A matter of discovery--The objective and the abstract

Sometimes, it takes me some time to formulate in words what I am feeling. This thread has been an example of that experience. What I realize this morning is that I am stepping out of a mold of trying to emulate another body of work by someone else whether that be of subject matter or of manner of presentation. I have done that at times in the past without my realization. Not all of my earlier work is meaningless or derivative. This time is just a further refining of my photographic and perhaps "lifes" vision.

I want my photography to portray deeper meanings then the simple portrayal of a grand landscape that has been done before. I am not saying that grand landscapes are inherently inferior. It is just that they are not conveying through imagery the meaning that I see and want to record.

By way of explanation of what I mean...the central image that I have posted in the technical gallery (the rock pool--1989)...to tell you what that image means to me will possibly tell you where I am with this. To me the water in the rock pool is symbolic of "mind". In the area of the water we find the stones below the surface and the reflection of the tree on the surface. This is symbolic to me of the conscious and unconscious mind. In the image the tip of the tree is apparently touching the edge of the immersed stone. This point of tension represents the connection within us. The tree is not seen directly even though it is portrayed. It is a reflection on the surface of "mind". The reflection is not the tree itself whereas the stones beneath the surface are "more objectively real" even though covered by "mind". This brings up the question "is the apparently objective true reality?" The shape of the rocks enclosing the pool are also symbolic. The right hand rock is similar to the shape of a human knee and thigh. The pool itself appears to be within a "place of birth". While I don't normally indicate to others the meaning of my images. I thought that perhaps in this case that I would since I seem incapable of relating what I have felt by words alone. Forgive me if I have bored you by this discription.

As another example is an image that I exposed in the same time frame 1988-89. I have posted this here before but I will post it again for purposes of illustration. As Ed indicated this was a serrendipitous event. This image is of a doorway indicating another doorway but also more importantly a source of great light beyond the second doorway. The doorways are to me symbolic of points of passage...points of transition, if you will, during our life. The indication of a source of light beyond and to the right of the second doorway is an indication of another possibility that while indicated is not seen. That, apparently, there exists another choice beyond the objectively presented ones.

This is what I mean about questions asked...not everything shown.

I realize that some do not go into the meaning of their images to the extent that I do and feel. I think that I need to say that there is nothing wrong for the level of practice...no matter what it is. I would, however, appreciate your views and thoughts on my explanation as it relates to these two images. Thank you.

Ed,

I don't mean one needs to force an improvement. That implies the current work is not at a level they find acceptable. Of course everyone should strive to improve in craft and art but I don't think that can be forced. I do think one needs to force themselves into new ways of seeing and becoming open to new subject matter and approaches to art and craft. It does not mean abandoning everything learned before, rather applying all that knowledge and experience to new endeavors. That may mean working with the same subject matter (eg landscape) but using a new approach to that subject, seeing it with new eyes.

There are artists who do make some of their best work late in their careers. Weston's late landscapes as an example. But in his case this was a different approach then he previously used. I think Georgia O'Keefe did some of her best work late in life.

But your post brings up an interesting point. Is it the artist who no longer fails to produce work of interest, or do we grow complacent and lazy only wanting to accept the familiar, the old style or subjects we were comfortable with. I am sure there are people who saw Picasso's more figurative and realistic work in the late 1890's and thought everything afterwards was trash.

I have read that one's favorite foods as a child become your comfort foods as an adult. Sort of a combination of nostalgia and reassurance. Maybe we also develop a taste for comfort art. What does anyone else think?

"Experimentation" is good - some of my "best" i.e., "the images of mine that I like the best" - are experiments - and not always deliberate experiments, either.

Interesting that you should mention Picasso ... His first really notable emergence came as a result of "Guernica", a massive piece he painted as a reaction to the shock and revulsion he felt from the Nazi raid on that Basque town on April 26th, 1937. IMHO that pushed him over a "logical" edge. He was, if not "out of his mind" temporarily, certainly "out of himself," When he painted it.

There is a story about Picasso - he leased a Studio in - I've forgotten where - and his landlord, being an enterprising type - leased the "daily contents of Picasso's wastebasket" to an equally enterprising art dealer. Every day, after Picasso left the studio, the landlord would collect the contents of the wastebasket - doodles, rough sketches, scribbles - done with *very* little conscious effort from the "Master", and give them to the dealer, who, in turn, would flatten them out, mat and frame them and place them on the walls of his gallery - to be sold at a handsome price. Picasso HAPPENED to visit this gallery, quite by chance - and was NOT amused.

Hmm ... April 26th ... tomorrow is the anniversary of that event. We should remember it, if for no other reason --- Ow... I don't like that ... the art it inspired literally changed the world, but it really pales when considered against the terrible atrocity and loss of life there.

Ed Sukach said:

"Experimentation" ...

Click to expand...

Deleted ... double entry ...??? How? did I do that...?

donald's thoughtful soliloquy on his posted image is interesting, because it is unlikely i'd ever have made such associations or recognized such symbolism without verbal cues. however if donald were a 'famous' photographer, i might try and therein lies an inherent conundrum.

take weston's final photograph, Point Lobos, 1948. it is, no matter what anyone says, nearly incomprehensible at first glance: an extensive field of gray sand with rocks strewn haphazardly on the right and lower sides, and dark shadowy shapes across the top. but, because it is edward weston's photograph, one presumes that a depth of meaning and a lifetime of experience making images may well be distilled therein and one takes a closer....and significantly longer look. and, ultimately, a great deal is revealed. the rock shapes and shadows lead the eye in a gentle oval which turns back on itself on the left side. there is within: wet and dry, light and dark, rough and smooth, sharp and soft, angular and round, overtly above and covertly submerged, and suffusing all, the bleak and rather uniform gray sand. abundant examples yin and yang on a bed of quotidian sameness? and all this when parkinson's disease had taken away the man's physical autonomy. who really knows? i've thought about this image for years and it's one of my favorites. would i have given it a second look were it not weston's? i doubt it. was it worth the time and thoughtful reflection? immensely so.

it's just not fair though. i'm not famous, nor is donald. i'd like my abstractions to be meaningful to others just as clearly as they are to me without words, but i'm sure they're not nor ever will be. but they reflect what's within in the most profound way.

Donald Miller said:

As another example is an image that I exposed in the same time frame 1988-89. I have posted this here before but I will post it again for purposes of illustration. As Ed indicated this was a serrendipitous event. This image is of a doorway indicating another doorway but also more importantly a source of great light beyond the second doorway. The doorways are to me symbolic of points of passage...points of transition, if you will, during our life. The indication of a source of light beyond and to the right of the second doorway is an indication of another possibility that while indicated is not seen. That, apparently, there exists another choice beyond the objectively presented ones.

Click to expand...

Donald,

I just looked at the image you posted and my reaction was quite different from yours. To me it is a mysterious one, hard to put your finger on it. You said that the great light was the most important factor of the image, but to me the white door is. The way it is framed(white frame, dark door, image edge), and the sharp lines leading to it make it jump at me. I read it (the image) as a pun, as a door within a door. The washed out highlights (although I'm sure the print is not) only emphasize the importance of the white door, while the perfectly readable dark door gives it more mood.

I think this is the most I've ever verbalized about an image before (I remember once telling a photographer that I loved how, "I don't know, formal" her documentary stuff was, only to agree with her that it wasn't formal at all), so take it lightly.

But the thrice framed white door does not stop jumping at me.

jovo said:

donald's thoughtful soliloquy on his posted image is interesting, because it is unlikely i'd ever have made such associations or recognized such symbolism without verbal cues. however if donald were a 'famous' photographer, i might try and therein lies an inherent conundrum.

Click to expand...

I have thought about this for the better part of a day. I agree that the normal tendency would be to give more time to studying a photograph by someone "famous". But I think the tendency to give weight on that characteristic robs us of a great deal of the experience of viewing an image.

I think that the language of symbolism in imagery is something that most are absolutely illiterate about. In making that statement, I don't mean to disparage anyone or to diminish in any way. It is a language that can be relearned in just the same way that any language can be learned. In fact, I think that we already have the basis for this language deep within our being. It is just that most of us haven't been sensitive to this aspect and so we have lost the ability to enjoy it as much as we might.

The reason that I make the statement that the language of symbolism is a part of our makeup is that we dream symbolically. That is why many of us are confused about the meaning of our dreams. Having said that I will continue to pay attention to symbolism in imagery.

Thank you for your thoughts on the matter.

Andre R. de Avillez said:

Donald Miller said:

As another example is an image that I exposed in the same time frame 1988-89. I have posted this here before but I will post it again for purposes of illustration. As Ed indicated this was a serrendipitous event. This image is of a doorway indicating another doorway but also more importantly a source of great light beyond the second doorway. The doorways are to me symbolic of points of passage...points of transition, if you will, during our life. The indication of a source of light beyond and to the right of the second doorway is an indication of another possibility that while indicated is not seen. That, apparently, there exists another choice beyond the objectively presented ones.

Click to expand...

Donald,

I just looked at the image you posted and my reaction was quite different from yours. To me it is a mysterious one, hard to put your finger on it. You said that the great light was the most important factor of the image, but to me the white door is. The way it is framed(white frame, dark door, image edge), and the sharp lines leading to it make it jump at me. I read it (the image) as a pun, as a door within a door. The washed out highlights (although I'm sure the print is not) only emphasize the importance of the white door, while the perfectly readable dark door gives it more mood.

I think this is the most I've ever verbalized about an image before (I remember once telling a photographer that I loved how, "I don't know, formal" her documentary stuff was, only to agree with her that it wasn't formal at all), so take it lightly.

But the thrice framed white door does not stop jumping at me.

Click to expand...

Andre,

I would never try to define the meaning of an image to you and in your experience. That should be a personal matter between you and the image.

The reason that I see the unseen source of light as being vitally important to me in this image is that it presents an unknown into the image. That element is one of the points dealing with the abstract within this image. We observe that an increased level of light is present. It does not emanate from either of the openings portrayed. Yet we know that a source must exist.

Now you could say that the door also poses an unknown...for instance, where does it lead? The door is objectively portrayed and so to me the source of abstraction is not as questionable in where the door may lead. One of the symbolic meanings of light is life and the source of life. Thus to me in this image that carries the greatest weight.

As I stated earlier, this is the meaning that I draw from this image. Your meaning may be different and that is as it should be. We do not need to agree about that aspect. Remember the three blind men and the elephant?

Thanks for your viewpoints.

This discussion reminds me of attending during the 60's exhibits of abstract expressionists such as Mark Rothko's work where someone tries to "explain" the deeper meaning of the painting. Such an analysis may be valid - the artist may have included symbolic concepts or hidden messages, consciously or unconsciously, during the creation process. Later, a curator, gallery owner, etc., can try to discover the symbolism as part of attempting to come to a deeper understanding of the painting and the artist - part of the cult of the artist. Does such an analysis increase the visual "worth" to the viewer of that painting - maybe but as an acquired taste?
Can photography, especially when of abstract images, benefit from such an analysis; and when is the symbolic interpretation or deeper meaning manifested? For photography & unlike painting, the initial creation process is brief. At the time of creation of a phoptographic image, I'm lucky if I can remember all the manual steps necessary prior to shutter release. Maybe there is some symbolism behind my initial "this looks interesting" decission to make the image. More likely, a deeper meaning will occur during the selection/culling process in deciding which image would make a good print & how to print it. Does knowing the photographer's reasoning for selection/printing a particular image increase the aesthetic value of the print - possibly? Does it affect the ultimate value of a print - don't think so since photography, as also with painting, is a visual medium; and in photography, with very few exceptions, we do not have the cult of the artist/photographer.

doughowk said:

This discussion reminds me of attending during the 60's exhibits of abstract expressionists such as Mark Rothko's work where someone tries to "explain" the deeper meaning of the painting. Such an analysis may be valid - the artist may have included symbolic concepts or hidden messages, consciously or unconsciously, during the creation process. Later, a curator, gallery owner, etc., can try to discover the symbolism as part of attempting to come to a deeper understanding of the painting and the artist - part of the cult of the artist. Does such an analysis increase the visual "worth" to the viewer of that painting - maybe but as an acquired taste?
Can photography, especially when of abstract images, benefit from such an analysis; and when is the symbolic interpretation or deeper meaning manifested? For photography & unlike painting, the initial creation process is brief. At the time of creation of a phoptographic image, I'm lucky if I can remember all the manual steps necessary prior to shutter release. Maybe there is some symbolism behind my initial "this looks interesting" decission to make the image. More likely, a deeper meaning will occur during the selection/culling process in deciding which image would make a good print & how to print it. Does knowing the photographer's reasoning for selection/printing a particular image increase the aesthetic value of the print - possibly? Does it affect the ultimate value of a print - don't think so since photography, as also with painting, is a visual medium; and in photography, with very few exceptions, we do not have the cult of the artist/photographer.

Click to expand...

Doug,

Thank you for your thoughts. To answer your first question as I understand it, I would respond by saying "certainly". Anything that can enhance the total experience of observing the work is worth pursuing...I would assume that would fit within your catagory of "worth" The matter of acquired taste, I addressed in an earlier post. On your second point, I don't see that it is the photography that can benefit...but "I" sure as the world can benefit from analysis as I have proven in my experience.

I don't consider the length of creation as being of consideration in this matter. The "blueprint" within you and I that causes us to say "this looks interesting" existed far beyond our dimmest memory.

The aesthetic value that you speak of does not become involved within my choice of images. That is a personal matter, since I make images primarily for my enjoyment. That also defines my considerations of "ultimate value". Those considerations don't become involved since they are largely ego driven and it would seem that when that becomes the driving force then my images lose personal meaning.

The meaning within my images are for my purposes, in other words they are an extension of why do I think "this looks interesting"? My point in explaining the symbolic meaning in some of my images is that most people have very limited exposure to considering this matter in their images or the images that they may view.

Why would I care what the symbolic meaning is? I strongly suspect that, since I do have an unconscious componant to my mind, this is something that would be beneficial to experience in the manner that it seems to operate.

As I stated earlier...this is not about what others may take away from my images in a symbolic way. That seems to indicate that I make images for other people and that is not the case.

In addition, I would add again, that everyone that engages in photography, no matter what the level, should do what fits. This happens to fit for me.

Thanks again

From Charis Wilson's Through Another Lens

Edward [Weston] had no illusions about the general public's appreciation of his photographs. Many viewers responded enthusiastically but only rarely with the kind of comprehension that told him that there was a person who spoke his language...
Edward responded that is was a rock fragment with a beautiful form, and he had photographed it not to make a pun about something it might be thought to resemble but to reveal the essential structure and beauty of this particular rock...
The real difference between the two views, as far as Edward and Walter [Arensberg] were concerned, was that it enriched the picture for Walter to see a pun for a torso in a Point Lobos rock, but it diminished it for Edward because his purpose was to capture the essence of the thing in itself. For him any connotations detracted from the image.

Click to expand...

We abstract from an object to get to its essence. Like peeling a fruit, we remove the superficial layers - color, for example - to get to a core ( if its an artichoke, we enjoy the peeling). A well-done portrait doesn't try to include the entire head & shoulders, but narrows in to get the essence of the person. If an abstraction goes beyond capturing the essence of the subject , it becomes adrift & open to interpretations.
As to knowing what is in our psychological makeup that attracts us to a particular subject, such self-analysis may be useful especially if we had been inhibited from that subject matter. But to me as a viewer, a print is a print -it has to appeal to me on its own "worth".

Donald Miller said:

doughowk said:

... someone tries to "explain" the deeper meaning of the painting. Such an analysis may be valid - the artist may have included symbolic concepts or hidden messages, consciously or unconsciously, during the creation process. Later, a curator, gallery owner, etc., can try to discover the symbolism as part of attempting to come to a deeper understanding of the painting and the artist - ...Does such an analysis increase the visual "worth" to the viewer of that painting - maybe but as an acquired taste?
Can photography, especially when of abstract images, benefit from such an analysis; and when is the symbolic interpretation or deeper meaning manifested?

Click to expand...

... To answer your first question as I understand it, I would respond by saying "certainly". Anything that can enhance the total experience of observing the work is worth pursuing...I would assume that would fit within your category of "worth" The matter of acquired taste, I addressed in an earlier post. On your second point, I don't see that it is the photography that can benefit...but "I" sure as the world can benefit from analysis as I have proven in my experience.
...
The aesthetic value that you speak of does not become involved within my choice of images...

In addition, I would add again, that everyone that engages in photography, no matter what the level, should do what fits. This happens to fit for me.

Click to expand...

Clipped extensively - for brevity. I HOPE (a bunch!!) that I am not giving a wrong impression by removing things from context.

*CAN* the "value" be improved by a "deeper understanding" of the symbolism and factors leading to the creation of the photograph? - Certainly!!
*Will* it INVARIABLY be improved? I am equally as certain that it will not - not invariably and without question.
This begs the age old question: "Does/ Should the work `stand on its own merits' or is it beneficial (- necessary? - even, permissable? -) to have an "explanation" accompany it?
My initial reaction to art is emotional. The way *I* "feel" about it - and that precludes intellectualization - will be - and remain most important to me. It *CAN* be that a further "explanation" - a "deeper understanding" - will cause me to look at the work from a different point of view - and alter that emotional response.
IMHO - *some* things are better "left unsaid". To dissect and explain and
--- oh I don't know - "make sense" or "justify" photographs on an intellectual plane would only serve to discharge the "mystery energy". It can - and with me it usually IS - much more fulfilling to continue to wonder - and maintain the "awestruck" feeling.
We *could* perform a microscopic analysis of a photograph. We can measure (read "understand") all of its characteristics in a purely objective framework ... grain size, contrast ratios, conformance to "rules of composition", - we can even go further: paper texture, chemical makeup of the emulsion and base - reflectivity, color ... ad infinitum ... but ... the "emotional content", as biased and dependent on *my* mindset and "being" is still, by far, the most important - to ME.

There is a very simple little poem, written by Lois Wyse, In "I'm So Glad You Married Me" ... I possibly could write a few volumes to explain and describe it - to make sure that EVERYONE understands it exactly the way I do ... but there is NO way that I could even hope to "improve" it:

LOVE 101

Love doesn't solve everything
I just think it does.



My scribblings from the back of an envelope...

Comments are Welcome.

Interesting viewpoints...I will try to respond from "my perspective" in the body of the post so that the reponse will be properly attributed. The bold font is only to separate the response from the earlier post.

Ed Sukach said:

Donald Miller said:

doughowk said:

... someone tries to "explain" the deeper meaning of the painting. Such an analysis may be valid - the artist may have included symbolic concepts or hidden messages, consciously or unconsciously, during the creation process. Later, a curator, gallery owner, etc., can try to discover the symbolism as part of attempting to come to a deeper understanding of the painting and the artist - ...Does such an analysis increase the visual "worth" to the viewer of that painting - maybe but as an acquired taste?
Can photography, especially when of abstract images, benefit from such an analysis; and when is the symbolic interpretation or deeper meaning manifested?

Click to expand...

... To answer your first question as I understand it, I would respond by saying "certainly". Anything that can enhance the total experience of observing the work is worth pursuing...I would assume that would fit within your category of "worth" The matter of acquired taste, I addressed in an earlier post. On your second point, I don't see that it is the photography that can benefit...but "I" sure as the world can benefit from analysis as I have proven in my experience.
...
The aesthetic value that you speak of does not become involved within my choice of images...

In addition, I would add again, that everyone that engages in photography, no matter what the level, should do what fits. This happens to fit for me.

Click to expand...

Clipped extensively - for brevity. I HOPE (a bunch!!) that I am not giving a wrong impression by removing things from context.

*CAN* the "value" be improved by a "deeper understanding" of the symbolism and factors leading to the creation of the photograph? - Certainly!!
*Will* it INVARIABLY be improved? I am equally as certain that it will not - not invariably and without question.

I assume that you are saying this from the position of your perspective and I will acknowledge that this is undoubtedly based on your personal views. I can just as invariably say the for my work and my involvement in the creation of that work that the experience of that work is INVARIABLY improved. Now this leaves us with two distinct possibilities. A. That you are "right" and I am "wrong"..or B. That I am "right" and you are "wrong"...or C. That we are both correct from the point of our individual experience. Taking my example of the three blind men and the elephant that I quoted earlier in response to Andre, I would choose to believe C. I wonder about the choice of your final two words above. That seems to be a very rigid viewpoint...however you are entitled to whatever viewpoint that you choose.

This begs the age old question: "Does/ Should the work `stand on its own merits' or is it beneficial (- necessary? - even, permissable? -) to have an "explanation" accompany it?

I believe that I stated before, perhaps not clearly enough, that my view toward symbolism in my images was only for my benefit. My explanations regarding my images were to indicate that a symbolic meaning or language could be drawn from imagery. It was not to give the explanation that another must choose or should choose anothers explanation or meaning. Only that this characteristic could be involved in photographic images. I indicated this by not engaging with Andre in his interpertation as opposed to my interpertation on my Doorways image. I stated that it was to each viewer to decide. Perhaps you failed to draw this from the posts to this thread. I felt that message had been repeated several times. I would ask why the heck it should be "permissable" to have any particular experience of an image or for that matter who the "permission grantor" is? The reason that I ask is that I absolutely do not understand that parameter.

My initial reaction to art is emotional. The way *I* "feel" about it - and that precludes intellectualization - will be - and remain most important to me. It *CAN* be that a further "explanation" - a "deeper understanding" - will cause me to look at the work from a different point of view - and alter that emotional response.

I would agree that the first response for most of us is emotional. It can be left at that. Or it can be taken a step beyond that initial experience. I am not saying that one should take it that step beyond or that they should only experience it in any "one" way. I am only indicating that the possibility exists.

IMHO - *some* things are better "left unsaid". To dissect and explain and
--- oh I don't know - "make sense" or "justify" photographs on an intellectual plane would only serve to discharge the "mystery energy". It can - and with me it usually IS - much more fulfilling to continue to wonder - and maintain the "awestruck" feeling.

That may be true to you in your experience. You are entitled to that viewpoint. From my perspective, it enriches my experience to examine one of my images from a later viewpoint and see that my unconscious was communicating to me. That this is what it was saying. This is how and why I will be enriched by this understanding.

We *could* perform a microscopic analysis of a photograph. We can measure (read "understand") all of its characteristics in a purely objective framework ... grain size, contrast ratios, conformance to "rules of composition", - we can even go further: paper texture, chemical makeup of the emulsion and base - reflectivity, color ... ad infinitum ... but ... the "emotional content", as biased and dependent on *my* mindset and "being" is still, by far, the most important - to ME.

It seems to me that you are taking this to a step entirely beyond what this thread has addressed. To the best of my knowledge, the matters dealing with technical concerns such as "grain size, reflectivity" (to name a couple) have not been raised. To raise them at this time seems only to cloud the matter. It seems to me that you have the impression that I analyze the image "before" the exposure. That is not what I am saying here. I sometimes open myself to what my images say from a later viewpoint. Not all of my images have messages that I understand. Not all of them have messages.

I have no disagreement that "being" is all there really is.

There is a very simple little poem, written by Lois Wyse, In "I'm So Glad You Married Me" ... I possibly could write a few volumes to explain and describe it - to make sure that EVERYONE understands it exactly the way I do ... but there is NO way that I could even hope to "improve" it:

LOVE 101

Love doesn't solve everything
I just think it does.



My scribblings from the back of an envelope...

Comments are Welcome.

Click to expand...

doughowk said:

From Charis Wilson's Through Another Lens

Edward [Weston] had no illusions about the general public's appreciation of his photographs. Many viewers responded enthusiastically but only rarely with the kind of comprehension that told him that there was a person who spoke his language...
Edward responded that is was a rock fragment with a beautiful form, and he had photographed it not to make a pun about something it might be thought to resemble but to reveal the essential structure and beauty of this particular rock...
The real difference between the two views, as far as Edward and Walter [Arensberg] were concerned, was that it enriched the picture for Walter to see a pun for a torso in a Point Lobos rock, but it diminished it for Edward because his purpose was to capture the essence of the thing in itself. For him any connotations detracted from the image.

Click to expand...

We abstract from an object to get to its essence. Like peeling a fruit, we remove the superficial layers - color, for example - to get to a core ( if its an artichoke, we enjoy the peeling). A well-done portrait doesn't try to include the entire head & shoulders, but narrows in to get the essence of the person. If an abstraction goes beyond capturing the essence of the subject , it becomes adrift & open to interpretations.
As to knowing what is in our psychological makeup that attracts us to a particular subject, such self-analysis may be useful especially if we had been inhibited from that subject matter. But to me as a viewer, a print is a print -it has to appeal to me on its own "worth".

Click to expand...

Doug,

The way that I would explain this in a way that makes sense to me is as follows:

In meaningful photographic images the photographer is skilled in the ability to merge the objective (the seen world with individual "things") with an allusion to the abstract (the unseen).

Your illustration of a portrait does not directly explain this, in my opinion, since it still deals only with the objective...a person in this case. We might be left with the desire to learn more about the person but it is still only about a person.

When we engage the abstract, we are asking much deeper questions. Such as what is life? what is energy? From where does knowledge arise? In eastern terms this might be in the form of Koans such as "what is the sound of one hand clapping"? What is it that sees but does not see itself"? The understanding that comes to those arises from a place apart from human (ego originating) intellect.

Photographs of "things" themselves are IMHO empty and devoid of emotion because images of things themselves do not, for the most part, address this invisible componant.

My thoughts are that the reason that those succesful images are engaging our conscious state is that inherent in every man, woman, and child are the inherent questions Who am I? What am I doing here? Where am I going? What is the purpose of this life? The attempt to unravel the abstract in an image is part and parcel of that quest, in my opinion.


What are your thoughts on this?

To Donald Miller... I neglected to use the "quote" feature -

Geeesh!! Take it easy! I'm only trying to express my viewpoint, not refute yours.

I realize what I'm saying ... essentially that, *AT TIMES* it DOES pay to be ignorant ... can be hard to take for those who firmly believe that "intellect is everything" ... I'm not gong to even attempt to do anything but suggest -- n.b. *SUGGEST* that there might - possibly - be more to life than that.

It does prove that we are not all alike ... doesn't it?

I always enjoy "reinforcement" of a veiwpoint - although it doesn't mean "Proof".

From the photoqoutes.com web site (profuse thanks to Ann):

"You've got to struggle against the pollution of intelligence in order to become an animal with very sharp instincts - a sort of intuitive medium - so that to photograpah becomes a magical act, and slowly other more suggestive images begin to appear beyond the visible image, for which the photographer cannot be held responsible."

- Robert Doisneau


Sound a little bit like what I've been saying?

Ed Sukach said:

I always enjoy "reinforcement" of a veiwpoint - although it doesn't mean "Proof".

From the photoqoutes.com web site (profuse thanks to Ann):

"You've got to struggle against the pollution of intelligence in order to become an animal with very sharp instincts - a sort of intuitive medium - so that to photograpah becomes a magical act, and slowly other more suggestive images begin to appear beyond the visible image, for which the photographer cannot be held responsible."

- Robert Doisneau


Sound a little bit like what I've been saying?

Click to expand...

Ed,

Thank you for sharing this quote.

It seems to me and to others that have messaged me offpost that you seem to have taken it upon yourself to project another meaning to my posts on the subject of the objective and the abstract. That by literal interpertation of your posts on this subject it seems that you are indicating that I have intellectualized this matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. It seems that those who have contacted me privately have no difficulty in understanding what I have said. That leaves me to wonder why it is that you have difficulty in understanding what I have said.

Would you have me utter sounds like "duh", or "but", or "geez" and try to communicate in that manner?

It might be interesting for you to reread what this thread has indicated with an impartial and open mind.

Good luck.

Eastern philosophy supposedly can't be communicated thru words, but possibly thru riddles, seemingly contradictory ideas, etc.. Can photography, as one abstracts from the subject, create a visual koan? This may be a worthwhile reason for pursueing photography - a tool in the pursuit of life's important questions.

Is an Ed Weston pepper an image of the ideal? Since I find Socrates far more palatable than Plato, Weston's abstraction, when successful as with #30, visualizes to me the essence of that particular pepper, not an ideal. Does this pursuit of the essence of the subject, as an unintended consequence, also aid in developing a philosophy? Possibly for the creator of the image, and also for the viewer if it resonates. Sympathetic resonation - a goal that doesn't necessarily require abstraction to the point that the subject is unknown, rather, it requires the peeling or removal of the visual veils that obscure the object/subject.

Come on guys! As my friend Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

doughowk said:

Eastern philosophy supposedly can't be communicated thru words, but possibly thru riddles, seemingly contradictory ideas, etc.. Can photography, as one abstracts from the subject, create a visual koan? This may be a worthwhile reason for pursueing photography - a tool in the pursuit of life's important questions.

Is an Ed Weston pepper an image of the ideal? Since I find Socrates far more palatable than Plato, Weston's abstraction, when successful as with #30, visualizes to me the essence of that particular pepper, not an ideal. Does this pursuit of the essence of the subject, as an unintended consequence, also aid in developing a philosophy? Possibly for the creator of the image, and also for the viewer if it resonates. Sympathetic resonation - a goal that doesn't necessarily require abstraction to the point that the subject is unknown, rather, it requires the peeling or removal of the visual veils that obscure the object/subject.

Click to expand...

Doug,

I find your considerations to be thoughtful. The basis for Koans in pursuit of eastern philosophy/religion is that they are not capable of being solved through ego constructed intellect as we humans observe and utilize it. It is by allowing the intellect to run itself out with the full ongoing awareness that a knowledge for the conundrum exists that the ego is transcended. When the ego is transcended, the basis for our life changes quite drastically, in my understanding. This is the point at which one ceases to exist solely on the basis of objective reality and incorporates the "unseen" into a more prominant awareness in their conscious awareness.

Edward Weston was and is acknowledged as standing apart from the masses. His pursuit of photography was somewhat along the same lines in that he was trying to strip away all that was extraneous. His goal, as I understand it, was to capture the true essence of the object itself. That was certainly a notable and worthwhile pursuit. However, it seems to me that he was still occupied with portraying objective reality first and foremost.

When I speak of the abstract in terms of the "unseen" I speak of the "life force" as the essence that pervades all things. It would be simple if one could simply produce images of this force. Unfortunately that seems to be impossible. Thus it seems that in order to approach this "unseen" aspect we must either produce images based in symbolism (such as Jerry Uelsmann and others) or images that portray the objective in such a way that one alludes to the abstract or the "unseen".

Can these images produce "visual koans"? I think that this is a wonderful question that you have posed. I really don't know. I would guess that of the work with which I am aware that Jerry Uelsmann's, even though very symbolic, comes most near to that ideal. But if this were possible the art thus produced would certainly stand apart from the greatest majority.

Would the production of a work of this type "resonate"? I don't think that this would occur for the most part since most people are simply not prepared to deal with the frustrating aspects of attempting to decipher this conundrum with the conscious mind. Perhaps work of this type would have a broader appeal in those regions that would have been exposed to a greater extent on this method of approaching the "totality of the unseen".

If it is important, I see the possibility of symbolic images as resonating with a broader group of people since in symbolic depiction one can impart a knowledge apart from intellect. Whereas in a Koan a unsolvable question is posed to the ego awareness in order for the knowledge to arise of itself.

Thanks for your well thought response and dialogue.

OH GREAT.

I get back from two weeks in the sun in an alcoholic stupor and after reading this thread, now my brain is bleeding.

Thanks a lot.

I need a vacation.





Michael McBlane

blansky said:

OH GREAT.

I get back from two weeks in the sun in an alcoholic stupor and after reading this thread, now my brain is bleeding.

Thanks a lot.

I need a vacation.





Michael McBlane

Click to expand...

Michael...drink a bit more the transfusion is in the liquid. BTW did you find your "roots"? I certainly hope so since that information is always comforting.

My fiance found her roots the other day...and promptly covered them with hair dye!

Donald Miller said:

Ed,

Thank you for sharing this quote.
It seems to me and to others that have messaged me offpost that you seem to have taken it upon yourself to project another meaning to my posts on the subject of the objective and the abstract. That by literal interpertation of your posts on this subject it seems that you are indicating that I have intellectualized this matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. It seems that those who have contacted me privately have no difficulty in understanding what I have said. That leaves me to wonder why it is that you have difficulty in understanding what I have said.

Would you have me utter sounds like "duh", or "but", or "geez" and try to communicate in that manner?

It might be interesting for you to reread what this thread has indicated with an impartial and open mind.
Good luck.

Click to expand...

INTERESTING!!!! *I* have misunderstood your writing - and ... I'm trying to "project another meaning to your posts"?. I'll say it once: NO - I am not trying to " project" ANYTHING ... I have NO desire to adulterate the meaning of anyone else's posts here. Why the hell should I? Is there something to be gained if I do?

"Others" have PM'ed you offline to make you aware of this - or condemn(??) me?
I have an idea ... why not forward those to where they'll do the most good - to me.
I'll be most receptive to them ... I do not wish to offend anyone ... although a verbal "kick in the slats", might do both of us some good, once in a while.
But then again - I would be able to respond - as it stands now I cannot - I don't know who they were.- OR wht they've said.
My last couple of posts were not intended to be "directed" at anyone ... Please remember that I wrote that "I was not trying to refute your viewpoint ... only state - restate - clarify - mine.

"Duh", "but", "geez" - go ahead and use them - if you feel that they will help me - or anyone else to understand. I feel that "Standard" English is somewhat deficient, anyway, especially when it comes to uses descriptive of highly esoteric principles. We steal words from Greek, Latin, Old English, Same, Farsi, Ojibway ... whatever Helps. If common slang, or a particular idiom is of use ... I say, "Use it!!", with my blessings.

When it comes to "understanding" - I once had a *very skilled Management Teacher say this: If you ar trying to describe something (his interest was the rationals behind starting a business) write it on the back of one of your business cards. If you can do that - *YOU* understand it. If not - keep thinking - you really do not know what you are doing.
From the back of one of mine - applicable here, "There is *NO* "perfect" way. It is useful to study the ways of others - but we will NOT necessarily agree with them".

I will confess to a twinge of the idea that you were motivated by the idea of, "What I am writing is "prima facie" evidence." - and therefore - cannot be contested. There can be only one factor leading to disagreement: Those who will disagree simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND."

Maybe I don't. That to me id less important than getting the idea across that we are all individuals, and entitled - *bound* to seek or own paths / philosophies.

Tell me one thing - did you expect me to slink away in silence - terrified of the "off-line" PM's that I might provoke?

Ed Sukach said:

Donald Miller said:

Ed,

Thank you for sharing this quote.
It seems to me and to others that have messaged me offpost that you seem to have taken it upon yourself to project another meaning to my posts on the subject of the objective and the abstract. That by literal interpertation of your posts on this subject it seems that you are indicating that I have intellectualized this matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. It seems that those who have contacted me privately have no difficulty in understanding what I have said. That leaves me to wonder why it is that you have difficulty in understanding what I have said.

Would you have me utter sounds like "duh", or "but", or "geez" and try to communicate in that manner?

It might be interesting for you to reread what this thread has indicated with an impartial and open mind.
Good luck.

Click to expand...

INTERESTING!!!! *I* have misunderstood your writing - and ... I'm trying to "project another meaning to your posts"?. I'll say it once: NO - I am not trying to " project" ANYTHING ... I have NO desire to adulterate the meaning of anyone else's posts here. Why the hell should I? Is there something to be gained if I do?

"Others" have PM'ed you offline to make you aware of this - or condemn(??) me?
I have an idea ... why not forward those to where they'll do the most good - to me.
I'll be most receptive to them ... I do not wish to offend anyone ... although a verbal "kick in the slats", might do both of us some good, once in a while.
But then again - I would be able to respond - as it stands now I cannot - I don't know who they were.- OR wht they've said.
My last couple of posts were not intended to be "directed" at anyone ... Please remember that I wrote that "I was not trying to refute your viewpoint ... only state - restate - clarify - mine.

"Duh", "but", "geez" - go ahead and use them - if you feel that they will help me - or anyone else to understand. I feel that "Standard" English is somewhat deficient, anyway, especially when it comes to uses descriptive of highly esoteric principles. We steal words from Greek, Latin, Old English, Same, Farsi, Ojibway ... whatever Helps. If common slang, or a particular idiom is of use ... I say, "Use it!!", with my blessings.

When it comes to "understanding" - I once had a *very skilled Management Teacher say this: If you ar trying to describe something (his interest was the rationals behind starting a business) write it on the back of one of your business cards. If you can do that - *YOU* understand it. If not - keep thinking - you really do not know what you are doing.
From the back of one of mine - applicable here, "There is *NO* "perfect" way. It is useful to study the ways of others - but we will NOT necessarily agree with them".

I will confess to a twinge of the idea that you were motivated by the idea of, "What I am writing is "prima facie" evidence." - and therefore - cannot be contested. There can be only one factor leading to disagreement: Those who will disagree simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND."

Maybe I don't. That to me id less important than getting the idea across that we are all individuals, and entitled - *bound* to seek or own paths / philosophies.

Tell me one thing - did you expect me to slink away in silence - terrified of the "off-line" PM's that I might provoke?

Click to expand...

Ed,

Please forgive my frank and clear communication that follows. I try to usually use more tactful presentation. However sometimes one needs to communicate in the language that the other person understands. Thus this follows:

I will not enter into a disagreeable discussion with you because it is apparent to me and to others that you have taken it upon yourself to interject and project something into this discussion of your choosing and not pertinant to the matter upon which this thread is/was based. The words that one of our members used to describe this was "Ed Sukach's insertion of the red herring of intellect". They went on to say "I don't understand how you have patience with someone who does that". I will not violate that members name because that was a private communication to me. I will say though that my patience with you is really wearing very, very, thin.

I wish that in the future that you would try to keep things more on the track upon which the thread is/was based. I realize that this must be difficult for you since you have failed repeatedly to do so in this case.

It is readily apparent that your statement of your last couple of posts not being directed to anyone is an inaccurate statement since the record of your posts stand as they were entered. My name is clearly on one of those posts as the person to whom it was directed.

So my response to you is this. I wish no further communication with you on this matter. Should you persist then I will take the appropriate indicated action.

Sincerely,
Donald Miller