Philosophies

[SUNdog]

A few words about “postmodernism”.

If I had to name the primary characteristic of “postmodernism” it would be fragmentation. Fragmentation of unities whether those unities are/were real or mystified.

Some examples:

1. The dissolution of the Soviet Union.
2. The dissolution of the Bell System.
3. Perhaps the dissolution of majorities (the election of Mr. Bush being the most obvious example).
4. In philosophy: Friedrich Nietzsche’s madman’s proclamation that “God is dead.” questions the basis of a shared cultural belief in God (Christianity).
5. In architecture: rebellion against “form follows function”, concrete and glass boxes and a move toward a juxtaposition of styles.
6. In photography: the revival of alternative processes, the concept that photographs can be read, deconstructed (Susan Sontag), exploration of ethnic and gender (self-referential) issues and challenging “Modernism’s elitist and exclusive view of aesthetic formalism and the autonomy of art” (Linda Hutcheon).

From my viewpoint “postmodernism” has certainly upset the apple cart, but I’d say it’s anti-elitism is very evident.

JP

 

[Lex Jenkins]

I still haven't read anything here that refutes my initial statement. Great music isn't always beautiful. Nor is great art nor are great ideas.

Some of us may prefer our notions of great truth, ideas and art to follow certain expressions, expressions which are generally regarded as having a form of beauty.

Not all of us share that sentiment, tho'. I'd hardly imagine that the paintings of Francis Bacon are generally regarded are beautiful; likewise much of the music of Filter.

The Impressionists, Fauves and other movements that have become common currency in the beautiful art market have created something of a backlash, a demand for the less than beautiful and even the deliberately ugly.

Understanding this paradox is among the most vital of all undertakings for any artist.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Lex: " From my viewpoint “postmodernism” has certainly upset the apple cart, but I’d say it’s anti-elitism is very evident."
A philosophy teacher of mine once said, "Are the tolerant, tolerant of the intolerant?" Likewise, there is no group more "elite" than the post-modernists. Just try having a discussion with them. Their "anti-elitism" is non-existent, despite whatever fine words they may put on it. Ask Robert Kennedy, who, unfortunately, must encounter them every day he is in school.

Lex: "The Impressionists, Fauves and other movements that have become common currency in the beautiful art market have created something of a backlash, a demand for the less than beautiful and even the deliberately ugly.

Understanding this paradox is among the most vital of all undertakings for any artist."

Really? I always thought the most vital, in fact, the only vital, undertaking for an artist was to make her or his art. Silly me.

 

[Lex Jenkins]

Personally I believe that creating art without understanding that truth and beauty are not synonymous is a waste of time and materials.

 

[SUNdog]

I’ve met and talked to many people who in varying ways had things to say about “postmodernism” and in my turn agreed or disagreed with them. But so far I have not had anyone come up to me and say “Hi, I’m a Post-Modernist.” I’ve also met a few people who choose to cloak their opinion in absolutes, barricading themselves within a self-justified fortress of that opinion. After a while, I just smile politely and go on my way.

I would suggest that “beauty is truth, truth beauty”, the Five Words Too Many is a mystification, but never the less their intention is to point to that which is beyond language, beyond Philosophy. As Ludwig Wittgenstein has said “It will often prove useful in philosophy to say to ourselves: naming something is like attaching a label to a thing.” So I would suggest that the Five Words is a label attached to something beyond the world of appearances by trying to name that thing. Wittgenstein also said “Where one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. I think this is pretty important because it implies that we ground ourselves in the world of appearances by a constant conversation with our selves (self and subject), but it is silence that I think is the most important element here. Within this silence all sorts of magical things can and do happen including great art, but at this point I would prefer not to call it Art.

JP

 

[Ed Sukach]

"A photographer's main instrument is his eyes. Strange as it seems, many choose to use the eyes of another photographer, past or present, instead of their own. Those photographers are blind."

Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Mexico City, 1986

Sort of "returning" to this quote, .... Bravo says something here that I believe in so deeply that I think it nearly the "core" of the way I work now.

If we allow ourselves to be blinded by the attempt to "use the eyes" of another, we are imposing on ourselves a tremendous burden ... no less, in terms of style, than if we were trying to photograph completely without light.

This is, to me, an automatic indictment against the actions of *most* critics - with the exception of everyone here on APUG - ( ... uh ... whatever..).
Their goal in their criticism is to compare the vision of the victi .. uh, artist, with what they see through their own eyes, and if it not the SAME, to try to influence, coerce, force - whatever level of energy - to fit their own concepts.
Thereby, it is an act of blinding.

How often do we ever hear of a critique that goes ... "What a marvelously unique way of looking at things! What a unique way of presenting them!"

It is far more common to tear the work apart, by the mechanism of "The rules say that ... (fill in the blank here) and you have not done that (a.k.a., conformed)." And, they can always justify what they say by, "How else are they going to learn."

I suggest, that instead or trying to propagate conformity, it is a far more noble mission to establish NEW rules ... and a god start to discovering what those might be lies in the "unblinded" eyes of neophytes and the "Significant" photographers who have risen above the blinding seas of critics.

... I think there might be a reply or two to this message ...

 

[Alex Hawley]

Agree with you Ed except on one point which I will get to later.

Reading that quote from Bravo, and similar ones from other Masters was a real turning point for me. All too of often budding photographers get caught up in trying to emulate (or is it copy) what one sees written as being great. By this I mean;

"But I'm using the same film/developer/paper as _______"

"But I'm using a camera and lens just like _______ used"

"This looks like something _________ did".

Critics are even more nortorious for imposing the dogma of the past on the works in front of them.

"Ahh-this is great because it harkens the style of ________"

"Not the way _______ would have done it"

Aside from the critics, there are many ways these traps get imposed. The photographic press is one of the main culprits. This is due primarily to marketing influences and product endorsements. Well, everyone has to make a living.

Another way is through the textbooks one reads. But after reading the books several times, one can deduce from between the lines that its not the gear nor the exact method that is important. Its the final outcome, the print that everyone sees, that is important.

And that brings me to my point of disagreement. That has to do with rules. I've come to believe that the only real rule is to make a good print. Everything that comes before that, except for composing and proper exposure, does not matter. What matters is what is seen on the print.

 

[Alex Hawley]

I couldn't keep my farm girl's mouth shut. I told off the PETA people and shook my head sadly at the professor who deemed it socially relevent as a documentary.

Good for you Aggie!! Those people haven't a clue as to what they are talking about (in my humble opinion of course).

 

[Ed Sukach]

Agree with you Ed except on one point which I will get to later....
And that brings me to my point of disagreement. That has to do with rules. I've come to believe that the only real rule is to make a good print. Everything that comes before that, except for composing and proper exposure, does not matter. What matters is what is seen on the print.

Sounds good to me. What, in your view, is a "good" print?

"Composing" and "proper exposure" are heavily dependent on aesthetic vision. I've seen examples where "proper exposure" was wholly determined by some to mean, "Maximum Dmax" (sorry for the redundancy) ... to the point where the subject itself was very nearly obliterated - and this was considered by a group of Camera Club judges to be a "perfect print". Another definiton states that a print *must* have a Zone I and a Zone X -- even if it is a photograph taken on a very foggy day, with neither present in the scene itself. Even more applicable to "seeing" is the choice of high or low key...

The rules of composition themselves are the results of many art scholars who have tried to determine the factors that are common to *most* works that have been accepted as "great" over the years. *Most*, but certainly not ALL. Some of the most treasured - most significant - works deviate from the "rules", big time.

Anyway ... those are *MY* "notes from the back of an envelope".

Again, what do YOU see as a "good" print?

 

[Alex Hawley]

.... what do YOU see as a "good" print?

You got me there Ed. At this point, I really can't articulate an answer to that question. I have neither the exposure to really great work nor the experience at producing it to really say. Right now, if someone with an experienced eye looks at one of mine and says "This is good", I'll gladly take their word for it.

 

[SUNdog]

I’m not sure if I agree with Ed or not.

I think that from the time our umbilical cord is cut our eyes start to be blinded. This blindness is shaped by our parents, peers, school, culture, language, art, etc. and etc. We are blinded and blind ourselves in order to survive in the world of appearances and in the doing we forget or bury something essential, something unnamable in ourselves.

If by some hand of God or Entity we were suddenly struck totally “unblinded” would we not then be in some Heaven and not in this world?

I don’t think we need new rules, but to start stripping away the old rules, peeling off all the self mirrored masks we choose to wear one by one. Deconstructing and questioning all the positions, rooms of comfort in which we choose to stand in. Disentangling ourselves from the maze that language, rules, the world surround us in. If we need new rules then it would be just this one rule as Michael Smith said in another post “ Life is only once, now, and too soon, death is very final.” We should scrawl this across the mirror as we hold it up to the self. But could not the self seduce these words as it does all language?

The self becomes it’s own subject and object. “My Precious, My Precious!”

Where are the Wizards who choose not to enshrine themselves in stasis, towers of this and that, but choose instead a “becoming”. Yes, even a “becoming” evil as well as a “becoming” good, but always and ever a “becoming” over and beyond the self.

Now, as it was from the beginning, it is to “Battle and to War.”

JP

 

[Ed Sukach]

I think that from the time our umbilical cord is cut our eyes start to be blinded....

Where are the Wizards who choose not to enshrine themselves in stasis, towers of this and that, but choose instead a “becoming”. Yes, even a “becoming” evil as well as a “becoming” good, but always and ever a “becoming” over and beyond the self.

Now, as it was from the beginning, it is to “Battle and to War.”
JP

I agree. To me the idea of "being blinded", either from external or internal sources, describes the process that the vastly greater number of people endure today; and as H.G. Wells proposed in "The Valley of the Blind", the sighted man is not necessarily, nor even usually, "KING". At times "sight", or as we tend to call it, "vision" of the truth can be a great burden.

I tend to draw another simile: We begin, from birth, to be wrapped in mummifying bandages. Those wrappings obstruct our view ... a process called "socialization".

We are the ones who work against stasis? I think that they can, or at the very least, SHOULD be, found in the marvelous field we call "Art"... and one can experience a LOT of examples of mummy-bandage cutting here on APUG.

It's interesting to not who would be the "wrappers" - they, unlike those who have broken free, are MUCH more common, whether intentionally, as Art Critics and other moralists, or unintentionally - parents, friends, ...

It is NOT an easy thing to work one hand free from the bandages and to start cutting, with a palette knife, or a sculptor's chisel, or a camera. We are always in danger of cutting ourselves, but, considering the alternative - suffocation under layers of wrappings - I, for one, will continue to slash away.

I agree with your message, here. I'll only make one comment - *MY* approach to unwinding, or unblinding - is a trifle less morose. I find so many myriads of "bright sparks" along the way, that it is more of an intoxicating journey, than a "battle" of some sort.

To me, anyway.

 

[Donald Miller]

Ed,
I agree with your sentiments as stated. I observe that what most of mankind attempts to do is to "gain" throughout their lifetime. The things that are sought after are increased wealth, status, and knowledge. These are the basis of this "I" that separates me from my fellows and from life itself.

I have found that my journey has now become one of loosening the attachments that are found within the catagories that I mentioned. If only I could in one fell swoop bring myself back to the time that existed within the first hour of my physical life on this plane. Ahh but what images one could make if that were possible.

It is interesting to me that in the end of physical life on this plane that we ultimately are separated from those attachments that we have formed. Perhaps Gibran was correct when he said let the hour of giving be your choice.

 

[dr bob]

This discussion has gotten a little too deep for me. But, as one who has managed to "throw off the bandages of socialization" (read maverick), I'll have to say it is just as hard for us "liberated" types to change as those in the opposite position. Certainly the Mate would like me to gain some socialization. It ain't gonna happen, I'm afraid. I owe my independence to the influence on Grandmother McLemore (daughter of one Arter Dale, a native American) and Grandpa McLemore, an archetypical Scotsman. independence of thought and action has cast me into trouble many times in the past. The future seems a little more mellow.

It makes me wonder: is it possible to change after a certain age, or are we doomed to the programming of our early youth?

 

[juan]

dr. bob, how did you originally aquire the bandages of socialization in order to have them to throw off?
juan

 

[blansky]

When I was first studying photography I was in a discussion with a very learned photographer who stated that in his native Germany as well as most of Europe, photography was very structured. It was essentially an apprecticeship program and if you wanted to do it professionally and get a license you had to study under a pro. The results were that the work was often technically excellent but rarely very creative.

He went on to say that in North America, anyone could hang out a shingle, so to speak, and were judged on the merits of their work. They could be as creative as they wished with no structure at all. Technically he said, we often were not as good as the Europeans but the creative impact was far more impressive.

I think the fact of our so called "Stepford" system of education etc where we turn out little robots, is not wholly correct. We must have some guideline and rules to teach children and adolescence, but we still turn out a lot of very creative and gifted people. I'm not sure how it could be done differently. Some people like and thrive under a lot of structure and some people are rebels. In this country there a lot of very successful of each.

Michael McBlane

 

[dr bob]

dr. bob, how did you originally aquire the bandages of socialization in order to have them to throw off?
juan

Quite right Juan, I never really had them. You have recognized that, right?

Truly, dr bob.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Well, I was trying to make a comparison between the treatment of our collective *spirit* and what is a necessary function of socialization, or on a somewhat broader scale, civilization.
We all are "bandaged" to some extent... and the only noble, obtainable state we can hope to be in is one of balance. To enjoy a great deal of freedom - while managing our own "dues" in this club we call society.

I would suggest one area where we can be (can be?? MUST BE!!) extraordinarily FREE, to let ourselves run *wild* -- and that is our own ART.

When I first started out - SO many moons ago, I was , as all are, insecure, unsure ... I hid behind a screen of "Well, what did anyone expect - I'm just not good." The next natural step was to try to copy the .. styles of others - somehow, I thought I could "cheat" my way in. I *listened* - boy, did I listen - to the sometimes domineering advice of others - and slavishly tried to follow their exact words.

There was NO sharp epiphany. I did not suddenly "break through into the hallowed ranks of the experts".
I merely came to the point where I realized that NO ONE could take that photograph for me. Good, bad, or indifferent, *I* had to do the deed myself. *I* was responsible for all of my images.
All the advice and criticism had one ultimate effect; not the "improvement" of my work, but the dilution and clouding ... and repression - of my style (signature??).

That realization was the point, reached softly, where this entire experience became pleasurable .. more than that ... addictive, ... I don't know ...I guess when I produce an image that WORKS ... it is damn close to an orgasm, for me. Well - maybe not "damn" close ... but somewhere around there.

Let us dance lightly on this blue and green ball we all share. Let us nurture each other - in doing so, we nurture ourselves. We are all different - with individual styles - let us rejoice in our differences!

P.S. ... Deep"? Uh ... It is only taking three or four days of thought ....

 

[Robert Kennedy]

Let us dance lightly on this blue and green ball we all share. Let us nurture each other - in doing so, we nurture ourselves. We are all different - with individual styles - let us rejoice in our differences!

Well THAT will never do!

For me the most rewwarding experinces have been when I have used the adviuce of others to achieve my goals, AND used my own knowledge. I asked a fellow student about some Liquid Light problems I was having. He suggested some things, Aggie and others here suggested some things and all of a sudden I got EXACTLY what I wanted. Not by being a slave, but by using bits and pieces of everything.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Well THAT will never do!
For me the most rewwarding experinces have been when I have used the adviuce of others to achieve my goals, AND used my own knowledge. I asked a fellow student about some Liquid Light problems I was having. He suggested some things, Aggie and others here suggested some things and all of a sudden I got EXACTLY what I wanted. Not by being a slave, but by using bits and pieces of everything.

We certainly *CAN* learn techniques - the HOW to do something... and apply those techniques in expressing our *vision*. I never meant to imply otherwise.

The vision itself - I'm not at all sure that CAN be taught. We may draw attention to certain characteristics and relationships ... but we simply cannot induce, or force - or some intermediate degree of that - the creation of a photograph that "resonates" - that "entrances" the one who creates it.
There is really only one way to attempt to do force that, and that is to try to make the "student" "see" through the eyes of another (NOT good!!).

Helen VanWyk said it... clearly: "The DOING is not hard. One can learn that. The "WHAT TO DO" - that is the hard part."

I just read something by Ralph Gibson - weren't we just talking about him? - A photographer I respect - a lot:

"You see, I'm not interested in mediocrity in photography. I'm not interested in selling cat shit to dogs. I just want to do my own thing. If people like my work, all the better. If they don't, too bad."

- Ralph Gibson - New York, 1992

 

[Ed Sukach]

Some Memories (Most Painful) -- Subtitled: "Why I Don't Have a Leica"...

This has to do with "prestige" ... Leicas are *wonderful* cameras ... and of all the 35mm's they probably come equipped with the most prestige of all. NOT a 'good thing', at times.

Once upon a time, there was a young photographer, entranced by the Art, who longed for recognition - to be seen with admiring eyes. He joined a fairly well-thought-of Camera Club, and soon learned that the way to "admiration" would be SOCIALLY determined ... and one thing that would work as a short-cut was to have a Prestigious Camera hanging from his neck ... as a Magic Amulet. It was a financial struggle... but overcome -- he had the marvelous Leica IIIF - and envious glances from those who did not.

This was during the height of the Cold War. A family moved in next door. An Naval Officer, his wife, and their Eleven - Twelve year old daughter. This girl had more than her share of "displacements".. there had been no real chance to "settle" and make friends.
I'm not sure how it happened, but she also became interested in photography. She had an incredibly "cheap" camera - one of those three-dollar "127" specials (*Negative "Prestige" value)...
One day she approached this Leica-bearer with a print ... of something *very* dear to her - her cat. She loved that animal - it was the one stable thing in her life - it had been brought with them all over the country. She was "ENRAPTURED" with that photograph .. amazed that she could have produced something SO beautiful.

Well, this would never do, as far as the Leica-bearer was concerned. Status, prestige, - the ART itself - HAD to be preserved!
There followed - what might be expected - "This is not a good photograph - the lighting is terrible, the composition is off - Haven't you learned about the "rule of thirds" ... the processing is "dull" -- so many more negatives ... finally followed with the "ultimate" - "You really should get a better camera."

Later, I learned how devastating those comments were ... I was so taken with myself that I had hypnotized myself into a state of numbness - I hadn't been reading the "feedback" from what I was doing... each of those "negatives" was extremely painful to that girl - I found that out later, talking to others.

Two days later, I went to visit her - thinking, hoping that I could somehow "fix" things ... apologize or ...
They were gone. I heard that her father had received a new assignment - and they had moved to Bremerton, Washington ...that is all I could find out.

I quickly realized that I had become a Classic "bully". I was attacking someone much weaker than I ... a "safe" opponent. An Eleven year old girl.

Was that a "good" photograph? To that girl, IT WAS!! Who the @#$ did I think I was to pass judgement? In retrospect, it was probably BETTER than the insensitive ham-handed, cold, lifeless, work that I was doing with that Leica. Mine was work made to impress ... to cheat my way into the inner circle of Camera Club hierarchy; hers was, simply, a work from her heart.

I've never regretted anything more.

I sold the Leica. It was a FINE camera ... but its effect on ME was something I did not want.
I gave up photography for a few years after that ... I guess as an act of penance...

Over the years, I finally returned. Now, however, I've overcome the pre-conditioning of trying to find fault with others' work and using the old lies to justify bullying: "It's for their own good", "No photograph is perfect ... so I'm going to tell him how to fix it"... ad infinitum.

It really was not a complicated process - this attention shift. I just look for the "goodness" in the work ... and it is true ... when you look for the good things - that IS what you will find.

Now, photography is a field of rocks and flowers ... The "flowers" and far more numerous than I had realized before - and there are some unique, different - and no less beautiful - "rocks" out there as well.

 

[Eric Rose]

here here. I hope the gal recovered and kept up her photographic efforts.

 

[clogz]

Ed,

You're right. Wise words. Too often we kill to dissect (Wm.Wordsworth). And yes, camera clubs...let's not stray to that subject.

 

[noblebeast]

Ed,

Your story has stuck with me all day - kinda like a boil on the butt! Thank you for reliving what is obviously a painful and perfectly humbling memory and sharing it here for others to learn from.

Someone sent you a little angel to teach you a most valuable lesson, and it's great to see that the lesson has taken hold and that you can offer it up for those open and ready for it. I'm fairly new here at APUG, but I have already found that even when I don't completely agree with things you have posted you nevertheless give me much to think about. Thanks!

Mark Twain wrote: "Forgiveness is the scent that the violet leaves upon the heel that has crushed it." I'll bet that little girl forgave you long ago, and it seems like, more importantly, you have forgiven yourself. At least I hope you have. The best lessons in life are usually the ones that cause the most discomfort. This is probably so we can never forget them - no matter how hard we try!

Regards, The Beast

 

[doughowk]

Teachers' nightmares are probably filled with the 'if only I had handled that student differently'. In order to not quell enthusiasm, do we praise mediocrity? If so, when & how do we challenge the student to better realize their vision thru improved techniques? Too many people achieve a certain level of mediocrity in their artisitc endeavors & never improve. Maybe too much praise thru camera clubs, etc. was heaped upon them that it stifled their growth. It takes a strong willed artist to grow despite either excessive praise or criticism.