What's it all about, Alfie?

[johne37179]

<p>Who cares if your photo has meaning? Why should they care? Maybe it is time to remove arrogance from photography.</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>Who cares if your photo has meaning? Why should they care? Maybe it is time to remove arrogance from photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Sorry, this comment itself reeks of arrogance :-)</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Fred, you stated:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find it unhelpful to divide pursuits into intellectual/non-intellectual or intuitive/non-intuitive. I don't think it works that way. Every pursuit is a balance of the two and a lot more things.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find that very rigid thinking. Not everything is "balanced" all the time and for everybody. Nice ideal, but a fantasy. As a therapist I worked with a broad spectrum of people, as you can imagine. I found out right away that everybody's brain is unique and what works for one person can be totally useless for the next. I had to have a tool kit of many kinds of therapies and had to find the right tool for each person. To be effective I had to be flexible. Milton Erickson said: the most flexible person in a system has the most power." I like that. Again, for me I find that photography is a very "right brained" activity, and I enjoy it as such, perhaps giving my left brain a rest from the logical thinking world. That's what gives me balance. </p>

[photoriot]

<p>Steve and Fred: sounds like violent agreement, each in his own terms. Steve: one way to view my site is as a training tool for analysts, as hinted at by the About page.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, I didn't mean "balance" in the sense you're using it. When I said, "Every pursuit is a balance of the two" I meant every pursuit has some degree of intellect and some degree of intuition involved. I did not mean equal parts of each and I meant it varies from case to case. Think of the balance of a scale of justice. The different sides are in different relationships most of the time. </p>

<p>If you read my other posts, you probably noticed I talked about harmony and tension among all sorts of things. Lots of things come at us—intuition, intellect, fear, freedom—in all different degrees at all different times. And creativity is inspired by that swirl of inputs.</p>

<p>As a matter of fact, you'll recall I was responding to your statement "For me, and just me, photography is not an intellectual pursuit" which I don't believe possible and sounded pretty exclusionary. I think you simply choose not to recognize or talk about the intellectual aspects of your photography. And I sense you have a strong investment in that.</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>Steve,<br /> Although your comment is directed at Fred, I have something to add here. Photography as any other art is approached differently by different people. For you, it is relaxing right brained activity that soothes your nerve cells, whereas for some others it might be a more logic driven intellectual pursuit. It can also be very un-soothing, angst driven for some people. There is room for everyone, one is not superior than the other. However the problem arises, when one group criticizes the other, what's happening in this thread. It is mutual understanding which makes us thrive, not the opposite.</p>

<p>BTW, I find it very hard to imagine I can perform any task, let alone photography using only intellect and not intuition, or vice versa. Those who think they can, I suspect are simply not aware of the other side of their brain being involved.</p>

[photoriot]

<blockquote>

<p>As a matter of fact, you'll recall I was responding to your statement "For me, and just me, photography is not an intellectual pursuit" which I don't believe possible and sounded pretty exclusionary. I think you simply choose not to recognize or talk about the intellectual aspects of your photography. And I sense you have a strong investment in that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jumping in, I think it is a valid position (I like it anyway) to limit one's focus at times as part of a grander strategy. But one can also characterize someone's pursuit as intellectual without them engaging any of what they consider their intellectual capacity; 'intellectual' is just being used actively or passively as it were, depending on point of view. From this perspective, Fred, it would be interesting if you could specify something that is borderline intellectual in your sense of the word.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[Supriyo]

<p>Any activity that is driven by instinct and reflexes can be borderline intellectual.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Bill, I don't really know what you mean by "borderline intellectual." Sounds like you have something interesting in mind if you could clarify a bit more. I'll attempt an answer if you can give me a little more to go on.</p>

<p>I do agree with you that it's a valid position to limit one's <strong>focus</strong> as part of a grander strategy. But what one focuses on isn't all that's actually there. That's why we call it focus. I would have no problem with a formulation that says, "I focus on my intuition when talking about photography." That's different from, for me, the more problematic idea expressed in this thread which is that, because some focus more on the intuitional aspects of photography, those who choose to intellectualize about photography are somehow missing the point of photography or being as silly as a dancer who tries to dance about architecture, which I tried to show is not really all that silly.</p>

[jaydann_walker]

<p>Bill may be trying to seem profound. That, or maybe he has ingested something that had unexpected results on his brain. Too much coffee, maybe.</p>

<p>A third possibility is that this post is click bait. Could it be that Bill wanted to rile us (would he do this?), and if so he has succeeded. Even I have nibbled at the bait. Our usual malcontents appear to be enjoying a field day.</p>

<p>I respectfully suggest to the OP that he would do well to acquaint himself with the philosophical writing of Georges Monbiot, especially his interesting theories relating to Westerners who have too much time on their hands and not enough productive things to do.</p>

<p>I did enjoy the photo of the cat, though. A pleasant snap, I think. Overlooking the overly blue tone and other mitmatched colors. Post production needed. But a nice cat.</p>

<p>All this said, now for my morning coffee...</p>

<p>JDW</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>Any activity that is driven by instinct and reflexes can be borderline intellectual.<br>

<br>

Sex, hunger, being chased by pack of dinosaurs, posting every single photo on social media 24 hours a day by clicking on the phone ...</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>But we're talking about talking about these things, not just doing them, right?</p>

<p>So, sex, for instance. I'm pretty sure when I'm having sex, it's pretty intuitive, likewise is getting hungry. But, sometimes I get really turned on sexually even when I'm reading philosophy, so there may actually be a strong intellectual component sometimes to sex. Or maybe my partner and I lay out an involved narrative to a given sexual liaison, a very specific guide to what we will do and why we will do it. In that case, intellect will play a bigger role. And the fact that sex may be more often more intuitive than intellectual for me does not mean I can't or don't want to talk about, think about, and consider it in different ways and from both an intellectual and intuitive standpoint.</p>

<p>I guess I'm just not a very all or nothing kind of guy. For me, the dichotomy approach sucks. This or that. Just don't like it. Circumstances, timing, context, day of the week, the dream I had the night before, will all affect what parts of intellect and what parts of intuition are at play for me. I've never had much stake in defining myself as more intuitive or more intellectual relative to given activities, as more free or more determined, as more body or more soul.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>As to photography, I feel the same. And, as I said I resent being told by so-called right brainers that photography is not the type of activity that it makes sense to talk about, like Ian did and like Steve did when he quoted Ian, especially when they come into a Philosophy of Photography forum to do so.</p>

[photoriot]

<p>Fred, by 'borderline intellectual' I meant something you would see as at the very limit of intellectual, before turning into unintellectual. Since you were characterizing Steve's interest as intellectual, it made me wonder where you drew the line.<br /> <br /> "I focus on my intuition when talking about photography." To me, that is sufficiently close to what Steve said that I'm baffled why you guys are arguing, but I'm aware I'm not trying to figure out all the details, limiting my focus. <br /> <br /> Supriyo, I like your comments, but haven't thought of any responses yet :-)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"I focus on my intuition when talking about photography." To me, that is sufficiently close to what Steve said that I'm baffled why you guys are arguing, but I'm aware I'm not trying to figure out all the details, limiting my focus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK. Not to me. I think Steve pretty clearly said he does not use his intellect when photographing. He further said, by quoting Ian, that it's (in his mind) as wacky to talk about photography as it would be to dance about architecture (not realizing, unfortunately, that architecture can be danced about).<br>

<br>

As to your "borderline intellectual" question, maybe I answered it in my post above yours. My only further response is that I don't experience an on-off switch between intellectual and non-intellectual. I don't think there is such a thing as "the very limit of intellectual."<br>

<br>

I love the concept of borders (limits) not because I think they divide things neatly from each other but because I think in-between is a fascinating place to be.<br>

<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7887994-lg.jpg" alt="" width="485" height="732" /></p>

[photoriot]

<p>I totally agree about borders being the locus of the in-between, analogous to the spaces in between pics, so pics are borders, interesting (could be the focus of the rest of my life). I think you just don't get Steve, is all - he's talking about how he approaches things, not saying it's reality. Another thought I had is it's like you're both competing to be flexible, with different frames of reference. Again I'm just squinting and know I'm missing detail.</p>

<p>A friend in email questions my phrase to the effect of "see more .. reality directly through photos", suggesting it's a non sequitur. First, I try for this effect whenever possible, but I'll let myself speak:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>> 'See more of ... reality <em>directly </em>[but also] <em>through </em>photos' - bit of a non sequitur [sp?] there, no?<br>

Partly I'm being tongue in cheek, partly I'm saying that I want to see the unseeable in my mind while looking at photos. I guess this is analogous to being aware that there are 2 cups on the table (2-ness), but I'm implying (or thinking at least) there's something in the many-possibilities-ness of quantumness that might eventually come to light, perhaps as a follow-on to a deeper understanding of what being entails. But in that moment I'm putting it all aside with a phrase, after my extravagant English class digression, to get on the more familiar photo philosophy subject of how we perceive.</p>

</blockquote><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>Someone once said that responding positively to a work of art is strongly related to our latent desires or our past experiences and which the work of art triggers while viewing it. Perhaps it is the same feeling as that of the artist or photographer who is strongly moved by a subject or his perception of it. It is indeed like Joel Meyerovitz's recognition of beauty in a partial glance at a woman who appears briefly before disappearing yet interacts strongly with his inherent concept of what is beautiful or what is desired. I think that those situations allow a great freedom and can induce creative response, even if the pieces fit partly into an accompanying pattern of determinism that we have to burden.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Since we're all going to be self centered IMO on our views here I'm going to state that my leaf image demonstrating image language is the only thing that makes sense from an intellectual standpoint and is the most useful information in this entire thread.</p>

<p>And I say this mostly out of spite because reading this entire thread has been an ultimate waste of time, but I kind of knew that going in.<br>

I'm sure everyone is going to disagree and form their own opinion and POV.<br /><br /><br /> So I'll quote a fascinating exchange I heard today in a wonderfully philosophical movie on gambling from the late '40's in the movie "The Great Sinner"...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fedya: You're not a woman. You are a symptom.<br /> <br />Pauline: Of what?<br /> <br />Fedya: One of the worlds deadliest diseases, sophistication. More champagne?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A riveting movie... http://crystalkalyana.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/the-great-sinner-1949/<em><br /></em></p>

[photoriot]

<p>Tim, have you seen 'Alfie' by the way? If not, the synopsis on Wikipedia may give you solace somehow. Thanks for the response to the picture combo. But while it seems like you are right on top of what I'm after with 'basic image language or internal conversation', unless I misunderstand you are going into a side issue considering the motivation of the photographer in the sense of the leaf pictures. I.e. I as the photog of most of the pics on my site can understand myself better for seeing how the AI interprets me, but the real point is to learn about myself as a viewer, which is one reason why I want to get other people's pics in the site, and at that level the motivation of the non-me photographer is just one of the intangibles I hope to have deep learning sort out for me someday (and hopefully keep the details to itself :-). One thought I had is you're into photo criticism, but the thread is more about what photos might tell us of the mind and reality that is beyond anything we may have thought of yet.</p>

[photoriot]

<blockquote>

<p>even if the pieces fit partly into an accompanying pattern of determinism that we have to burden.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The pattern of determinism is carrying us, not us it. But what is carrying the pattern of determinism? Is it us again? Or something one might call quantum?</p><div></div>

[photoriot]

<p>Cf. Plato's metaphor of the evac.)</p>

[Supriyo]

Bill,

Ordered patterns appear in nature spontaneously due to laws of physics. We as part of nature have evolved to perceive

patterns, because those skills are necessary for survival. Am I missing something?

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p> "see more .. reality directly through photos"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This seems to go along with your introducing Plato's cave. Plato ultimately wanted us to focus, to put it simply, on the underlying reality of things and I'm sensing that's what you're after to at least some extent.<br>

<br>

Something I've been in tune with is how much photography deals with appearances. I like thinking of photography and art not as a search for the ideal or the real but a search and portrayal of the apparent. What an artist makes apparent is often a revelation, no matter the reality or the truth of it.</p>

[photoriot]

<p>So Fred [fixed in edit!], if there is no boundary to intellectual in your mind, your criticism of Steve's use of a limited definition as false is understandable but not compelling since not directly apropos. I appreciate the logical approach from my background in analytic philosophy, but if I understand Steve (who has praised my site after all :-), his is a more existential approach, which seems consistent with what I have learned about psychology in later years. Maybe you are more concerned with the perfect hat, while he is concerned with changing hats easily.</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Bill, sorry, have no idea what you're talking about (re: my criticism of Steve's use of a limited definition as false ???). And I don't know what [fixed in edit!] refers to.</p>

<p>I just told you I think of photography in terms of appearances, not ideals, so I won't be saddled with the perfect hat in which I have no interest. I tend to abhor perfection and claims to it.</p>