cicilized ku # 109 -111 ~ the primacy of individual experience
Monday, November 3, 2008 at 09:51AM 
The primacy of individual experience • click to embiggenOur weekend in Montreal was very swell. A good time was had by all. Other than the exploding-nail-polish-bottle incident, everything else could not have been better.
I managed to make lots of pictures. The urban landscape is much to my liking, picture-making wise. There are so many architectural forms / shapes and , on a sunny day, so many additional forms / shapes created by the interplay of light and shadow. On the surface of things, illustrative-wise, there is much to explore.
Add to that the element of humankind and their cultural, social, and affective accouterments, as far as I am concerned you have a target-rich environment that's hard to ignore.
That said, I must admit that, as I was picture-making this past weekend, these words from John Rosenthal were on my mind:
No matter how brilliantly Science has understood the mechanics of the material world, it is a remarkably ineffective tool for deciphering the mysteries of human misery. Even with thousands of "experts" telling us what's wrong, and measuring it, self-knowledge is on the decline. In America, the most technologically advanced country on earth, one has to be oblivious not to hear a din of sorrow and private disappointment just below the gabble of our TV’s and the hum of our personal computers. Where is the expertise that can explain us to ourselves? The scientific method is inadequate for such revelations. No matter how many developmental models we formulate to explain why and when we do things, no matter how extensive the revealed neurochemical connections, psycho-biology must always collaborate with human freedom - the curse of dealing with a creature for whom visual symbols, art and language, are a defining characteristic. Such a collaboration entails nothing less than a deeper respect for the singularity of our lives, a recognition of those immensely specific contingencies that belong only to our own individual experience. In other words, the business of art - the inner gaze, and those strategies for sharpening its clarity. Who else but the artist, insisting upon the primacy of individual experience, can reclaim the private territory ceded to experts - to those well-meaning and well-socialized professionals who created the idea of normal people just when the corporations needed them.
In part, these words were on my mind because of a comment made on man & nature # 69 by Michael Sullivan; "... As we are in the ugly throes of the "baroque era" of image making there is little it seems left except imitation, outrageous manipulation and tiresome self indulgence ..." (emphasis, mine) - a statement with which I can only partially agree because it seems to be somewhat dismissive of Rosenthal's idea of "the artist, insisting upon the primacy of individual experience".
Michael goes on to state that "... the best of any work comes from outside the pale of technical machination and from some place deeper ...", which is a statement / idea with which I am able to whole-heartedly agree.
Regarding the aforementioned statements, what I am wondering about is whether or not "self-indulgence" is an integral part of getting to "some deeper place". Is an artist, most of whom are dwelling upon the primacy of his/her individual experience (AKA, the inner gaze) for the very genesis of his/her art, being self-indulgent? Can good art be made if one is not essentially self-indulgent in its making?
And, even if you cede to the fact that artists are self-indulgent individuals, is that character trait mitigated if their intents are good? Do the ends justify the means - that is, is self-indulgence a "tolerable" thing if the ends to which it is directed - reclaiming and validating the private territory which has been ceded to the experts - is a good and noble cause?
I ask these question - hoping for comments - because I do believe artists are self-indulgent, at least in as much as their art is concerned - myself included. None other than another Au Sable Fork-ian artist, Rockwell Kent, expressed it well with the titles of both of his autobiographical books -
It's me, O Lord, and, This Is My Own
IMO, Michael Sullivan has it wrong when he paints with too broad of a brush made of dismissive self-indulgence bristles when he tries to cast aspersions upon most of the art (with an emphasis on photography) that is being made today.
IMO, much of the Art that is being made today - especially photography - is highly self-indulgent and rightly / justifiably so. Artists who use photography seem to be prominent amongst the very few who are "raging against the machine" of consumerist conformity that dominates our culture and society.
If more than a little "self-indulgence" fuels those fires then I say, "Let self-indulgence rule"
Reader Comments (4)
I was considering a somewhat longer dissertation on my last comment and I am working on it to show some evidence along your last year production but it will take some time since I am in moment of heavy work. Hope to finish it for the next week. It is my first exercise in criticism so do not blame me for the slowness.
Coming to "self indulgence" or as I called it less politely "onanism" (you know we Italians are the most advanced dirty talkers :-) i would like to make a short consideration.
When a photographer is as good as you (along the whole process) it is quite easy to resort to well known and already tested solutions to make the "hit". That is perfectly legitimate. The problem is when it ends up there. Your citation of Kent Rokwell is perfect (hope we are speaking of the same) he is a master in using his bag of tricks to make the "hit" nothing less but also nothing more, we could put him in good company with Charlie White or John Shaw they are pretty good image makers but I would not call their production Art.
But here we enter in a more complex set of questions that usually ends up in the great One: "what is art". Let me cut through citing Clement Greenberg (an ex communist as me): "it is a matter of taste".
That said why tell you this ? Cause a value a lot your effort to put yourself in your Images and when it happens to me to perceive it I feel good, to be more clear I crave for it.
"self indulgence", however, is for an Artist a necessity and I agree upon this. But if it becomes an habit alas you will have one who "was" doing Art.
Anyway this post pictures are awesome and yes they make me feel good.
Errata: we are speaking of a different Rokwell !. You can put John Shaw in place. I did not follow the link at the first time.
Unfortunately the images are so bad (in term of reproduction) that it is not so easy to evaluate them.
Sorry.
As much as I may talk about "wanting more" in the discourse of photography, I fully admit that it's all about indulgence of my own interests. I've only sold about as many prints as I have fingers, and I have no plans on trying to increase that number (prints sold, not fingers).
I do it all for myself. If it weren't for the occasional "wow" or interesting discussion on the interwebz, I may not do it as often, but in the end, it's just for me.
Just my kind of city photographs. Where are they going? Is there something interesting around the corner?
As to the question on self-indulgence: surely if we are not indulging our own whims, we indulge those of others. That's either subservience or commercial. then you'd be accused of selling out.
the problem with all of the "look at me" is not self-indulgence but the clamouring for attention, an egocentric desire for praise or acceptance. rather opposed to the notion of true self-indulgence, methinks.
This line of argument puts me in mind of the ideas around Buddhist meditation. It is only the truly self-indulgence, self-reflective mind that can achieve Nirvana.