I am Spirit, formless and free;

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>Most photographers keep trying ever harder, more carefully (harking to their influences) to get Uncle Vern standing by his new car.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most photographers won't earn their living if they can't make Uncle Vern pose with his new car. That is the biological necessity. After that, there is always room for creativity. Some people still won't feel the necessity to turn to the ""strange new world" and remain satisfied with what they are doing. That is intellectual lethargy, and they will probably perish.</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>Influence is unavoidable, but some escape from its total clutch, and find some light of their own. Ands that's where we advance as humanity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I think that urge to escape mainly comes when the current style is totally saturated, and people are bored. E.g. Van Gogh did not appear in the 16th century.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Allen, I have to keep stating the obvious, because you don't get it. You keep asserting that it's either/or. We're either in the clutches (or crutches) of influence or we "escape from its total clutch." If you could stop talking in extremes for a moment, you'd see where you've gone wrong. We all do both. We absorb and honor influence and we escape it to the extent we can. Some do better than others. Some get stuck in the past. Some have no sense of history and come off as naive and lost souls. Your opening post was stated as an either/or and stated in the form of hyperbole: "is it formless and free" or is it "mapped and given to us." Many of us have been telling you they're not mutually exclusive and they don't have to be put in such ridiculously extreme words. Photos can have form and are not absolutely free and they can simultaneously be not mapped and given to us.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>formless and free or a structure based on paths others have walked before? <br /> It is an endless path that we walk, mapped and given to us, to forever tread.?</p>

<p>The structure.....a 1940"s rocket to Mars.</p>

<p>The photographer...</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>It's probably helpful, when considering the more extreme and downright silly notions of freedom, to keep in mind that some photographers and some artists are under the influence of drugs or alcohol or their own egos which can make them feel totally free when in fact they're imprisoned by themselves and just don't see it.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Humanity is about thinking out of the box...our success as a species.</p>

<p>Following tradition, doing the same old....</p>

<p>Its about a 1940"s rocket to Mars. How sad is that when we landed on the moon in 1969. Traditional, stuck in the mud, thought....the enemy and downfall of humanity.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>The same old.</p>

<p>Building, building on the same old structures....and hopefully one day we will reach heaven with a flame up our arse</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>The word "sneak" makes my hackles stand up, though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, poor choice of words, and you are too sharp to let that slide by:) and I know it took a lot of work to place objects. I think the guys I mentioned would take several frames of the same scene so they could have the inhabitants of the frame present in different relationship to the camera, and as the duplication or re-plication of the individuals takes a lot of work to make sure it fits in the final work and looks seamless. So no "sneaking" involved as these elements are at least to the artists I mentioned, central elements of their idea and needed to be meticulously executed for the concept to work. I suppose its interesting because the level of detail puts a responsibility on the viewer that even often we don't have as photographers. Particularly those of us that shoot on the street or walking around, you often don't see a lot of things in the photograph when taken, at least not consciously. I do harbor the notion that I can't prove, that there is "seeing" that happens above or below the threshold of immediate awareness that if we are fortunate to have some connection, helps frame the pic and press the shutter. Other times there's more conscious awareness in the process, and then if one is a certain type of fashion or portrait artist, for example, the process can be all about control of what the camera sees, not only in the frame, but precise control of lighting. So not one shoe fits all, and everyone is "correct". :)</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>Building, building on the same old structures</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My take is, building on old structures is not always bad, as long as there is room for improvement and exploration within the established framework. It is only when a field gets saturated, that people start thinking of escaping to new ideas or styles. Imagine if every new artist made it their religion not to receive any influence from others. How will the world look like? There will be only one artist in each genre. Everyone else will ignore and follow their own path. There will be no improvement, no nurturing of existing styles. </p>

[thomas_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>Humanity is about thinking out of the box...our success as a species.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We were successful as a species without much change for quite a bit. For 190 thousand years we were knapping stones in various styles before our civilization started to evolve technically on a faster pace.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Supriyo, you've communicated some very important ideas. I just finished watching Frank Capra's <em>Platinum Blonde</em>. It's an amazing early romantic comedy. Formula: poor newspaperman falls for rich beauty while plainer female friend gets left in the dust. Guess what happens? We don't have to, because it's a romantic comedy from the 30s. So we kind of know what happens. Guy realizes the error of his ways and winds up with the truer love, the plainer woman with whom he realizes he was meant to be all along. The beauty of this kind of film is not being surprised at what happens or discovering something new. It's in enjoying the ride, even when that ride has been taken before. Nothing new here. But beautifully done and having Capra's personal stamp on it throughout. Not all art is the art of Van Gogh. Not all art is original and not all art dismisses tradition. Some is steeped in it. </p>

<p>Allen, thinking outside the box may just require not confining art to the "originality" box. That would be a stifling and one-dimensional notion of art. There can be much more to art than that. It may be also in understanding the importance of formula, tradition, and canons in so many great works of art. Chopin didn't originate the Nocturne. Just listen to the influence John Field had on Chopin. It wasn't originality or a lack of tradition or a lack of undue influence that made Chopin a great artist. It was his music writing skills combined with his heart and soul.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Barry wrote: "... there is "seeing" that happens above or below the threshold of immediate awareness that if we are fortunate to have some connection, helps frame the pic and press the shutter." Yes. And also the thing we call "I" upon which influence tries to work is much more amorphous, slippery and fleeting than anything logic can take hold of and nail to any line of reasoning.</p>

<p>It was one of the founding revelations to me about photography when I realized that the camera effectively allows me to escape the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_effect">Rashomon effect</a>: one assumes that all those different conceptions of the same scene were due to different angles of view along with different personal influences. But the camera collapsed that -- it was seeing <em>exactly</em> what I was seeing and it was seeing things very differently from what I was seeing. The proof was there in the hundreds in my proof sheets. This was a wondrous, glorious, magnificent realization, for me. It meant that I had the means to escape an influence-inflected view, to see things without "me." A great big, deliciously easy means to explore what I otherwise could not.</p>

<p>The effort then required was to close the gap between the proof sheet and the time of shooting -- to learn how to let the camera's eye be the only eye -- and let <em>that</em> current run my show. Like plugging into a different kind of electricity.</p>

<p>For me, this means learning how to mentally shut up and listen. Learning how to get out of the way. To be perfectly quiet and just (try to) be purely open. Blah, blah, blahing and bawling about beliefs is anathema to getting out/into what the camera can do for me. When I can do it, the rewards are marvelous.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>there is "seeing" that happens above or below the threshold of immediate awareness that if we are fortunate to have some connection, helps frame the pic and press the shutter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And yet, I look through your often very moving and insightful portfolio and there's a coherence and personal sense of vision that goes beyond whatever degree of awareness or non-awareness you experienced. For me, awareness is a different matter from influence. Influence can take place overtly and with awareness but, just as importantly, influence can take place with no awareness or planning. Avedon, whether in his fashion work or his portrait work, likely experienced just that kind of seeing you're describing, so I don't think it's limited by genre. But, again, awareness is not the point to me. It's influence. All those things that have seeped in and are at play even when we're in our most instinctual and spontaneous modes. One's life experience, one's general way of seeing the world, one's cultural associations with symbols and signs and gesture, even one's genetics will all still be at play even when one is in the state of whatever degree of immediate or non-awareness one can reach, even when one is in the moment or in the zone. As Julie made clear when she said <em>"<strong>(try to)</strong> be purely open,"</em> there's no such thing as someone actually <em>being</em> "purely" open if "purely open" entails a complete lack of influence. The most they can do is <strong><em>try</em></strong>, but they will never ever achieve purity because their influences are already baked into the picture even when they're successfully avoiding them to the extent they can. That very avoidance has already framed their experience. And very often the struggle against such natural and human influence comes off as false and disingenuous. <br /> <br /> Van Gogh achieved what he did not because he set out to avoid influence or tradition. He achieved what he did in great part because he embraced them which helped him create as much influence and tradition as he benefitted from.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>" ... there's no such thing as someone actually <em>being</em> "purely" open ... "</p>

<p>Sure there is. I do it.</p>

<p><em>Some</em>times I can't -- and sometimes I don't want to.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Except, no, you don't. Your saying it doesn't make it so. You have never been nor will you ever be a <em>tabula rasa</em>. You are a human, a mere mortal always under the influence and there is . . . no exit.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I do. Your saying I don't doesn't make it not so.</p>

<p>I'm not talking about living my life, day and night, without influence. I'm talking about discrete spans of time. I'm talking about forgetting myself, losing track of time and place for one or two or three hours while I am immersed in an activity that I love intensely. Millions of people around the world experience this kind of "losing themselves" while engaged in activities they love intensely.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes. I know. I do that, too. But that's NOT what we're talking about. Those discrete spans of time, where we forget ourselves, lose track, immerse ourselves in something are not free of the influences that have built up in and for us. They may be free of our thinking about them or being aware of them. But they are not free of them.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Again, just look at Barry's portfolio which, even though he says, like you and I, that he has those discrete spans of time where he forgets himself, loses track of time and place, and shoots in the moment and sees "above or below the threshold of immediate awareness", there's a coherence and personality (personal consistent visual influence) at play throughout, particularly, much of his street work. His sensibility has been formed over time and it pervades his work, and that's a compliment. His ability, and I trust him when he says it's there, to let go and to see in the way he sees, means his influences don't get in his way and make his seeing richer and can be very second nature. It does not mean his influences suddenly vanish. If they did, his work would be visually, thematically, and emotionally inconsistent and much less coherent than it is.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>"They may be free of our thinking about them or being aware of them. But they are not free of them."</p>

<p>I am sorry that it is that way for you. It is not that way for me.</p>

<p>[i speak for myself, not for Barry. He described a different kind of self-experience than what I know myself to have had. I respect and believe his description about his own experience.]</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, you needn't be sorry for me. I'm human. And you are, too, though you don't seem to know it. I believe that you are sincere and genuine in your perception of how it is for you. Unfortunately, you are simply wrong. To be clear, you're not wrong about your perception of how it is. I'm sure you do perceive it that way. You're wrong about how it is. That's OK, though. Just as humans can't completely (purely) escape their influences, even when they think they do, we are all wrong on occasion.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>" ... we are all wrong on occasion."</p>

<p>Well, at least you are aware of the possibility ...</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes, I am. But that doesn't mean all this is a matter of individual perspective and subjective differences. Just like I use my influences as positively as I can and don't run away from them even as I might overcome them at times, I don't let the possibility that I'm wrong hold me back from learning, thinking clearly, and accepting certain things about what it is to be a human. I may admit to the possibility of being wrong about humans not being able to fly of their own accord, but that doesn't mean someone who sincerely claims to fly of their own accord isn't a nut job. There are actually some things humans share and cultural, biological, and experiential influences are among them. Everyone is entitled to feel whatever they want and even to believe whatever they want. But, clearly, a lot of the most fervently-held beliefs through history have turned out to be misguided at their most benign and dangerous at their most malignant. When I come up against beliefs I think are pathetic, silly, or naive, I'm not going to sit by and just chalk it up to subjective experience. I'm going to call it out as wrong if I think it is.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Your beliefs don't concern me. Your assertions to know more about my experience than I do myself do. You are simply wrong on the latter.</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>I think, what we are debating about was in some sense <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahamkara">explored</a> by philosophers centuries back. When we are proclaiming that we can absolutely remove the "I" from our artistic pursuits, aren't we a little over ambitious? Yes, I can convince myself that I am free, but what if that is just an illusion? We can convince our conscious mind that we are free, what about the subconscious? Can we claim any control over our subconscious within a short span of time? Unless someone can definitively prove that he/she has succeeded in removing the "I" from the subconscious, all these assertions about freedom from influence are blank statements. A victim of illusion by definition cannot realize the effect of the illusion.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>That argument works just as well in reverse, Supriyo. You could be the one who is a victim of illusion in claiming the persistence of influence. If you can neither prove nor disprove either case, you'll just have to take my word, since it is my experience of which I speak, not yours.</p>