How much do we project our interior world on the canvas of the world at large?

[Norma Desmond]

When I hear Munch talk about who he is and his inspiration like that, it doesn't give me a picture of someone who would

feel or be rewarded by the act of creation or the creation itself that results. As a matter of fact, I think in many cases a

creation might just do the opposite, not reward but actually provoke further fear, lack of resolution, more dread, or more

madness.

[Norma Desmond]

Arthur, I guess I'm thinking in terms of the Latin derivation of the word "creative" which is about MAKING. That, to me, is

the most significant aspect of the concept of creativity, the desire and ability to make something based on one's feelings,

thoughts, obsessions, fears, insanity, whatever, or even a public need that doesn't have to be all that personal. Now, of course, in one sense to make what was not there before is

making something original in a very technical sense. But I think if I am inspired by my own experience or feelings or

thoughts to make something similar to what someone else has made, that is a creative act and process even though it's

not original because it had been done before. Coming up with new paradigms is what I see as original. But I think

lots of creative people work within already established paradigms and are still creative though likely not as original.

[sjmurray]

<p>Fred, I agree (with your comment a few posts back), and I mentioned above: "<em>you can complicate this with personality quirks, education, different motivations, desire for fame, etc."</em> We know that mental illness is sometimes linked with creativity, which makes sense because a person with internal or external voices, visions, delusions, or just unusual ways of thinking, etc. are going to express themselves in ways the rest of us simply don't have access to. I work in a mental hospital, and I personally know several artists and musicians who are successful with their creativity, which is probably attributable to their unusual patterns of thinking and expressing. I know a lot of people with bi-polar disorder and the speed and agility they have when putting ideas together just amazes me. But, I still maintain the bottom line is that innovation and creativity is vital for the survival of our species and it is biologically driven no matter what kind of complicating dimensions you can point out with specific examples. Sure, the average person taking a photo of his or her favorite sunset on the lake is not blazing any new trails for the art galleries, but that person is creating a “work” that is unique to them and I believe they are getting a reward from their brain as they do so. <br /> Julie, check out this book:<br /> <a href="https://www.elsevier.com/books/animal-creativity-and-innovation/kaufman/978-0-12-800648-1">https://www.elsevier.com/books/animal-creativity-and-innovation/kaufman/978-0-12-800648-1</a></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, the reason I don't accept the reward theory of creativity is that I find it unrealistically hedonistic. Not every choice to be creative and not every act of creation gives the creator a reward, unless we want to find ourselves saying that every choice anyone ever makes ultimately is rewarding or we wouldn't make it. People have sacrificed greatly to create. Some have sacrificed their marriages and families, others have sacrificed their livelihoods, many have sacrificed their health and well being. Of course, we can mentally gyrate and say they wouldn't have made those sacrifices if they weren't getting some brain reward or personal reward. I can't and won't think that way. I don't think all sacrifices ultimately are selfish or about rewards to ourselves. I think we can sometimes choose to suffer harm. There are selfless acts of creation. And there are acts of creation that come with self punishment, not reward. And I don't even think the frame of reward and/or punishment is a great paradigm in which to view creativity to begin with.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Steve, given your description (with which, as you know, I don't agree) what is <em>not</em> creative? If I scratch myself, think about it and scratch myself more successfully, is that creative?</p>

<p>What do you consider a creative "success" and what a "failure"? Everything? The mere attempt? What is "better" and what is "worse"? Why?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Firstly, my apologies to the more assiduous posters and readers of this OP for my cavalier and very summary following of these debates on creativity and the interior world of the photographer/artist. I am not privileged to read and consider everything in the necessary detail to respond in like manner.</p>

<p>Notwithstanding, my impression is that the desire to create is a very natural one. Perhaps a hundred thousand years ago the human brain reached the level that we could call ourselves sapiens and use and benefit from such memory and cognition to advance our lives and art. Recorded history is there to tell us that as individuals we do not create equally and sometimes the results of our creation go unrecognised for decades or even centuries. Questions of creative success or not are often not judged in the lifespan of the creating individual. We all have to put bread on the table or even advance our status in our own group and some would put creativity as a parameter and reward in achieving either, but on the whole my feeling is that we mobilize our interior world to achieve creative results simply because we recognize such action as being among the highest we might attain to, we fully enjoy the process of exploration and discovery, and because the inbred tradition of sapiens has been to create, in one way or the other.</p>

<p>If that all seems mundane kitchen sink philosophy or social observation, so be it - This morning I am about to try my recent recipe for crepes, with an undisclosed ingredient and a soft local cheese, married to our splendid regional maple syrup....</p>

<p> </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Arthur, why do you think creativity is somehow innate? Creativity is not synonymous with change or difference or even innovation. All of those, <em>change,</em> <em>difference</em>, or <em>innovation</em> can be achieved by moving the furniture around in your room. Creativity requires that you <em>leave the room</em>, in my opinion. That's not only not an innate urge, it's probably contrary to our innate inclinations.</p>

<p>Creativity is also not synonymous with 'art.' Many of the very greatest artists strove to conform to given religious concepts or myths, as well as given ideas of ideal forms. That's directly counter to 'leaving the room.'</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>we mobilize our interior world to achieve creative results simply because we recognize such action as being among the highest we might attain to</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are we really going to start ranking actions here? Should we include caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, going to strange countries to take hammer in hand and build houses? How about community activism in helping people find jobs or needed services? How about political activism in putting one's life on the line to resist tyranny? How about public defenders who are on the front lines of the social justice movement? How about . . .<br>

<br>

I'm not saying photography and creativity aren't important and can't be "high" activities, though for most photography is a creative hobby and nothing more. I'd say anyone here suggesting it's among the highest actions they might attain to should get out more and get over themselves.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>First off, I want you guys to know that I highly respect your thinking and opinions as really intelligent (and creative) people. It is difficult to define some of these concepts such as creativity. I perused some of the scientific literature and even there it is not clearly defined. Fred, when I am talking about “reward” which you are picking up on and reacting to, I am not referring to anything conscious. I should have made it more clear I am talking about literally an increase in dopamine in the brain, which tells a person what they just did was “better than expected, and that it might be important for survival.” This instinctual response doesn’t always turn out so well, as in the case of becoming addicted. Certain drugs, or behaviors fool the brain into thinking it is needed for survival because they artificially stimulate the brain with large amounts of dopamine. Once addicted, the person can literally die chasing that dopamine rush that his or her brain is telling them survival is at stake without it. But, normally, we get that reward all the time for various behaviors. All I’m saying is that when a person does some type of <em>authentic personal expression</em>, they may get a spike in dopamine, especially when the result pleases them and other people in many cases. A species can’t survive if important behaviors and habits aren’t reinforced biologically. I was just watching the Sunday Morning show in CBS and they featured some new innovations in storing electricity. One used blocks of ice, another a huge spinning centrifuge, and another used reservoirs. These are creative ideas from somebody. This type of innovation results in benefits to humanity as a whole, and I believe the initial impetus starts with the person coming up with the idea had a moment of authentic personal expression. I do appreciate where you are coming from, and I can see why you object to my ideas. As you stated: “there are acts of creation that come with self punishment, not reward,” I’m not going to disagree with that. It gets really complicated when we add in the difficulties and demands of life as a human being. I’m not proposing any paradigms for creativity. As I said, the scientific community hasn’t even agreed upon that one yet. I’m only talking about a very basic biological level response that is built into all of us and probably some animals as well. Just watch children play. It’s amazing. Yesterday my almost 4 year old granddaughter made something out of Legos. She always runs over to me to proudly show me what she made. I asked her what it was so she made up a nonsense word to describe it. Then I asked her what it was for. She paused for a second and replied: “its to stimulate your imagination.”</p>

<p>Julie, yah, we are on very different pages! But that’s OK. I am amazed and often frustrated by the creative originality of your posts, which often I have to work at to fully appreciate! I think we both have very different internal ideas about creativity, obviously. <em>My</em> own idea is that creativity is defined as <em>authentic personal expression</em>. Many of the posts in these threads I think are very creative, because they authentically reflect the personality of the poster. I think that the <em>value</em>, or what you are referring to as “success or failure” placed on any authentic personal expression is determined by society, not the individual creator. My photos are a success to me if I am satisfied with them (I got the dopamine hit) and I also am gratified if other people express an enjoyment of them as well, but that’s just icing on the cake. If you are a professional artist, then success or failure is another matter. You have to show value in the framework of the profession or world where you are operating, which is much more demanding. You can’t just like your own work, you have to be innovative enough to show real individuality and uniqueness. Now you are being judged. Success is determined by a whole set of rules and opinions that you have to navigate through. I’m investigating getting some of my photos into local galleries, so now I am upping the ante and entering that world. It’s been very encouraging so far. My lack of gallery experience is my biggest detriment, as I was told by the Administrative Assistant of Creative Arts at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. She said of my submission to the MN Arts Exhibition Program this year was that the committee really liked my work, but simply wanted to see more experience in exhibiting, and she provided me with some leads, and encouragement to re-submit. So, that’s what I am doing.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, for the most part, I'd say what's happening in this thread is decent communication. For me, calling it "creativity" waters down creativity beyond recognition. Name an action you think is not creative and I bet I can find that action to some extent an authentic personal expression. All of a sudden, everything we do is creative because we're all unique individuals and every one of our actions on some level expresses something about ourselves as individuals. To me, that's life, not creativity. Creativity has to have some meaning and does not describe all human action, even all human expressive action, even all human authentic expressive action. An authentic personal expression is just that, an authentic personal expression. Creating often involves an expression of one's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings. But expression of one's beliefs, thoughts, or feelings often does not involve creation. Creativity, IMO, which involves personal authentic expression would be writing a novel, not having a discussion with peers or friends and giving personal opinions on various subjects. Writing a letter, by virtue of its being a personal authentic expression, is not necessarily a terribly creative act. "Dear Mother, Last night I cried because my girlfriend broke up with me. I was devastated, I shut my curtains and all the lights, and remained quiet in my dark room, pining away for her, all night. Love, Fred." That's an authentic personal expression and not in the least bit creative. Nor are the posts, including mine, in this thread.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Steve, I don't have time this minute to respond to what you posted but I want to say the feeling is reciprocal re <em>your</em> responses to these threads. They make <em>me</em> work in turn. And best of all, you keep coming back. :) </p>

[Julie H]

<p>"the feeling is reciprocal"</p>

<p>Hmmm ... I think I meant the reciprocal of reciprocal. I'm getting dizzy. I should have just said I get a lot out of your posts too.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Steve, reading your post more closely, I am sorry that I made you get into marketing. Not sorry that you answered and it's surely exciting to be getting such good response: I was, however, thinking more about your own valuations apart from for-sale value.</p>

<p>You mentioned dopamine and I can't resist posting this from Temple Grandin. You probably know who she is; if not, you can find out with a quick search. She's writing in 2005, so I don't know how valid this is, but I think the SEEKING thing goes to why a lot of people simply enjoy photography for its own sake:</p>

<p>[note that the ALL CAPS are in the original: blame them on Grandin]<br>

　</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We know that curiosity/interest/anticipation, or SEEKING, is a postive emotion from a field of research [<em>she then describes ESB</em>].<br>

... Researchers used to think that this circuit was the brain's <em>pleasure center</em>. Sometimes they called it the <em>reward center</em>. The main neurotransmitter associated with the SEEKING circuit is dopamine, so they thought dopamine was the "pleasure" chemical. That's what I was taught in college. [<em>skipping past historical misconceptions of dopamine</em>]<br>

　<br>

Researchers assumed people develop addictions to drugs because drugs make you feel good, so dopamine must be the feel-good chemical in the brain.<br>

　<br>

But now researchers see things differently. We have a lot of evidence that the <em>reason</em> a drug like cocaine feels good is that it's intensely stimulating to the SEEKING system in the brain, not to any pleasure center. What the self-stimulating [<em>to exhaustion</em>] rats were stimulating was their curiosity/interest/anticipation circuits. <em>That's</em> what feels good: being excited about things and intensely interested in what's going on — being what people used to call "high on life"!<br>

　<br>

There are three different lines of evidence for this new interpretation. [<em>skipping the first two</em>]<br>

　<br>

The third is the clincher. This part of the brain <em>starts</em> firing when the animal sees a sign that food might be nearby but <em>stops</em> firing when the animal sees the actual food itself. The SEEKING circuit fires during the search for food, not during the final locating or eating of the food. It's the <em>search</em> that feels so good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On another topic (thinking about your daughter) play and games are something I've thought (and read) a lot about and may get into tomorrow. It's an interesting bridge area to (but not of, IMO) creativity that we can argue about. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Fred, you quote a part of one of my sentences which ends in a comma, which you purposely left out, and then you ignore the context that is also inherent in both it and the other two parts. I was referring to the nature of homo sapiens and their evolution and their natural creative nature (maybe not to MOMA standards but that is not the point) related to their cognition and not uniquely to the photographer, although it wouldn't exclude the latter.</p>

<p>Julie, "leaving the room" is just a cop out, when one can instead use his or her mind to conceive and create. It may occasionally be a manner to turn the page and reposition the thinker, but that seems to be all you are saying in your response, without following it up with what leaving the room means to you. </p>

<p>The discussion is loosing substance, in large part because the responses to ideas offered are deflected and not seriously discussed, more often than not being met with simple one-liners that seek to dismiss and only create more questions than they resolve. I wonder if that climate of discussion may be the reason why very few have participated over these numerous last pages. Is there another?</p>

<p>-30-</p>

<p> </p>

[Supriyo]

<p>Jack,<br>

If I understand your question correctly, you were referring to stepping away from conventional beliefs and experiences to let our inner world project itself onto our artistic works. You were asking about anecdotes and examples to understand the process of doing so.</p>

<p>Honestly, there hasn't been many instances in my life so far, that I have been able to do so, use a camera without the extra baggages coming in the way. The composition has to be this and that, the theme should be of interest to the general audience, also getting carried away by the hype of touristy places. All these typically lead to stereotypical works in my case. It has been an eye opening process for me so far.</p>

<p>I will refer to two examples, where I wasn't planning on shooting anything, but just ended up firing the camera anyhow.<br>

<a href="/photo/18322294">http://www.photo.net/photo/18322294</a></p>

<p>This was taken on an idle afternoon. The whole house was quiet, for my wife and daughter had just gone out. My daughter was drawing on the table and she had left whatever she was doing. I was feeling a sense of loneliness, and somehow the toy and the leftover crayons on the table created a picture in my mind. Every block in the photo is in the right place except the child. Yet, you can very much feel her presence by looking at the scene. I think I wanted to get away from my inner loneliness and instead of projecting my inner world, I in fact projected the opposite of it in the photo.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/18314591">http://www.photo.net/photo/18314591</a></p>

<p>This second one was taken at a tourist location when I was all prepared with camera gear for a day's work. Unfortunately, due to traffic jam and all that, the day didn't pan out as expected. We packed our day with too much ambitious plans, and as a result we could not make it to most of the attraction points. Instead, we spent many hours waiting in traffic. By the time I took this picture, I was completely disinterested in shooting anything substantial or monumental. Instead I was looking for the unsubstantial, the underdogs. At that time, I noticed the light bulb and the mountain in the backdrop. I was more interested in the tiny light bulb than the mountain, and included the mountain in the frame as sort of a teaser (the light bulb challenging the mountain). Also read the interesting comment by Fred. I can clearly see this photo projecting my inner mind, intending to ignore/mock the grandiose whose pursuit had wasted my time. Instead I embraced the insignificant light bulb -:)</p>

 

[Julie H]

<p>To my eye and ear (Supriyo, this is not meant as criticism) the two pictures are like a dancer who always insists on leading the dance. Compare to Jack's OP photo: to my eye, in that case, Jack let the picture lead the dance. He saw that stuff and surrendered himself to its dance. The bits and pieces of stuff and the light and shadow lead and Jack lets himself be led. If you think that's easier than leading, I think you're wrong; the leader knows where he/she/it is going or is about. The follower has to find the dance on the fly as he's dancing without any pre-given orienting frame or reason.</p>

<p>Cigarette at a falling/rising angle. Three pebble dots within the shadow. Plunging or erupting bumper lines, lower right. 3 2 . Penis/vagina shadow mouth. Pointy rising shadow left; round, voluptuous curve right.</p>

<p>Now <em><strong>dance</strong></em>.</p>

<p>[side note: The shadow indent reminds me (here, I'm trying to lead the dance) of the film <em>127 Hours</em> which is the true story of a young man who fell into a crevasse along with and under an enormous boulder. The place he fell looked very much like that shadow shape. The man cut off his own leg in order to escape -- extraordinary innovation, but not creativity, IMO.]</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Kafka meant not physically, literally leaving the room. That's not what I meant.</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>Without the element of the mountain the role the lightbulb plays in the image changes dramatically. Both mountain and lightbulb seem as equally important in the picture as interrelated elements that the photographer wants me to consider.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Its true, Phil, both the light bulb and mountain are equally important to form the picture. I just felt the light bulb was more important to me than the mountain and the mountain is there to highlight the significance of the light bulb. Without the mountain, that significance would be lost.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But isn't that exactly what a title like <em>Lightbulb and mountain</em> is doing, telling the viewer to look for and see something in the image that should be obvious too without its title. By including that title, it's as if you were not trusting the viewer ( and photograph ) to come to the same reading that was already pointed to effectively enough by you photographically.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I put the title mainly because of practical reasons, like easiness of locating or referring to a photo. I wanted the title to be as unintrusive as possible, by just stating redundantly what is already shown in the photo. I didn't want to hint any relationship between the two objects (mountain and light bulb) and left it to the viewers. My goal was to make sure, the viewers do not get biased by any additional information offered by the title.</p>

[Jack McRitchie]

Supriyo -

Yeah, I think you kind of understand what I was after though I certainly didn't express it well in my opening

statement on this thread. "Projection" is not exactly what I mean though that is certainly a common element

in how we perceive the world. We develop a mental picture of the world and then subconsciously selectively

interpret the world to fit our judgements, pre-formed conceptions and assigned categories. This is the usual

state of affairs for humans, I think, and what I described earlier as a basic drive for homeostasis and at least

the illusion of stability. The result of that is that most of the time we hold a more or less set image and

interpretation of things. Occasionally, for one reason or another that sense of certainty slips and it feels like

we have awakened from a dream. I find it a very odd feeling (and not always a comfortable one) to find

myself suddenly strangely aware of myself and quite outside my usual reactive state, in a place of simple observation

without thought. I'm not talking about introspection or fresh conclusions (though that may come later) but

just an awareness of the bare fact that I exist in my surroundings. These times don't last long but while they do, the world is somehow

transformed and a different set of possibilities exist. It's when we briefly slide from our usual programmed

state of being that hidden sides of the world normally excluded from our awareness show themselves. As

much as there is an imperative to create a known world we can deal with there is a corresponding urge to a

greater or lesser extent, at least in some people, to escape the internal map that regulates our course and

sail into uncharted water. I sometimes think we are chained and imprisoned by our certainties. Perhaps the melancholy

you felt on that particular afternoon was the trigger that caused a small shift in your usual perception which was then captured for

all of us in your photo of the table with its crayons, drawing and teddy bear, a picture that touched many of

in a strangely personal way. Anyway, thanks for sharing the pictures and the story of their creations. It's what

I was hoping for when I started this thread.They make me wonder and that's always a good thing.

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>To my eye and ear (Supriyo, this is not meant as criticism) the two pictures are like a dancer who always insists on leading the dance. Compare to Jack's OP photo: to my eye, in that case, Jack let the picture lead the dance. He saw that stuff and surrendered himself to its dance. The bits and pieces of stuff and the light and shadow lead and Jack lets himself be led. If you think that's easier than leading, I think you're wrong; the leader knows where he/she/it is going or is about. The follower has to find the dance on the fly as he's dancing without any pre-given orienting frame or reason.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I agree, Julie, and that's Jack's magic. Its there in many of Jack's other images as well, even when the objects are more real/tangible than shadows. Take a look at the recent trashcan series for instance. I agree with you, it is quite challenging not to dominate, impose upon the viewer, specially when you are using a structured composition with elements that YOU decided to include in certain configuration. I decided to refer to these two shots because they reflect my inner mind at those moments in a spontaneous manner.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[side note: The shadow indent reminds me (here, I'm trying to lead the dance) of the film <em>127 Hours</em> which is the true story of a young man who fell into a crevasse along with and under an enormous boulder. The place he fell looked very much like that shadow shape. The man cut off his own leg in order to escape -- extraordinary innovation, but not creativity, IMO.]</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p>IMO (at least in the context in which we are talking), innovation applies when there is a definitive, rigid end goal in mind. Innovation is the (elegant) means to get there. Creativity on the other hand questions/mutates/transforms even the end goal if necessary.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Jack wrote: "As much as there is an imperative to create a known world we can deal with there is a corresponding urge to a greater or lesser extent, at least in some people, to escape the internal map that regulates our course and sail into uncharted water."</p>

<p>I think those are both from or caused by your inner world, not free of it. Same thing, different state of (dis)satisfaction. Moving to a new house, not leaving it. You're still leading.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>“Awareness is boundless and infinitely available in every moment no matter what you’re <em>doing</em>. So if the doing is in some sense coming out of being, out of awareness. . .”<br /> “You can’t think your way to what the outcome of this will be and then try to get there because the irony is you’re already here . . . you’re always here, there is no there.” Jon Kabat-Zinn</p>

<p>What I love about Kabat-Zinn’s comments here, is that in every moment there is literally infinite “availability.” Maybe creativity is about being open to letting some of that infinity in through the crack in the door of our limited perspective (consciousness). That seems to be true for me. Sometimes the fresh idea will just burst in unannounced, other times I have to quiet my internal chatter enough to hear the soft whisper until it becomes loud enough to grasp.</p>

<p>I’m not sure where this fits into the discussion involving an “internal map” and escaping it. Maybe that’s just an illusion: “. . . you’re always here, there is no there.”</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Steve, to my ear, those quotes are just too broad.</p>

<p>If you've seen photographer Edward Burtynsky's documentary, <em>Manufactured Landscapes</em>, it opens with a very long scene in a Chinese electronics factory. The only sounds are the small rustle of the workers and the loud buzz of thousands of fluorescent overhead lights. Hundreds of workers in long neat rows (the building seems to be the size of a football field) are bent over their workbenches in intense concentration as they assemble some small portion of a widget over and over and over again. Your quotes, as well as the previous descriptions of 'flow' seem to me to apply to these workers as much as to someone making pictures.</p>

<p>Contrast or compare that to the following descriptions of the newer work of the photographer Guy Tillim. Earlier in his career, he was an outstanding photojournalist but he has moved away from that. This is Lyle Rexer writing about Tillim:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>... Tillim wanted to use his camera to understand and evoke these places he did not know, but he also wanted to avoid prescribing what viewers ought to think or feel. In a sense, he wanted to put them in his place. "Compositional drama and the picturesque I tried to avoid." he adds. So, how to proceed? "A political position would be to include ‘ugly’ elements in a beautiful scene, to disrupt our photo myth making. But this is unacceptable. It’s exchanging one form of projection for another," he adds.<br>

　<br>

... "I had no agenda," he says, "I just walked until I got tired or the sun went down, whichever came first. I wanted to avoid most images in my head, I was bored by them."</p>

<p>... for the artist, this exploration of second nature represents not a retreat from photojournalism but a more rigorous approach to looking. "I see the exercise as an attempt to learn my craft," says Tillim. "Not to turn away from an expectation of photography, but to embrace its possibilities. Not really to get out from under the responsibility of being a ‘witness,’ but to become a reliable one."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>　<br>

Here is how Els Barents describes Tillim's work:<br>

　</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... [Tillim] says that the sense of having been physically present at a particular spot appeals more to his consciousness than the sum of all actions carried out in order to arrive there — to such a degree, in fact, that he roughly discerns those moments of being and seeing, joined in the creation of a photograph, as a pattern of <em>déjà vu</em> experiences. The above statetment is an unmistakable sample of Tillim's DNA as a photographer, and explains why he sees no need for hierarchy aming the places and subjects that he photographs. From the photographer's point of vivew, the best photographs are not necessarily those that involve a topical or historically noteworthy theme.</p>

</blockquote>

[DGorinstein]

<p>Hello Jack: I don't usually participate in this Forum, until you so kindly informed me thus. I was browsing through a book I recently bought, a collection of 50 great photographers with some tips. It was just an impulse for what says on the back cover. "Read This If You Want To Take Great Photographs" - by Henry Carroll (Copyright 2014, ISBN 978-1-78067-335-6). Some basic things, some not. Just to keep abreast of what is going on.<br>

Anyway....I though that one of the pages might contribute to some discussions, but especially for the pundit and purist members of PN who want to find every or any flaw in someone's submission for critique or rating. In order to respect the authors (book and photographer). The text and image that I would like to attach herewith should be self explanatory (but I am unable to do so as the space does not allow this function) , and with the usual respect and humbleness, I submit this to you as the Moderator of the Forum, if it contributes in any way or form. I will therefore send them under separate e-mail.<br>

With my usual best regards. Daniel.</p><div></div>

[DGorinstein]

<p>Here is the second photo not attached in the previous thread.</p><div></div>