I've been an ardent amateur since I was 16. I've sold a few prints, but that only makes me a sort-of semi-pro. I've read a zillion magazines and books on photography and seen and taken another zillion photos. Okay, maybe not a zillion. More like bazillion.
What is it that makes a photograph one you would want to put on the wall in your living room where you could see it every day? Of course, the same question applies to any kind of art. Just being technically good or well-composed isn't enough. And clearly there is one's personal taste, which is probably predominant as a factor. But many that make the magazines and the books, while beautiful, are not enough to sustain one's attention over a longer period of time. I find myself paging through the books and magazines, thinking, "That one's nice/interesting/attractive", but rarely seeing one I would put over my mantel even if someone gave it to me for free.
With the advent of computer-chip controlled cameras, anybody can take a technically well-exposed picture. Technical skill was once a major part of professional photography, but not any more. What can capture and hold the interest in any picture?
How many perfectly photographed pictures of the Grand Canyon do you want? It's clear that simply photographing (however perfectly) any tourist attraction is of little interest, now that it's relatively easy to see them, and the number of good photos of interesting places and things is huge.
I find pictures that I really like and would hang on my walls proudly. Some of them are of people; some are of unusual scenes which can give real objects an abstract design quality. A picture of moss on a tree might make it. I don't know how to define what it is that I'm looking for. I hate to fall back on the old cliche about "not knowing anything about art, but I know what I like". Yet the cliche is true in the sense that if you have to know about something to appreciate its beauty, it's not that great. Knowledge can add to your appreciation but can't turn a mediocre photo into a great one.
Sometimes I think there needs to be a quality of mystery in the picture. Not a puzzle, but rather a sense that the art or photo goes somewhere and does something beyond the frame, a sense of deeper connection than is on the surface.
If anyone has an opinion about this subject, particularly if you have photos to illustrate your point, please contact me. Maybe we can post some on this blog and debate them a little.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Obesity and disability
Don't misunderstand me. I work with people with a variety of disabilities, more or less serious and chronic. I have no problem with the state providing financial aid and medical care; in fact, I'm proud that we do not let them "fall through the net".
I do have a problem with people who have a variety of bone and joint problems AND who are grossly overweight or obese. I see them walking with great difficulty and or managing with a wheelchair or canes. It's clear their obesity adds great additional stress to their joints, and increases their disability. I understand that they may have few other pleasures in life besides eating, but it seems to me that they should be doing everything they can to have a life, a job, a volunteer position helping others, or something, rather than making themselves worse.
Paying them for their self-aided disability is like forgiving a man who has killed his parents on the grounds of being an orphan. How much of the day must they spend stuffing food down their gullets? Since when is a physical disabilty grounds for endless self-indulgence?
I just don't feel any sympathy for self-inflicted wounds.
I do have a problem with people who have a variety of bone and joint problems AND who are grossly overweight or obese. I see them walking with great difficulty and or managing with a wheelchair or canes. It's clear their obesity adds great additional stress to their joints, and increases their disability. I understand that they may have few other pleasures in life besides eating, but it seems to me that they should be doing everything they can to have a life, a job, a volunteer position helping others, or something, rather than making themselves worse.
Paying them for their self-aided disability is like forgiving a man who has killed his parents on the grounds of being an orphan. How much of the day must they spend stuffing food down their gullets? Since when is a physical disabilty grounds for endless self-indulgence?
I just don't feel any sympathy for self-inflicted wounds.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Guilt and Shame II
Embarrassment, as an emotion, belongs to the "shame" family of feelings and is an interpersonal rather than "solo" feeling. It is related in structure, as is shame, to depression more than anxiety, but certainly has anxious overtones.
Recently, in a therapy group, a member began to cry quietly, and immediately became red-faced and embarrassed. On analysis of her feeling state, she reported thoughts such as "I'm weak, and everyone knows". "People should not cry where others can see." Part of the focus of her embarrassment was her belief in how other members of the group then present would see her. She would almost certainly not be so embarrassed by the same behavior had it been in private.
In her mind she was breaking a group rule whose origins were in her original family. Breaking this rule did not result in exclusion from the group, but did result in group condemnation. The threat of exclusion was real to her as a child, though probably represented less of a threat than she thought. The threat was catastrophic, but came with a prescriptive plan that would avoid the threat being carried out. As a result, the anxiety was limited.
In embarrassment, the focus is a particular behavior which is expected to be changed. It was what she did or might do in the future, not who she was; the negative stroke was for behavior rather than self. As such, it was more limited because it was conditional. She was in effect being warned that exclusion could possibly result if she did not change her behavior. However, the feeling of being "weak" did strike at her sense of worth and self, and became an ever-present threat.
When group members were supportive and even encouraging, she was considerably relieved and less "embarrassed"; it was clear to her and those present that her embarrassment was self-inflicted. Other members of the group were certainly not thinking what she feared. The transferential nature of her feelings and reaction were obvious and could be dealt with as such.
Recently, in a therapy group, a member began to cry quietly, and immediately became red-faced and embarrassed. On analysis of her feeling state, she reported thoughts such as "I'm weak, and everyone knows". "People should not cry where others can see." Part of the focus of her embarrassment was her belief in how other members of the group then present would see her. She would almost certainly not be so embarrassed by the same behavior had it been in private.
In her mind she was breaking a group rule whose origins were in her original family. Breaking this rule did not result in exclusion from the group, but did result in group condemnation. The threat of exclusion was real to her as a child, though probably represented less of a threat than she thought. The threat was catastrophic, but came with a prescriptive plan that would avoid the threat being carried out. As a result, the anxiety was limited.
In embarrassment, the focus is a particular behavior which is expected to be changed. It was what she did or might do in the future, not who she was; the negative stroke was for behavior rather than self. As such, it was more limited because it was conditional. She was in effect being warned that exclusion could possibly result if she did not change her behavior. However, the feeling of being "weak" did strike at her sense of worth and self, and became an ever-present threat.
When group members were supportive and even encouraging, she was considerably relieved and less "embarrassed"; it was clear to her and those present that her embarrassment was self-inflicted. Other members of the group were certainly not thinking what she feared. The transferential nature of her feelings and reaction were obvious and could be dealt with as such.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Structure of guilt and shame
Depression and anxiety are solitary emotions, in the sense that someone raised entirely in isolation from others could be expected to feel them. Guilt and shame, on the other hand, are based on group membership and group boundaries. Someone living in total isolation, on the proverbial desert island, for instance, could behave in any way they wished without guilt or shame.
Guilt and shame are different in important ways. Guilt seems to be based on one's awareness that one has transgressed important group rules, and may as a result be forced out of the group. The anticipation of this expulsion is guilt. Since the expulsion is a catastrophic expectation that rarely actually occurs. guilt is a form of anxiety. The specific form is the fear of rejection/expulsion. Since one can't be expelled from a group prior to belonging to that group, guilt requires group membership.
Every group has "boundary rules", which separate members from non-members. The rules may be complex or simple, but they tend to be rigid in many groups. Teen-agers present good examples of rigid and frequently trivial boundary rules. Something as simple as wearing the "wrong kind" of tennis shoes can result in expulsion from the group. Every group, no matter what kind, seems to have one or more boundary rules that if broken will always result in group rejection. The fear of being rejected may be so great that a person may be willing to do literally anything to avoid rejection.
The first group we can belong to is the mother/child dyad. Doing something that might cause the mother to reject the child is cause for severe anxiety in the child. Remaining safely in the mother/child dyad is necessary for survival, so the threat of expulsion is genuinely catastrophic. The usual anxiety-reducing tactic, that of "making a plan", can't apply here as no plan can be adequate to protect an expelled child.
Shame consists of the awareness that one has broken a boundary rule, AND that the breach of rule is known to other group members. The "catastrophe" has occurred, and the rejection has either already occurred or is about to occur. Shame is accompanied by a severe loss of self-worth, at least to the extent that the person's self-worth was closely tied to group mambership. The more central to one's self-image the group membership is, the greater the loss of self-worth when one is rejected. Shame does not occur when the loss of group membership is essentially trivial to the boundary breaker. For a highly patriotic person, being found to have committed treason can result in suicide or severe depression. For someone who was only simulating patriotism, having committed treason is relatively unimportant other than for the actual consequences.
As guilt is related to anxiety, shame is related to depression. Guilt is the fear of loss of self-worth; shame is the awareness of the actuality of it.
It is interesting to consider the effects of early rejection or failed attachment on the later development of guilt and shame. One can easily speculate about the possibility that some forms of antisocial (not psychopathic) behavior may be more likely when there is a failure of attachment in the mother/child dyad. It should be noted that our individual social history is one of successive group memberships. After belonging to the mother/child dyad, we belong to our families; later we belong to our friendship groups and other peer groups, and thence to ever larger groups. It may be the case that early failures in belonging may have effects on subsequent attempts to belong.
I would be interested in hearing other thoughts about this.
Guilt and shame are different in important ways. Guilt seems to be based on one's awareness that one has transgressed important group rules, and may as a result be forced out of the group. The anticipation of this expulsion is guilt. Since the expulsion is a catastrophic expectation that rarely actually occurs. guilt is a form of anxiety. The specific form is the fear of rejection/expulsion. Since one can't be expelled from a group prior to belonging to that group, guilt requires group membership.
Every group has "boundary rules", which separate members from non-members. The rules may be complex or simple, but they tend to be rigid in many groups. Teen-agers present good examples of rigid and frequently trivial boundary rules. Something as simple as wearing the "wrong kind" of tennis shoes can result in expulsion from the group. Every group, no matter what kind, seems to have one or more boundary rules that if broken will always result in group rejection. The fear of being rejected may be so great that a person may be willing to do literally anything to avoid rejection.
The first group we can belong to is the mother/child dyad. Doing something that might cause the mother to reject the child is cause for severe anxiety in the child. Remaining safely in the mother/child dyad is necessary for survival, so the threat of expulsion is genuinely catastrophic. The usual anxiety-reducing tactic, that of "making a plan", can't apply here as no plan can be adequate to protect an expelled child.
Shame consists of the awareness that one has broken a boundary rule, AND that the breach of rule is known to other group members. The "catastrophe" has occurred, and the rejection has either already occurred or is about to occur. Shame is accompanied by a severe loss of self-worth, at least to the extent that the person's self-worth was closely tied to group mambership. The more central to one's self-image the group membership is, the greater the loss of self-worth when one is rejected. Shame does not occur when the loss of group membership is essentially trivial to the boundary breaker. For a highly patriotic person, being found to have committed treason can result in suicide or severe depression. For someone who was only simulating patriotism, having committed treason is relatively unimportant other than for the actual consequences.
As guilt is related to anxiety, shame is related to depression. Guilt is the fear of loss of self-worth; shame is the awareness of the actuality of it.
It is interesting to consider the effects of early rejection or failed attachment on the later development of guilt and shame. One can easily speculate about the possibility that some forms of antisocial (not psychopathic) behavior may be more likely when there is a failure of attachment in the mother/child dyad. It should be noted that our individual social history is one of successive group memberships. After belonging to the mother/child dyad, we belong to our families; later we belong to our friendship groups and other peer groups, and thence to ever larger groups. It may be the case that early failures in belonging may have effects on subsequent attempts to belong.
I would be interested in hearing other thoughts about this.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Green propaganda
I'm in favor of green solutions, where possible. What I strenuously object to is the notion that we need some major technological advances or scientific breakthroughs to have a "green solution". There are very simple and easy things to do right now that would make a huge difference.
Here's a for-instance. I live in a middle-size university town of maybe 150,000 people. Like most towns without geographical features to limit or concentrate its growth, it spreads out over a substantial distance. Maybe it is 5 miles by 4 miles, but it's a little hard to tell because of the way subdivisions sprawl and put out pseudopods. We have some bike riders, but not a lot, because the streets are not safe for bicylists. So we drive everywhere. 8 blocks to the nearest grocery, closer than that to drugstores and cleaners, but it's worth what my life is worth to bicycle consistently.
Why is that, you ask (and well may you ask)? Because our fair city doesn't designate bicycle routes or paint safe lanes. Unlike European cities which are full of bicycles and mopeds and scooters, we have so few of them that we are not used to looking out for them. Some of the more redneck types nearby seem to think it funny to nearly miss cyclists or even just to take them out. So we have a chicken and egg problem; we need more cyclists to increase awareness of safety issues, but we can't have more cyclists until it gets safer.
So the first measure we should take would be to thoroughly designate safe cycling lanes, and then fine the shit out of any motorist crossing into them at any time, cyclists present or not. And keep doing that until we get used to staying out of the safe lanes.
Second measures even for metropolises are not that difficult. Arrange a safe parking area (or many of them) outside of town, make scooters and bicycles cheap and easy to rent, and ban all non-commercial vehicles from within the city itself. Or of course busses could go to and from town center and parking areaa.
How much could all this cost? Well, paying for the rental vehicles (which could also be electric) would cover much of the cost. How much does it cost to enforce safe biking lanes? So why don't we do something like this instead of the incessant yammering about batteries and butane or natural gas-powered vehicles or instantaneous teleporting or whatever? You can find the answer by simply obseving who opposes such moves and who profits by the opposition, and in addition one should note equally carefully the politicians who support them. Not that hard, is it?
Here's a for-instance. I live in a middle-size university town of maybe 150,000 people. Like most towns without geographical features to limit or concentrate its growth, it spreads out over a substantial distance. Maybe it is 5 miles by 4 miles, but it's a little hard to tell because of the way subdivisions sprawl and put out pseudopods. We have some bike riders, but not a lot, because the streets are not safe for bicylists. So we drive everywhere. 8 blocks to the nearest grocery, closer than that to drugstores and cleaners, but it's worth what my life is worth to bicycle consistently.
Why is that, you ask (and well may you ask)? Because our fair city doesn't designate bicycle routes or paint safe lanes. Unlike European cities which are full of bicycles and mopeds and scooters, we have so few of them that we are not used to looking out for them. Some of the more redneck types nearby seem to think it funny to nearly miss cyclists or even just to take them out. So we have a chicken and egg problem; we need more cyclists to increase awareness of safety issues, but we can't have more cyclists until it gets safer.
So the first measure we should take would be to thoroughly designate safe cycling lanes, and then fine the shit out of any motorist crossing into them at any time, cyclists present or not. And keep doing that until we get used to staying out of the safe lanes.
Second measures even for metropolises are not that difficult. Arrange a safe parking area (or many of them) outside of town, make scooters and bicycles cheap and easy to rent, and ban all non-commercial vehicles from within the city itself. Or of course busses could go to and from town center and parking areaa.
How much could all this cost? Well, paying for the rental vehicles (which could also be electric) would cover much of the cost. How much does it cost to enforce safe biking lanes? So why don't we do something like this instead of the incessant yammering about batteries and butane or natural gas-powered vehicles or instantaneous teleporting or whatever? You can find the answer by simply obseving who opposes such moves and who profits by the opposition, and in addition one should note equally carefully the politicians who support them. Not that hard, is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
