What we are.

[Tom dinning]

Is this what I was back then?
Is every image I take of me?
Not in the portrait sense but in the metaphoric sense.
Each time I take a photo I’m the man behind the black box looking through the viewfinder making sense of what I see.

On a day when I don’t make any sense of it is when I’m still me but unsure, confused, somewhat psychotic, irrational, alone with my own thoughts.
Is it me you see?

 

[Robert Watcher]

Cool pic

 

[Jerome Marot]

Is every image I take of me?

But of course, Tom. Was that a trick question?

 

[Asher Kelman]

I am not sure you are right Tom, but perhaps it’s only for you to say.

It could be that photography can be reasonably viewed as some kind of “acquisitional imperialism”, where we acquire peoples neighborhoods as souvenirs that we have, (in some way), “Done” Venice, Amsterdam and even the crippled beggars in Milan.

Madonna repurposes culture, like that, when she sings a vulgar song with the appropriated clothing, dance form and holy chants of the nationalistic Hindus or devout Christians. They hate her for that!

Scythian warriors didn’t have cameras, they simplified it by collecting heads!

There was said to be a sign over the Scythian Chieftain looted-treasure tent entrance: “No Head, no booty!”

Is photography something akin to that more than a representation of the character of the shooter?

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

But of course not, Asher. A photography of a severed head is not a severed head, which allows two photographies of the same severed head taken by two different people to be different. Therefore, it is not the head, but the photographer.

 

[Asher Kelman]

But of course not, Asher. A photography of a severed head is not a severed head, which allows two photographies of the same severed head taken by two different people to be different. Therefore, it is not the head, but the photographer.

...and you are correct too, when viewed from the perspective you present.

But each is a point of view and likely as not, my view is also valid. Don’t you consider we can can be equally viewed as merely “Hunters collecting trophies” too!

After all, that’s likely to be in our behavioral DNA inheritance!

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

It is in our DNA to take photographs? I doubt that. It maybe in our DNA to collect food, but that is not quite the same thing, is it?

 

[Asher Kelman]

It is in our DNA to take photographs? I doubt that. It maybe in our DNA to collect food, but that is not quite the same thing, is it?

Yes it is. There can no behavior which was not potentially set up in our DNA. Everything that happens to us in behavior is built in the possibilities programmed into DNA. It’s just a matter of chance and time before any version is expressed.

Life of man could have been extinguished before Photography was expressed!

But as long as man thrives and has a civilization producing excess storable resources and continues with language and writing in a light drenched world, photography would, likely as not, be eventually developed in one group or another.

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

That is an amusing theory, Asher, but I think the fallacy lies in the definition of "potentially set up". I'll be interested to find out if you manage to find a definition which does not amount to circular reasoning.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Tom and Jerome,

There is no doubt that it does seem agreeable and intuitive that when one says that “My photographs are more a representation of who I am, than actually defining the scene itself”, it’s true.

However, it’s also likely that, (with many or most of us doing photography), this is merely an entertaining expression of archaic Hunter-gather behavior updated to modern gadgetry.

Is it much different between ball games representing training for actual battles between ancient tribal hominids?

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

But you cannot prove or disprove any of that. Even with ball games: plenty of animals like to play with balls, and they don't necessarily fight in tribes as humans do.

As to pictures, our stone age ancestors left us quite a few, so we can infer that they were motivated to draw stuff, but we don't really know for what reason. And these were drawings, which are quite different to photographs. Even if the end product may appear similar in some cases, the creating process is completely different.

The only thing which seems reasonable to imagine is that our capability to make pictures is related to our capability to communicate as pictures are shown to others in most cases. It is not sure that the two are linked, but it seems reasonable. That is a completely different motivation than the one to gather as you are writing.

 

[Tom dinning]

I had a good night sleep.
Thanks for asking.

None of what either of you say is to be proven or disproven.
I appreciate your input to my thought processes.

I am aware of the separation between that which is ME and that which I might create. If I take a selfie people will say it’s ‘me’ and we all know it’s not. But I fear the short cuts in our language might over emphasise the relationship somewhat and be misunderstood by some. I’m also aware that some of us might seek out a deeper connection to what they do and find dissatisfaction in their ability to define that connection.

A small child coming across a mirror for the first time will behave like a kitten, trying to figure out who the other is and respond accordingly. As we grow to understand self we come to grips with such distinctions but we have a tendency to use the same language.

A friend I’ve not seen for 30 years sent me a photograph of herself as a teen. I looked at the photograph and tears welled in my eyes. The emotional experience was overwhelming. Why would I do this if I know full well that the image isn’t her but simply a collection of pixels on a screen?

An extension of this aspect of who and what we are is what I drive at here.
The creator of a photograph has the expression in mind when preparing to shoot. “I think therefore I am” comes to mind.
The photographers thoughts are as much a part of the individual as the head, the finger that presses the button and the food they ate last night for dinner.

And the DNA of we want to go that far, although DNA is predetermined and has a tendency to express itself depending on the needs and requirements of the individual. Like anagrams. LISTEN and SILENT. Same letters, quite different meanings.

When we speak and are misunderstood we might respond with: “you don’t understand me”. Are we saying we don’t understand the words spoken or are we telling the listener it is ME that is not understood?

Back to the photograph.

No matter how much or little effort is put into taking a photograph there will always be some thought process involved beforehand that relates to the nature of the subject matter and the relationship the photographer has with that subject matter.
Except what we call errors or mistakes like when I press the touch screen accidentally and record a picture of my foot.

It’s those thoughts which, I believe, constitute the construction of the image as a final expression of what I think.

So is it legitimate to say that if you like my image you like my thoughts and in turn like me as a result? Not all of me. Just the bit that produced the image. It’s difficult to find and individual that we like fully. We are such picky individuals when it comes to what we like and dislike. Even the love of my life, the sweet and demure Christine can be quite dislikeable first thing in the morning. And I too.

Like most here, I have been expressing myself with photographs, among other manners of expression, for a long time. My approach has changed, my motivation has altered, my manner of presentation is different and most of all, those who I ‘speak’ to has narrowed dramatically. The reason for that is that I want to be understood. Not just in what I say but what my photographs mean. That meaning has become more deeply rooted in my thoughts. They have, as it is, part of me.

I understand that can be taken literally and loose it’s ‘proof’ of truth. That’s not the way I mean it. It’s personal, as they say, and complicated. Or perhaps it’s just a matter of acceptance. Did the first painter blow mud around his hand and announce “This is my hand”? Then his caveman mate responded with “no it’s not. It just mud on a wall”.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I agree!

Complicated but well put!

Asher

 

[nicolas claris]

I had a good night sleep.
Thanks for asking.

None of what either of you say is to be proven or disproven.
I appreciate your input to my thought processes.

I am aware of the separation between that which is ME and that which I might create. If I take a selfie people will say it’s ‘me’ and we all know it’s not. But I fear the short cuts in our language might over emphasise the relationship somewhat and be misunderstood by some. I’m also aware that some of us might seek out a deeper connection to what they do and find dissatisfaction in their ability to define that connection.

A small child coming across a mirror for the first time will behave like a kitten, trying to figure out who the other is and respond accordingly. As we grow to understand self we come to grips with such distinctions but we have a tendency to use the same language.

A friend I’ve not seen for 30 years sent me a photograph of herself as a teen. I looked at the photograph and tears welled in my eyes. The emotional experience was overwhelming. Why would I do this if I know full well that the image isn’t her but simply a collection of pixels on a screen?

An extension of this aspect of who and what we are is what I drive at here.
The creator of a photograph has the expression in mind when preparing to shoot. “I think therefore I am” comes to mind.
The photographers thoughts are as much a part of the individual as the head, the finger that presses the button and the food they ate last night for dinner.

And the DNA of we want to go that far, although DNA is predetermined and has a tendency to express itself depending on the needs and requirements of the individual. Like anagrams. LISTEN and SILENT. Same letters, quite different meanings.

When we speak and are misunderstood we might respond with: “you don’t understand me”. Are we saying we don’t understand the words spoken or are we telling the listener it is ME that is not understood?

Back to the photograph.

No matter how much or little effort is put into taking a photograph there will always be some thought process involved beforehand that relates to the nature of the subject matter and the relationship the photographer has with that subject matter.
Except what we call errors or mistakes like when I press the touch screen accidentally and record a picture of my foot.

It’s those thoughts which, I believe, constitute the construction of the image as a final expression of what I think.

So is it legitimate to say that if you like my image you like my thoughts and in turn like me as a result? Not all of me. Just the bit that produced the image. It’s difficult to find and individual that we like fully. We are such picky individuals when it comes to what we like and dislike. Even the love of my life, the sweet and demure Christine can be quite dislikeable first thing in the morning. And I too.

Like most here, I have been expressing myself with photographs, among other manners of expression, for a long time. My approach has changed, my motivation has altered, my manner of presentation is different and most of all, those who I ‘speak’ to has narrowed dramatically. The reason for that is that I want to be understood. Not just in what I say but what my photographs mean. That meaning has become more deeply rooted in my thoughts. They have, as it is, part of me.

I understand that can be taken literally and loose it’s ‘proof’ of truth. That’s not the way I mean it. It’s personal, as they say, and complicated. Or perhaps it’s just a matter of acceptance. Did the first painter blow mud around his hand and announce “This is my hand”? Then his caveman mate responded with “no it’s not. It just mud on a wall”.

A long text…
I can't read (and understand, being a poor Frenchie) don't you have an (or more!) image to illustrate what you're saying?

 

[Tom dinning]

A long text…
I can't read (and understand, being a poor Frenchie) don't you have an (or more!) image to illustrate what you're saying?

I’ll do my best, Nik.
I know I’m long winded.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Nicolas,

J'essaie d'expliquer en français:

Chaque fois que nous prenons une photo, nos décisions, quoi et comment nous incluons et évitons, révèlent, à chaque fois, un peu plus de preuves de nos valeurs, de nos goûts et de nos intérêts!

Enfin, on peut dire que chaque photo représente un tout petit morceau de moi ou après plusieurs images, on peut imaginer que la photo c'est moi!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

@ Jérôme,

Feel free to correct or add to my explanation to Nicolas.

Asher

 

[James Lemon]

Is this what I was back then?
Is every image I take of me?
Not in the portrait sense but in the metaphoric sense.
Each time I take a photo I’m the man behind the black box looking through the viewfinder making sense of what I see.

On a day when I don’t make any sense of it is when I’m still me but unsure, confused, somewhat psychotic, irrational, alone with my own thoughts.
Is it me you see?


View attachment 3493

Tom

In my world you are, what you do,say, and think, anything else is just bullshit. I thought you were retiring from photography and were about to make your mark with a motorcycle rice rocket machine? Did you try calling the phone number on display between the upper windows?

 

[Asher Kelman]

James,

Personal stuff goes in private correspondence, please.

 

[Tom dinning]

James,

Personal stuff goes in private correspondence, please.

It’s OK, Ash. It’s all personal. James has as much right to offer an opinion as any of us.

 

[Tom dinning]

Tom

In my world you are, what you do,say, and think, anything else is just bullshit. I thought you were retiring from photography and were about to make your mark with a motorcycle rice rocket machine? Did you try calling the phone number on display between the upper windows?

There certainly is quite a lot of bullshit about, James. It’s hard to tell which is what at times.
I’m not suggesting any form of truth here. Just an hypothesis based on my own observations and thinking.
Nor am I trying to deceive anyone. I actually do think about this stuff, strange as it might seem to others. In that way I am just thinking out loud, not trying to convince you of anything. If you have read what I wrote I thank you for your time. If you disagree I appreciate your input.
Unfortunately I had a strong belief the motorcycle was a possibility. Now I realise I was talking bullshit to myself. Or perhaps I really believed it possible and have proven myself wrong. But it turned out to my advantage. I have gained some flexibility and strength with my exercise regime, improved my balance with my new interest in yoga, and found out a great deal about what’s new in motorcycle technology. The reasons for me not going ahead with the purchase are too numerous to mention here. Let’s just say, in my current state of mind and physical condition it would not be a wise decision to go ahead.

The phone number is for the shop. Call it and say hello from me.

Cheers
Tom

 

[Tom dinning]

Nik wanted some picture.

One thing I do notice is my consistency with ‘going against the rules’ as some might put it.
This might suggest something about my character.
To some extent that might be the case. So others will see features of my imagery as features of me.

Looking from my side, such images are just an essence of what I ‘see’. The intent is not to break a rule but to provide just enough information so the viewer might ‘finish’ the picture. What Steven Shore refers to as Exclusive Mental Images. ie, the scene is incomplete and requires some interpretation by the viewer to complete it, either visually or verbally.

It’s like allowing Christine to finish my sentences for me or me finishing hers. It’s a verification of agreement. Weary thinking along the same lines. I have a feeling that characteristic is a remnant of my teaching strategies. It’s also a feature of the tasks I pursue apparently. Not finishing what I started.

What I’m thinking here is my behaviour as a result of my thinking affects more than just day to day activities. It is reflected in my images. Like a person who likes cats or kids photographing cats and kids.

 

[Jerome Marot]

@ Jérôme,

Feel free to correct or add to my explanation to Nicolas.

I am confident that Nicolas has perfectly understood.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I am confident that Nicolas has perfectly understood.

Thanks, for your vote!

Just my French might be missing some of what was expressed!

 

[Tom dinning]

I would like to add here that over the years I have studied, not just in a passing manner but associated with the writings of the photographer, photographs from many people.

In each case, where the photographer speaks openly about their thoughts and motives, aspirations and goals, they do aim, if not just hope, to express their thoughts, indeed part of their beliefs, in their imagery.

Among the most outstanding in my opinion is the likes of Atget, Doisneur, Robert Adams, Steven Shore....... Actually, I’d probably need to include pretty much every photographer I’ve read about.
What we see in their images is a demonstration of how they think about what they do. There’s a purpose. Doisneur said simply that he loved his Paris. And the emphasis seemed to be on ‘his’. Ie, what he thought about the place he lived.
And doesn’t it show in his pictures?

It’s not difficult for me to look at any of his photos and see the man, not in the physical sense but the representational sense. Like an old hat he might wear or a turn of phrase he used often or the way he held a cigarette.

It’s something we can all aspire to. Allowing each of us to give to our images part of ourself. To allow the frame to capture what we are thinking. To be honest enough to chase our own tail in preference to that of others. To immerse ourselves in our own thoughts while we shoot. To let the viewer feel what we feel or not isn’t a plausible outcome but to understand what the photographer is trying to achieve is paramount in out appreciation. Understanding the photographer is to understand the photograph.

 

[nicolas claris]

…
What we see in their images is a demonstration of how they think about what they do. There’s a purpose.
…

Exactly my meaning with my request for Tom to post an image (not "photo" but "image") instead of a long text (yes I can understand Tom's English, at least most of or a set of images to illustrate his text. After all we're in a photography forum!
But, Tom, take no offense here. I appreciate (again, almost ) your global approach, not being systematically correct, a kind of new air, even if sometimes difficult to breath!

PS BTW Doisneau, not "Doisneur"

 

[Tom dinning]

Exactly my meaning with my request for Tom to post an image (not "photo" but "image") instead of a long text (yes I can understand Tom's English, at least most of or a set of images to illustrate his text. After all we're in a photography forum!
But, Tom, take no offense here. I appreciate (again, almost ) your global approach, not being systematically correct, a kind of new air, even if sometimes difficult to breath!

PS BTW Doisneau, not "Doisneur"
[/

“not being systematically correct, a kind of new air, even if sometimes difficult to breath!”

How sweet of you to say, Nik. I also have difficulty exhaling at times.
Apologies for bad spelling. My laziness relies on my spell check which, it seems, doesn’t speak French either.

the small circle of photography friends I have will talk for hours on a single image. There are no restrictions or limitations.
The image isn’t the ‘thing’ for me. It’s the outcome of what a person is and in turn what the person does. I fear this has been a remnant of my father I carry with me. He had a deep admiration and inquisitiveness for the person and not what they ‘made’.

When we are alone and trapped between the walls of objectivity and attachment we turn to ourselves to find meaning.
When we are alone that’s all we have. When we are with others we rely on ourselves to understand.