography - something to learn from there.</p>

<p><em>Wouter Willemse:</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>To openly abuse the mentioning of Plato before, it's entering the cave and looking the other way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What did you mean here by looking the other way when entering the cave? Not sure how the cave allegory plays in the context of your message.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Laurentiu,<br>

First of all, using the cave allegory is mostly a play of words. The point I tried to make is that spirituality for me isn't the shadows we see, nor trying to find (through study and knowledge) the Ideai that form those shadows. If anything, it's looking for the fire used to light up the cave.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Laurentiu Cristofer wrote: "I cannot help but remember HCB and his goal of capturing the decisive moment - somehow he found a concise way of expressing his approach to photography - something to learn from there."</p>

<p>What is concise about HCB's statement? How is "moment" any more* definable than is "spirituality"?</p>

<p>[*or less]</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Laurentiu Cristofer finds "Photography and Spirituality?" too squishy, so let's try switching to something solid. How about "Energy in Physics." His first demand, of course, would be for us to define "energy," so here it is: energy: n. the ability to do work. Which demands a definition for "work"; that being n. the operation of a force in producing movement. What might that force be? Energy! This seems to be going in a circle. Let's switch to biology. How about we discuss "Selection of the Fittest." First demand, as usual, is to define "fittest." Well, DUH! the fittest is the one that survives! Hmmm ... circles again.</p>

<p>Let's go, then to the already approved "decisive moment." Pretending that we've already defined "moment" (I'll be waiting with bated breath) -- let's give it a provisional definition of a "location in time" the next question is, doesn't the rest of time have "location"? What makes a moment have location and the rest of time be without? Well, DUH! because a "moment" is "decisive"! It's the "fittest" moment. Circles again ... oh dear.</p>

<p>How about HCB's other favorite phrase (and one used, quite usefully, by many of us) -- "the mind's eye." Does the "mind's eye" need another mind to operate the eye of the mind?</p>

[laur1]

<p><em>Wouter:</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>The point I tried to make is that spirituality for me isn't the shadows we see, nor trying to find (through study and knowledge) the Ideai that form those shadows. If anything, it's looking for the fire used to light up the cave.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, it's like a search for truth so to speak? For the essence of things? If that is the case, why not just call it that?<br>

<br>

<em>Julie:</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Laurentiu Cristofer wrote:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know my name is tricky to pronounce, but it shouldn't be a challenge to copy paste it in your posts to avoid misspelling it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is concise about HCB's statement? How is "moment" any more* definable than is "spirituality"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, one practical way to see the difference is to start a thread about decisive moments in photography and see how many people ask you to define what you understand by "moment" :) Funny that you picked on "moment" when "decisive" is really the part that deserves more attention here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let's go, then to the already approved "decisive moment." Pretending that we've already defined "moment" (I'll be waiting with bated breath) -- let's give it a provisional definition of a "location in time" the next question is, doesn't the rest of time have "location"? What makes a moment have location and the rest of time be without? Well, DUH! because a "moment" is "decisive"! It's the "fittest" moment. Circles again ... oh dear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you just shot down your own confusing definition and in the process you displayed how disorganized your thoughts are. Great job!</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Rephrasing a question sometimes helps, if I may:</p>

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

<p>And as a listener, how could you differentiate sacred from profane , and if you did differentiate, wouldn't it only matter to you as the listener? What could the artist know of something so personal in each member of the audience? It probably wouldn't matter that the bongo player were spiritually sourced, it would be your soul that received it and you wouldn't be able to tell why, or from whence. I would say it wouldn't matter to you why or whence because it's your meaning, your treasure as it were and that you wouldn't be able to explain it adequately, but you would still know it. And that would be enough, that you knew it, either from bongo playing, seeing a photograph or taking one, or washing the evening dishes, or feeding the cat.</p>

<p> </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Charles, it really does make a difference. For example, I have no idea what the game of cricket is all about. I've seen enough pictures that I could put on their white cloths and wave around the bat thingie but I'm not going to be "playing cricket." Even washing the dishes would make no sense to people who didn't have dishes. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science">cargo cult science</a> for further examples.</p>

<p>All knowledge -- ALL knowledge, scientific as well as spiritual -- starts from unfounded assumptions, postulates, axioms -- whatever you want to call them. Euclid's geometry worked fine until somebody looked back at his postulates and wondered ... hmmm. And we find non-Euclidian geometry.</p>

<p>Spirituality may be about beliefs settled on assumptions that do not come from logic or science. It may also, and very differently be, about being agnostic about assumptions. It may be where instead of going "forward" unthinkingly from one's founding assumptions; instead, "looking back" at those founding assumptions with an open mind. It doesn't necessarily demand belief in alternative assumptions; it may merely mean (as it does for me) always wondering "what if?" and explicitly trying out/on what happens with different founding assumptions.</p>

<p>Scientists who are considering 'dark energy' have to be willing to question assumptions. To be able to even think about 'dark energy' you have to be willing to question assumptions.</p>

<p>A small example is provided (unintentionally) by Laurentiu Cristofor, above. He assumes that there are moments in time. I don't think that's true. Time is continuous; the only moments in photography are in pictures that have already been made (my provisional definition of "locations in time" works for memory; it does not work for "live," shooting time). 'Moments' are in history, not in lived time.</p>

<p>Further, HCB (Henri Cartier-Bresson) took his famous quote from a religious figure from ages before photography -- he gives, as the epigram to his chapter 'The Decisive Moment' this quote "There is nothing in this world without a decisive moment." — <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_de_Retz"><em>Cardinal Retz</em></a> -- who was presumably not talking about the making of pictures.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, the reason it might not matter only to the listener or viewer is empathy. Photos and art establish intimate connections between artist and viewer, among viewers, and between artists and subjects and viewers and subjects.</p>

<p><em>"What could the artist know of something so personal in each member of the audience?"</em></p>

<p>Answer this and you've discovered what's at the core of so much art. The artist's ability to tap into something so personal and significant in the viewer.</p>

<p><em>"It probably wouldn't matter that the bongo player were spiritually sourced, it would be your soul that received it . . . "</em></p>

<p>Leaving spirituality aside for a moment, since it's obviously a loaded term, what this seems to suggest is an unbridgeable rift between bongo player and listener or photographer and viewer. I receive what I receive regardless of the source? What, then, if any, is the relationship between artist and viewer? What is any relationship? When you speak, do I just hear what I will hear or do <em>your</em> words affect me, even if I then personalize them? Does the artist even matter or is it all of the viewer's making? I think the artist matters and is intimately connected.</p>

<p><em>" . . . it's your meaning, your treasure . . ."</em></p>

<p>For me, it's ours, not just mine. Listening to music, viewing a photo, are acts of sharing. I may be alone in the room with the photo but I am not traveling solo. This photo does not just exist in a vacuum. It's part of history, part of culture, part of us. I see it not just through my eyes, but through eyes which have developed in a culture and a social environment.</p>

<p>. . .</p>

<p>There's a thread in another forum asking if we'd die without photography, by the OP's own admission an intentionally melodramatic question, and I'd agree! Why not ask if we'd die without music, without the beach, without our spouse, our children, without bongo playing? One of the answers may be simply because it's a photography site.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>So, it's like a search for truth so to speak? For the essence of things? If that is the case, why not just call it that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Laurentiu, that's a very simplified reading, and almost insultingly so. If you reread any of my previous posts, I think it was more than clear I never meant "a quest for the truth". If I would have, I'd call it that. The fact that I did not do so, could also be a reminder for you that maybe it's not summarised all that easy.<br>

___<br>

[edit, added after Charles replied]<br /> ___<br /> Charles, I agree on the aspect of "just knowing it" when it's there - but I'd see that more as the 'spriritual experiece', which in itself can already be profound. But as Fred, I do not see it as a uniquely personal experience. Music is a nice example - who do some readings of work get all the extra praise? Why does the 1962 Karajan reading of Beethoven's 5th symphony (certainly among his best recordings of the picece) feel like listening to Beethoven, while listening to Carlos Kleiber conducting the same symphony like being taken into a rollercoaster which touches on what Fate and Redemption are? Look up reviews, and you'll find I'm not the only one to think so. Must be something Kleiber did, then?</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Good points. For example Julie - "It may also, and very differently be, about being agnostic about assumptions."</p>

<p>Spirituality is indeed a loaded term. In some contexts it may refer to seeking, in some contexts, finding. We might think of someone as unspiritual if they were so rooted in a fundamentalist view of one of the major religions that the individuality of that person was almost indistinguishable from texts, and any seeking exhibited just a rifling through a collection of texts that they had already 'found', not seeking at all. Seekers wouldn't necessarily see anything of the spirit in that mere 'exercise of the thumb and index finger', but the fundamentalist would disagree, seeing his practice as seeking for one answer or another that has escaped him but for just a moment, and seeking for those answers where the answer can be found, precisely in the text somewhere, on this page or the other. We've all probably had the experience of trying to divert such a person elsewhere when they reach for the text and it gets soon tiresome to have no influence on their reaching. Their reaching is a spiritual act if by spiritual we mean seeking. But their finding isn't ours and those two orientations of mind cannot meet satisfactorily when it comes to other than going to the beach or on a picnic.</p>

<p>But Fred, I do agree there is a connection between artist and viewer, song writer and hearer, and empathy, yes, I agree. At the same time, each viewer's reaction is uniquely personal and full of personal contexts, and it seems that the artists appreciation of a particular appreciator's appreciation would have to be fairly general.</p>

<p>I also think that its possible that a photograph not intended as spiritual could have a spiritual impact on a person, the photograph a mediator, just as the act of washing a dish, or feeding the cat could mediate something sacredly meaningful to the actor. A spiritual meaning could attach to anything and I'm not sure art can make a claim of better efficacy as a mediator between the sacred and the profane. But I don't see any reason why photography couldn't be used that way.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Wouter, yes it would be something Kleiber did. But I also think that Kleiber would be pained to convey to us, if it were the case, that he took his inspiration, his inspiration for all the transforming themes of fate and redemption, from, say, the eating habits of his cats. His interpretation of the music makes sense to us, his inspiration is his mystery and his alone.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, yes, I agree that photos not intended as spiritual could feel spiritual, and the reverse would be the case as well. Photos intended spiritually might not have a spiritual impact . . . on me, for example.</p>

<p>Your paragraph above, the one starting with "But Fred" nicely captures what I think of as the irony (or fullness) of art and of most experience, even forgetting about art for the moment. It's why the philosophical question about freedom and determinism is so challenging. I think we are each free (free to uniquely and individually respond to others, to the world, and to art) and also biologically, historically, culturally, and socially determined to a great degree. We share so much and yet remain the unique person we are. To me, it's that kind of oneness/manyness that would come closest to spirituality.</p>

<p>How do symbols work? They are shared in order to be symbols, so they have something universally common and special, yet they are among the most personal of things to each of us.</p>

<p>Sacred and profane is a different matter, for me, having nothing but a superficial relationship to spirituality. Sacred and profane seem to me wrapped up in moral judgment rather than spirituality. They tend to be used as axes, a means more of categorization and separation.</p>

<p>As for the fundamentalist who claims spirituality, this happens all the time just as some people claim to be artists and some not nice people claim to be nice. Not all claims made about oneself are true. Though we are very intimate with ourselves, we often don't know ourselves terribly well.</p>

<p>I operate under the assumption that the traditional notion of self is evolving away from something "inner" and that much about us has to do with how we are seen by others and how that experience of us by others reflects back not only on how we think of ourselves but becomes part of who we are. Rather than being located or split off individuals, I see "us" as participants in chains of overlapping experience, experience that was here long before we were and continues long after we're gone. For me, the key is in the experience more than in the individual having it. That's often where <em>connection</em> or <em>connectedness</em> lies and often where I find art.</p>

[charleswood]

<blockquote>

<p>For me, the key is in the experience more than in the individual having it. That's often where <em>connection</em> or <em>connectedness</em> lies and often where I find art.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, I think I see what you're saying.</p>

<p>You know, as I age, I find that what I'm connecting more to, not so much when I was younger, are the broader themes that connect us all and that will survive us. On the one hand I feel more connected, on the other hand, it is not as personal a connection as I had thought my connections were in my past. But you may be saying something not like that at all!</p>

<p>I suppose so, your comments as to the connotations of words like sacred and profane. Have the thumb and index finger exercisers co-opted those words too? Are there no words then?</p>

<p>I don't have the knowledge to say if our Western religious traditions have a symbol for a satiated seeker or not. If it did, it would compromise the notion of faith as the only answer, that traditional stale answer being that we can't know. But in the East, a character from their culture comes to mind, legitimating seeking for suggesting that there is something to find: <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tricycle.com/sites/default/files/images/issues/v12n1/fat-buddha1-p78.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tricycle.com/special-section/one-fat-buddha&h=387&w=500&sz=85&tbnid=HMaAcAmUjFgYeM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=116&zoom=1&usg=__w8Nckuis-qNlhgk8pQmItZl0FBo=&docid=HE107rO1zsAU1M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dUf5UZqmOaatiQL18IGIDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAg&dur=2836">http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tricycle.com/sites/default/files/images/issues/v12n1/fat-buddha1-p78.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tricycle.com/special-section/one-fat-buddha&h=387&w=500&sz=85&tbnid=HMaAcAmUjFgYeM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=116&zoom=1&usg=__w8Nckuis-qNlhgk8pQmItZl0FBo=&docid=HE107rO1zsAU1M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dUf5UZqmOaatiQL18IGIDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAg&dur=2836</a></p>

<p>On the other hand, if all that the fat Buddha found is a bunch of texts, a collection of moral judgments, then that image is just part of the spiritual pabulum cultures offer, not nourishment at all. I prefer to think that culture could heal even though our dominant culture injures, despicably injures and can't heal, prefer to think that not all culture is as ours, yet that may not be so, though culture could be made to do so.</p>

[charleswood]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred - Assuming this particular photo wouldn't work for everyone, rather than simply trying to approach the "meaning" of spirituality as theory, would it be of value for others to take a particular photo or a particular photographer (as Julie did) and talk about its spirituality, or in lieu of that, a photographic action or aspect of photographing that feels spiritual to you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay. Here's one of mine: <a href="/photo/16675292">http://www.photo.net/photo/16675292</a></p>

<p>The larger theme is parenting. What connects me to the coyotes in the photo is the familiarity: Dad coyote checking his son for scents, clues as to where the son has been and with whom, the safe places, the not so safe, with an intruder, or with the rest of the extended family. And for what the son has been rolling in. A typical human father's concern for a youngster. For me, there is a connection being established with nature, and I hesitate to call it spiritual. But as to the feelings for me, it confronts me just how much I can relate to a coyote father and son. If recognizing love in those acts is as Wouter suggests, a part of the experience for me, it is astonishing and what Wouter might call spiritual. But I wouldn't have called this a spiritual photograph or one particularly evocative in that way. Because on the one hand it's just familiar parenting. But on the other, on a recognition of the power of parental love in nature, it approaches what I personally would circumscribe as close to or within the 'sacred'. But even talking about it risks its ruin as such. So I don't know: a lot of what may move us on the deepest level is something where the best we can expect upon telling others is "Well, I guess I sort of see how you could see that in that." Maybe with more dedication and care more can be said in a photograph, something that wouldn't wilt on closer inspection. I don't know.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>" . . . it is not as personal a connection as I had thought my connections were in my past. But you may be saying something not like that at all!"</em></p>

<p>I think I'm saying something very much like that. You and I have connected! Which is more important to me than fully "understanding" each other! :-)</p>

<p><em>" . . . a symbol for a satiated seeker . . . "</em></p>

<p>Big ol' fat Jerry Falwell? I don't know about a symbol, but a phrase for it might be "know-it-all."</p>

<p><em>" . . . our dominant culture injures, despicably injures . . ."</em></p>

<p>As far as our "culture" is concerned, tough one, yes. I try to run in smaller circles/subcultures, think locally, and that helps. We save the world one person at a time, not one culture at a time.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, just saw your photo post, which you posted while I was writing. Don't have time to look or respond now. Will get to it later. Thanks for continuing photographically!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, had a sudden change of schedule, so I have time to respond. I do see what's moving you in the photo and also probably wouldn't call it spiritual but would understand others doing that, especially given the way you describe it, which makes a lot of sense to me in terms of parenting and the naturalness of it all. You mention familiarity, and I think that is sometimes a key. When a photo or an aspect of a photo or quality of a photo feels familiar, that can be a kind of resonating that is very powerful. Mysterious and strange can also be powerful, of course. But that sense of "I know this" or "I've felt this" or "This seems so easy or genuine" can make for the kind of connection we've been talking about.</p>

<p>By the way, I see a face in the trees behind and to the right of the coyotes. First thing I saw even before the coyotes.</p>

<p><em>"But even talking about it risks its ruin as such."</em></p>

<p>Not an uncommon sentiment expressed by many. I'm skeptical of it, though. Of course it depends on who's talking and what they're saying. Some talk is just that . . . talk. But talking is just another experience, another act we do, another means of communication and sharing. I don't see talking about pictures as a substitute for what the picture can accomplish. I see it as an accompaniment. Especially in trying to learn about myself or deepen my photographing skills and vision, talking about stuff like what I see in my own pictures and hearing what others see has been of great benefit to me. We can skip over a lot and articulating things can force us to look more deeply. That doesn't mean EVERYTHING can be put into words. Photos are photos for a reason. But it also doesn't mean words have to be avoided when dealing with photos.</p>

 

[charleswood]

<p>Very good Fred.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Charles, I could call a photo like the one you offered for discussion as spiritual indeed. The parenting is transcending culture, country, language and in this case even species. Seeing a father and son, for example, closely, seeing the world between them as family members can have, are photos that for me can transcend relatively easy into more. (to be honest, your photo did not have that affect on me, but maybe also because of the way I "meet" your photo now: prepared, and looking at it with a bit preconceived idea).<br>

Adding to that the idea of being connected to it (on an emotional level), or recognition and familiarity is a very good point. I think it helps opening the ports; helps relating back to your own emotions, ideas, memories, expectations, trashed dreams and so on.</p>

<p>Let me slightly devilish, and offer another photo that somehow connects to me in a way that I perceive as spiritual: it's <a href="/photo/9573861">an older photo</a> by Fred. I always refrained from leaving a critique or comment on it, as I never manage to describe well how this photo moves me. But to me, it's fitting this context; Fred, I hope you do not mind?<br>

It's more than a portrait of his dad, it's about growing older, about vulnerability, about needing one another; it's a tender loving photo that reveals a son's love and care.... it's a photo that transcends itself in every way (for me) into something much wider bigger - it ttalks to me of life with its highs and lows, but so worth living. It leaves me contemplative, with some sort of inner glow that enlightens without becoming factual; it's not knowledge, it's experience(s). This photo connects, and moves me.<br>

I know I am getting fuzzier and fuzzier in my descriptions, as Fred said, not everything can be put into words. But in this faint attempt to verbalise, it actually became more clear to myself - so, it's worth the shot for at least one of us :-)</p>