Why do we like what we like?

[charleswood]

<p>We like what we like because what we like makes us feel a good feeling. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>The eternal nude? The mystical nude? You decide:</p>

<p><a href="https://www.pinterest.com/jmconstante/ruth-bernhard/">[LINK]</a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>We like what we like because what we like makes us feel a good feeling.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Charles, at the most general level, I think that that is precisely what it does--although the idea of "feelings" does admit of a variety of interpretations.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>You mentioned John Peri and have linked to other similar nudes. I see a mystical aspect to very few of those.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I also linked to Jim Phelps here on Photo.net, among others.</p>

<p>You made reference to "very few of those" in your quote above. Should we expect anyone to "knock one out of the park" every time they snap the shutter? I do believe that people like Peri and Phelps (and Owen O'Meara, among many others) are looking for something. If they were to succeed only time in a thousand, that would be enough for me. For the record, I think that you are looking for that special something in your own work as well.</p>

<p>As for good mountain pictures that "touch my soul," may I recommend my <a href="/photodb/favorite-folder?user_id=423641">"Favorites" folder</a>?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I didn't say anything about knocking one out of the park. I'm not talking competitively or even about good photos. I was talking about the difference between mystical photos and non-mystical photos. There are good and bad mystical photos and good and bad non-mystical photos. I don't find much mysticism in Jim Phelps's photos. By the way, I don't find much mysticism in my own either. I don't equate mysticism with hitting it out of the park.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Now's the place where I ask you what is mystical about John Peri's or Jim Phelps's photos compared, for example, to some photos that you don't think are mystical. But this is where the rubber might hit the road.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Okay, so "mystical" is not a good word for you. . . .</p>

<p>How about that "Je ne sais quoi"?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Now's the place where I ask you what is mystical about John Peri's or Jim Phelps's photos compared, for example, to some photos that you don't think are mystical. But this is where the rubber might hit the road.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, what makes you think my rubber is ever going to hit your road, or vice versa?</p>

<p>(I could say that for anyone, by the way.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Here are a couple of my own efforts that are special to me. I like to think of them as "conceptual" or "abstract" nudes. I make no claim for them except that they are special to me.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/16704212&size=lg">[LINK]</a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/16704133&size=lg">[LINK] (a bit too gritty and sweaty for most viewers, I fear)</a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Nudes (and nudity) move people in different ways, of course.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/04/british-tourist-arrested-after-posing-for-nude-photos-at-machu-picchu">[LINK]</a></p>

<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/07/machu-picchu-streakers-peru-inca">[LINK]</a></p>

<p><a href="

[LINK]</a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred, what makes you think my rubber is ever going to hit your road, or vice versa?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was asking for your rubber to hit your own road. I was asking you why those photos are mystical for you, what about the photos led you to choose that description. But now you've changed it from a fairly specific descriptive word, "mysticism" to a much less specific and more evasive "je ne sais quoi." And I'm not at all surprised this is where we end up and not at all surprised to see five more links to photos which I'm not going to look at.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Fred, I am a theoretically-minded person. I like the "big picture."</p>

<p>You guys want a formula? Ask somebody else.</p>

<p>So, "je ne sais quoi" is now evasive? I have been consistent throughout--not evasive. I simply cannot identify or explain the intangibles that you are looking for.</p>

<p><em><strong>I have said that FROM THE BEGINNING!</strong></em></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>five more links to photos which I'm not going to look at.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There are none so blind, etc. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Stop evading and making things up. No one asked for a formula. I asked why some photos you called mystical are mystical to you. That's not asking for a formula of how to make mystical photos. It's asking an adult to say more than a first-grader might say.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I have been consistent throughout. As I said above, "<em><strong>I have said that FROM THE BEGINNING!'</strong></em><br /> <br /> I cannot identify it for you. Or, as I said above, "I simply cannot identify or explain the intangibles that you are looking for."</p>

<p>Now you want me to objectify the "Je ne sais quoi" and locate it in space-time for you!<em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>

<p><strong>FIND IT FOR YOURSELF!</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

When you find it, REPORT BACK! <br /> <br /> <strong>¡PRONTO!</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

Do you see how offensive your peremptory tone is? You don't put words in my mouth, mister.</p>

<p>FIND. IT. YOURSELF.</p>

<p>Okay?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>If you were talking to a fellow teacher and he was talking about a philosopher whose work he found mystical but whose work you found anything but mystical, might you not ask him what about the philosopher or his philosophy he found mystical? Would that be asking him for a formula or not seeing the bigger picture or would it be natural intellectual curiosity on your part to ask him to tie mysticism to the philosophy. </p>

<p>That's very different from his perhaps not being able to explain to you why he likes a certain philosopher. You've gone way beyond "like" here. You've used words like "eternal" and "mystical" and you're hiding behind the intangibility of taste. Words matter. And you're tossing them around like garbage.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>You've used words like "eternal" and "mystical" and you're hiding behind the intangibility of taste.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Taste is intangible, Fred! I cannot tell you how oranges taste if you have never seen or eaten one.</p>

<p>Beauty? Well, now, you either see "it" or you do not.</p>

<p>Reasonable people disagree about such things, but you are making demands: "ANSWER ME!"</p>

<p>I do not respond well to that kind of "conversation."</p>

<p>If you cannot see the beauty or the spiritual or the mystical, I cannot show them to you. I simply cannot.</p>

<p>I am not even going to try.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>a philosopher whose work he found mystical</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What kind of "philosophy" have you been smoking, Fred? I might say that Kierkegaard is a mystic, but I cannot show you "the mystical" in his <em>work, </em>rather in his rationales.</p>

<p>You have seen Peri's and Phelps' work. You don't see it? I can't help you. I have already acknowledged that "that special something" is there in a small percentage of their works, but that is actually typical, I think.</p>

<p>Or, as I expressed it earlier, one doesn't have to "hit one out of the park" every time. One in a thousand will do where photos are concerned, which is to say that .001 is a pretty good "batting average" for "special" photos.</p>

<p>You don't like "special"? You don't like "mystical"? You don't like "spiritual" or "eternal" or "transcendent"?</p>

<p>That is not a limitation which I have imposed upon you, rather one that I presume derives from your own naturalism, materialist monism, atheism, whatever. </p>

<p>Whatever it is, and by whatever name it goes, it is not serving you well--no offense intended. You work yourself into the same lather over and over, thread after thread. I cannot, truly cannot, help you.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Words matter. And you're tossing them around like garbage.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Physician, heal thyself.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>You mentioned John Peri and have linked to other similar nudes. I see a mystical aspect to very few of those.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, then, I have tried long ago to answer your question, have I not? I tried, even though I knew that we would come to an impasse--and we have.</p>

<p>What else is new?</p>

<p>Now, why don't you do something constructive and offer a photo or a link and explain what makes it ___________ to you? (Fill in the blank any way you choose, since you don't like my adjectives.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Lannie "...although the idea of "feelings" does admit of a variety of interpretations."<br /> <br /> Let's try it then. A duplicate link to the <a href="/photo/7626670">Gubin photo</a> of the woman. I feel slightly aroused when I look at the photo. I like that unequivocally. It's sweet. Pretty easy to understand. Daumal also is quoted: “I'm very much aware I can't think. I'm a poet.” Sounds like me, the can't think part anyway.</p>

<p>Here's some honesty in a song from a persona Chrissie Hynde adopted when <a href="

it</a>:</p>

<p>When I change my life <br />There'll be no more disgrace <br />The deeds of my past <br />Will be erased <br /><br />And you'll forgive me <br />Then you will come back <br />Hold my hand and say "I still love you" <br />When I change my life <br /><br />When I change my life <br />And all the scars have faded <br />I'll be someone you look up to <br />Not excused when your friends come around <br /><br />And you'll want me always to be there <br />You'll be proud to say "I'm with her" <br />When I change my life <br /><br />I want a place in the sun - I do <br />I want to be in love with someone <br />I want to forget every regret <br />And all those rotten things that I put you through <br /><br />When I change my life <br />And the idiot me <br />Leaves this town forever <br />Leaves us to be <br />Together - for the rest of our lives <br />Happily forever and ever <br />When I change my life</p>

<p>Is it a prayer? That would be an interpretation, to ask to whom is she speaking? Is she referring to the mysterious union of human and divine? Is heaven a world where we can be what we should have been in this life?</p>

<p>Why is it that to be honest with one's self is almost an impossibility? And since that is so, why should faith, hope, and charity reside there in a forsaken place? I don't know, but that forsaken place is of our own making. We know that. We can change that place by not turning a blind eye to it. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"In my case Pilgrim's Progress consisted in my having to climb down a thousand ladders until I could reach out my hand to the little clod of earth that I am." Carl Jung</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right. The bigger they are, the harder they fall, Jung the rich man who made it through the eye of the needle. You couldn't have found a bigger sob in Switzerland than the sob Jung was. And he had to become reconciled to that. The human condition.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>That's very interesting, Charles. I shall have to think on it some more.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/7626670"><em>The photo</em></a> was Marc Todd's, not Steve Gubin's, by the way.</p>

<p>I think that at least some of the force of the picture lies in the fact that it almost invites one to step into it, to imagine (without trying to) that one is a participant in the scene, not merely a viewer. I would say that it is a very special picture but I would not call it "mystical."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Here's a good one about <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm0UNn7tJ5o">high and low</a>. Rene Daumal analogizes to something on high, but he actually had to be intimately familiar with the very low. Had to be to know what he knew. If we take the little girls advice, we'll be on our way there. Get down. Get down.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>You don't like "special"? You don't like "mystical"? You don't like "spiritual" or "eternal" or "transcendent"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're dead wrong. I like all these things. I just don't see them in the photos you do. The fact that I embrace materialism and don't believe in "God" doesn't rule out spirituality for me and certainly doesn't mean I don't like things I find spiritual or religious. Life is not as simplistic as you seem to think. And, again, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you what's mystical or eternal or spiritual about a photo. If you can't answer those questions, it is not because those questions are unanswerable. It's because you either can't be bothered or you don't know what you're talking about.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now, why don't you do something constructive and offer a photo or a link and explain what makes it ___________ to you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I will not be deflected onto by you. I have done more than enough describing of photos and what they mean to me. You simply don't want to do any work. Don't try to toss me that ball, which I've already played with.</p>

<p>See, Charles did it. He said he was slightly aroused by the photo. He didn't try to gloss over that by vaguely and ambiguously calling it eternal or spiritual. He was honest.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Please don't <em>think</em> about poetry. Here's some poetry:</p>

<p>Lannie, I still remember a photo you posted to a PoP forum a few years ago. Remember it? It was of a woman who posed for you and had fear and misgivings about posing. You mentioned I believe that you had a photo of her sans jacket. Can you, after all this time, post it in this thread though you were not willing to years ago? Can you update us on the subsequent life history of hers? What happened? Don't think about it. Just do it. In my story of her and you, you loved her didn't you? I would have loved her too.</p>