I am Spirit, formless and free;

[Julie H]

<blockquote>

<p>No-continuity simply means accepting that continuity that happens. Continuity means the opposite: making that particular continuity that excludes all others. This is, of course, possible but not any longer nourishing for we have found that by excluding we grow thin inside even though we may have an enormous bank account outside.</p>

<p>For some things one needs critics, connoisseurs, judgments, authoritative ones, otherwise one gets gypped; but for nothing one can dispense with all that fol-de-rol.</p>

<p>When nothing is securely possessed one is free to accept any of the somethings. How many are there? They roll up at your feet. How many doors and windows are there in it?</p>

<p>***********</p>

<p>The thing to do is to keep the head alert but empty.<br>

— <em>John Cage</em></p>

</blockquote>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Ideas are one thing and what happens is another.</em><br>

—John Cage</p>

</blockquote>

[Julie H]

<p>Exactly.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The way I take the quote about ideas is that his and your "empty-headed" ideas are one thing, but what's actually happening is that your heads are not empty at all, no matter what your ideas tell you.</p>

<p>In any case, what's truly empty-headed is having a conversation through dueling quotes. Being able to google and find a quote really shows and tells nothing much at all, except that you can push buttons and kind of fill in a jigsaw puzzle. We all know that we can find a quote from some famous person to bolster almost any point we want to make. Making a coherent argument ourselves, however, requires more than an empty head and more than finding someone who once said something which, taken out of context, seems to agree with our ideas, no matter how naive and unsupportable they may actually be.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>This is a matter of belief, as you well know. I accept that you don't believe. You do not accept that I do believe.</p>

<p>I am sorry you are intolerant of the beliefs of others.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>First of all, I suppose one could say anything and everything is a matter of belief. But beliefs are either supportable or not supportable, arguable or not arguable, and I give some more weight than others. Some people don't <em>believe</em> in evolution, some <em>believe</em> that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster, some <em>believe</em> that climate change is a hoax, some <em>believe</em> that gays should all go to hell, some <em>believe</em> that women deserve to be beaten. So, yes, there are beliefs I'm intolerant of. I'm particularly intolerant of religious-sounding beliefs that just keep getting repeated, that are based on flaws of logic like "Well, you can't prove God doesn't exist", that are often "proven" by out-of-context and self-serving quotes from the bible, and that the believer thinks don't need some kind of coherent support for if she wants to be tolerated and taken seriously. Just telling people they are wrong because they don't have access to what's inside your head doesn't make me tolerant. It makes me skeptical.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I really don't care about your personal theories about belief. I do care that you are intolerant, as demonstrated in this thread.</p>

<p>If you don't like my beliefs, please don't read my posts. It's not hard to not read the posts of people who don't interest you. I do so -- or prefer to until forced to do otherwise, as is the case at the moment.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Sorry, that's not the way it works. I'm just as interested in ideas I don't agree with as ideas I do. And I will engage whatever ideas are posted here that pique my interest. Your posts here actually interested me quite a bit, which is why I engaged them even though I disagree. You can't post things and then ask people please not to read them, this being an open forum. Really, the only option for you to control those you want not to read your posts would be not to post, an option I hope you don't choose. For me, turning a blind eye to beliefs I don't like or don't think are supportable is not an option.</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>When nothing is securely possessed one is free to accept any of the somethings. How many are there? They roll up at your feet. How many doors and windows are there in it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Julie,<br>

In your quote, John Cage is asking that we consider all paths, not stick to one and reject others. I feel that is different from shutting down all influences, as I was understanding from your comments.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Supriyo, if you like that, you might enjoy reading more of Cage's writings (my quote is from his book <em>Silence</em>). Or just Google him -- I expect he's got a lot of stuff online.</p>

<p>[i'm not going to try hammering my own message to try and clarify it; I hope it's there if you want to reread it in previous posts -- or not. But thanks for letting me know that I wasn't clear enough.]</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>Julie,<br /> Thank you for referring to John Cage. I will surely look into his works.<br /> <br /> If you believe that one should be open to all ideas and not stick to one, then I agree with you. Is this what you were communicating to us? What I found confusing in your comment was when you said you can sit at your work for a few hours and completely empty your mind of all influences. I think that is almost impossible to achieve. On the other hand, if you say that you can sit for a few hours when you can open your mind to all related ideas instead of a preferred one, that is also challenging to do, but may be more understandable to me.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I can be without preference. Un-rooted. Or, more prosaically, and sort of an opposite description, think of me as a giant blob of Velcro. Everything sticks.</p>

<p>Does that work for you?</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>Julie,<br /> I understand your velcro analogy, but the only problem is, you are not a velcro, a human being. As a human, one is bound to have preferences for somethings over others, may be in a subtle way, may be not always consciously. I do applaud you for wishing to be open to many ideas as opposed to one, for some people won't even entertain such an idea. However in recognizing that we are humans and hence not perfect allows us to have our feet on the ground. Since you are open to all ideas, perhaps you could also consider the idea that you may have subtle preferences for certain styles over others.</p>

<p>I will describe my position to you. When I was new to photography about a decade back, I was more of a velcro than I am now. Now I have developed my preferences for styles, however I don't want to have the mindset that some styles always work and some never do. I can go back and consider a style or genre that I do not follow and learn something useful from it (which I frequently do on PN).</p>

[Julie H]

<p>You are a nice, normal photographer. I'm a compositor. I'll give you one small example of why preference isn't even possible:</p>

<p>When I want to do one of my bird composites, I need a ground-level scenario. I have no idea what the world looks like three inches from the ground. So, I get down on my stomach and crawl around through (uncut, wild) grass, underbrush, mixed woodland, holding the camera to my eye and just letting the camera tow me along. If I don't hold the camera to my eye, I won't see three inches from the ground. When I do hold it to my eye, at a set focus (my birds were shot with a 300 at a distance of 8 ft.: the composite background has to "fit"). It's very, very strange, but also very wonderful. When I hear myself yelling "Holy smoke! Look at THAT!" I suspect I might have something I want to work with.<br>

Every part of every composite is "given" to me by the camera -- except for the lead players, and they are ... themselves (a bird in a composite never gives up his posture and attitude; I must bend to its needs). Even the stones and sticks had to give themselves to me -- I had no idea what I would use or how until they were just ... there and what they were told me how they needed to be used.</p>

<p>Those are quick examples. I also do non-composite shooting that's along the same lines, but I don't work at it, just because I have chosen composite work as my first love.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>More about "blending styles" per Supriyo. <a href="http://furnituremaker.com/">Derrell Peart</a> here has extended the Green and Green design/aesthetic features in furniture, where he solves Green and Green aesthetic problems arising in Green and Green 'inspired' new designs using the Green and Green style.</p>

<p>I see viewer taste as an influence and not a prejudice. So Peart has his own ideas about aesthetic problems in modified designs and has some elegant solutions of his own that are original within a Green and Green feature set. That is, Peart's solutions look like they should have been in the Green and Green feature set all along.</p>

<p>Regarding the influence v. free false dichotomy: just stating that it's a false dichotomy does beg the question: where does a new photographic idea come from, an expression that is more than it's influences? Since creative expression is a little understood phenomenon so too are artist's statements phenomenon that often don't make much sense.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

Yes, a new photographic idea is more than its influences. But it's not completely separate or different from them. There

will be connections. So, when I add an apple to a group of three apples that sits on the table, I get more apples, four

being more than three. But the three apples haven't disappeared. They're still there even though four is different. Four is

different from three but it's not exclusive of three. More is more. It's an additive state. I'm by no means suggesting we do

away with ideas of newness or creativity. I'm just trying not to deify them or approach new photographic ideas as if they

come out of some vacuum or void. I also tend to emphasize authenticity and the personal in art more than newness. I think the role of originality in art is often overplayed. A few greats have achieved it (their influences well intact) but I see so many people go awry by obsessing over originality when being authentic and personal would be a perfectly fine way to make photos . . . and might well lead to more original photos anyway.

[Norma Desmond]

Or . . . sperm + egg = new baby. Baby retains genetic markers of parents even though she's a unique individual. Neither baby nor grown-up has to feel this or know it or believe it for it to be true. Person may have an empty head about genetics and yet genetics will play a role.

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>a bird in a composite never gives up his posture and attitude; I must bend to its needs<br /> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think a nice normal bird photographer would say the same thing about his subjects, and besides the birds' posture, a regular photo will also not give up its background and the distractions in it.<br /> <br /> Julie,<br /> That was an interesting description of the method you follow, and it must be a lot of fun and excitement. I have a few comments about it. First of all, you must be taking a lot of bird pictures and then selecting the ones that 'work'. Aren't there some personal preferences involved in that. I have a feeling you will say, that your subjects lead you to the picture rather than you, but still aren't there any personal choice here?<br /> <br /> Secondly, when you say you want the background to be 3 inches above ground, I think you are envisioning the scene to be at the eye level of the birds. (Forgive me if I misunderstood) If thats the case, then several different backgrounds could be found (POV being at the birds' eye level) that all fit the birds and their lighting in your composite. For example, shooting the birds on a tree branch 8 feet away from a three story window. So when you want your background to be on the grass level rather than the tree branch, aren't you making that choice?</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>I know I am a latecomer to this discussion, and poorly equipped to discuss the philosophical history of photography, but I feel very well founded in the concepts of creativity, and isn't that what we are talking about? As an Architect or Photographer, I have a set of tools and techniques that are founded in human nature, natural history, human history, technology, physical laws, and the norms and perceptions of the culture that raised me. I can no more divorce myself from these "influences" than I can change the order of my DNA. Yet, I have made my living for over 31 years through the application of creative problem solving to Architectural opportunities. For any artist, including photographers, the sign of the Master is the ability to un-consciously or sub-consciously apply the full range of knowledge, tools, and techniques to our creative art. The new Architect self-consciously applies color, patterns, rhythm, light, and volume to his designs, just as the new photographer must think about shutter speed, ISO, the rule of 3rds, etc. in the making of an image. The masters do this without conscious thought, and so free themselves to explore new and bigger ideas. Julie, in making the camera her eye, has freed herself from the necessities of conscious implementation, but she remains tied to all of the influences that placed that camera and lens combination in her hand. I believe her when she says she is "free", that is, free to use the camera in a way that is her own, but she still is bound by the history that created that moment in time. So, I agree with Fred and Supriyo in the very essence of their arguments. I also agree with Julie when she says she perceives herself as being free, because perception is reality for each of us, and will evolve constantly in a thinking, conscious being. But, that freedom is not without foundations and history, whether or not they are recognized in the moment.</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>where does a new photographic idea come from, an expression that is more than it's influences?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Charles,<br /> My opinion would be similar to Fred's. I do think it is hard to do away with influences (and why should we, thats a related question) in art, unless we are looking at remote indigenous tribes. Julie describes her scenario where she claims that her subject shows her the way and dictates her style. Even there I am a little skeptical whether it would work that way.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>David, thank you for stating your feelings respectfully (and Supriyo, I hope this post can somewhat answer your last as well, as I don't have much time).</p>

<p>How if I can convey the mind-set of the compositor ... Imagine a the blank white page. I am faced with building a world <em>sui generis</em>. In straight photography, the world arrives with its own inevitable logic -- which is infused end to end with influence. But the composite has none. It's up to me. Unlike the architect, there are no demands or needs or requirements upon which to base my construction. There is nothing but a bunch little incredibly animated, busy little creatures (yes, eye-level, Supriyo).</p>

<p>It's all backwards and inside-out. What will the far look like? What will the middle be made of? Why? What is the angle of view (which must be strictly maintained for all parts -- and for what reason, that particular angle?) What colors? What/where blurred or sharp? Scale issues abound? Which? Why? And all parts have to do what the straight photograph does effortlessly -- cohere in an organic way -- the parts must need each other. There is no inherent reason for anything beyond the birds.</p>

<p>I'm not in the composite -- my needs aren't there. The parts tell me the needs. As opposed to a 'real' picture, in which you, the photographer, are there and as everyone has pointed out to me, influence and are influenced by whatever and wherever you are. I'm short on time, but I hope this gives an inkling of the mind somersault that has to happen to do things in a without-me kind of way.</p>

<p>Or, look at my <em>Judgement Day</em> series, which was one of my first. Look at how stiff, flat, lined-up ... how kind of silly the set up is. That's the best I could do at first. The more recent <em>Now and Then</em>, <em>Slow Dance</em>, and <em>Criss Cross</em> sets are getting there, but I have never been (so far) fully satisfied with the 'build.' I love the parts (wherein I find and shoot as described to this thread), but I'm still not getting what I find when shooting the parts to happen when I am putting the pieces together in a much more intrusive, intentional mode.</p>

<p>I can round up straight photographers who do this kind of thing (escape influence), if you like. Uta Barth comes to mind, but there are more.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Phil, mine is a bastard, a mongrel process. Unlike the painter, my parts have character -- the birds demand, I can't use them for anything other than that with which they arrive. Ditto for every stick, berry, rock and middle, far and near-ground. What they are has to be submitted to; if I ignore their needs, the thing simply does not hold. And the 'needs' can be very subtle. I've taken a part and shifted and twiddled and waited for it to settle into place to no avail. Relax myself, stop trying to force it to be what it's not, and sometimes just wait, wait ... then if I can hear where it needs to be (or I get another player and try again) it will go. I don't make my parts. They tell me what and where they will be.</p>

<p>These are things that 1) are what they are -- will do or be or go certain places/ways and most certainly, absolutely will not go in most other places/ways; and 2) are, until I, most especially by taking my inclinations and assumptions and wishes out of the way, not going to play together to bloom into 'a' world. There is a glorious moment when I get all the lighting done when genesis suddenly occurs. It is an amazing thing to see. All the parts are there, bony and dry and suddenly the thing just breathes. But I wish I could convey that I don't get there -- I really don't get there if I try to dominate of force or 'know' what goes where. It's their world, not mine.</p>

<p>This is a way of photographing that was very hard for me to transition to. I expect I would have been just as incomprehending as you guys if I hadn't done it. But having done it, I find my 'regular' photography greatly enriched, by being able to, by knowing that I can, listen in this very different way to what I'm looking at.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>"all the raw stuff as individual images that came into and comes out of the camera and then the feeling when some of those ultimately morph into some <em>thing</em> that couldn't be any otherwise: a narrative, a structure, a composite."</p>

<p>Yes! [bIG smile!]</p>

<p>But you arrive as you on a new planet that is quite naturally what it is: it is a working, breathing system and you are you <em>in</em> it. This can be done such that <em>it</em> makes/finds you (or not; it's one's own choice).</p>

<p>But I, as compositor, get a bunch of meteorites -- from where? How do I land on <em>that</em> planet?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Changing the subject, back to 'spirit' if I can ... because I have a question for Phil, if he's still here.</p>

<p>Reading the new Minor White book <em>The Time Between: The Sequences of Minor White</em>, I find this:</p>

<p>"What, if anything, happens between sequential photographs — <em>after</em> viewing one and <em>before</em> seeing the next — which makes them cohere as a sequence? What is the glue, so to speak, that holds sequential photographs together?"</p>

<p>That last is what I want to ask — <em>what is the glue</em>?</p>

<p>Also from this book, here is White: "With single images I'm basically an observer passive to what is before me, no matter how perceptive or how fast my emotions boil. In putting images together, I become active and the excitement is another order. Synthesis overshadows analysis. The poet says, the line is given, the rest is up to me."</p>

<p>I'm not sure I agree with that, but I'd love to have the glue question considered as well as that quote if anybody is interested in sequences as somehow accessing areas not available to single pictures.</p>

<p>[The photos in the book, given in their original sequencing, as you'd expect, are very interesting, but the text, IMO, is really weak. In case you're interested in the book.]</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>All the metaphors in the world don't create a reality. I think Supriyo nailed that back when he made the distinction between a piece of velcro and a human being. That's not to take anything away from metaphors . . . or human beings . . . or velcro. Metaphors are great literary devices used to describe things and, more importantly, often to transport our imaginations, though their overuse usually starts to feel cloying and hamfisted, not unlike over-saturation, pushing the slider bar to 10 and beyond.</p>

<p>None of us are that far beyond the comprehension of others.</p>