civilized ku # 139 ~ the eyes of a child
Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 09:22AM 
Santa's Workshop #6 • click to embiggenAs far as looking for photography-wise inspiration goes I am an equal-opportunity seeker. I really don't have any single guru, idol, or maestro who I consider to have the divine word regarding picture making. IMO, inspiration is where you find it and it can be found in many places.
In some cases, the seemingly most unlikely of places. Like, say, in the words of Jesus from the bible.
Last evening, I was reading an article in Harper's magazine - Turning Away From Jesus ~ Gay Rights and the War for the Episcopal Church - and I came across this passage from the author:
Jesus said that only those who could become as little children would enter the Kingdom of God, and I sometimes try to see these issues through the eyes of a child
I was immediately struck by the words "become as little children" as well as the author's desire to "see" things "through the eye of a child". Whether or not that was due to the fact that, coincidently or not, earlier in the day I was struck by the idea of trying to make a "pure" picture I can't really say. I was even thinking of proposing a Landscapist challenge to all of you to make a "pure" picture.
But, the problem for me for both ideas is that don't really have a firm idea of what a "pure" picture is.
As the day went by and as time allowed thoughts of making a "pure" picture rattled around in my head. A fair number of ideas about what a "pure" picture might be and how to go about making one came and went. A general notion was beginning to emerge but I never really came to any firm conclusion as daily events came to the fore and prevented me from further ruminations.
Then, much later as I lay in bed reading, there it was - become as a little child and "see" things through their eyes.
Can it get any simpler - or more difficult - than that?
I'll have more to say on the idea but I would really like to hear from you about the idea of a "pure" picture. Any and all ideas are welcome but I am most interested in knowing if you think that you have ever made a "pure" picture.
Reader Comments (5)
The word pure in an art context has no meaning. If you have a very good explanation of what you are meaning by pure in this specific context and time, then for this one instance we can use it as a sorthand for your elaborated concept in further discussion at this one time and in this one context.
Pure in this context becomes meaningless like truth and beauty and the like. I have to fully explain my concept and then only use that word as a shorthand for that concept in this one specific context. What if we have different concepts that we're using the shorthand of "pure" to represent. Then we can argue in circles about what picture is "pure" both being right and wrong. And if we both define our "pure" in different ways then the word becomes less then useful in our discussion.
I agree with Bill.
But if you mean "a pure picture" for something unretouched the answer is yes, back in slide times :-).
But if instead you mean something based on pure vision (or visual thinking) well that is what I try to do. In such a case you, Mark, are quite better at it, for me I think to not have still reached the target.
Interesting literature upon the subject (pure vision)could be found in Proust's "Gernande" or in De Chirico writings upon metaphysics (unfortunately all his texts are in Italian, something may be available in French).
We can all imagine an impure picture, though...
The Christmas seasaon seems to have got the better of you, Mark. What's all this fuss about making "pure" photos?
You have always been an advocate of "truth" in photography. What can be more pure than the truth?
A pure photo? Well, "seeing with the eyes of a child" is a good basis for that. For me it means to see things without their attached meanings, seeing them pure, without context, without any judgement that is beyond the realm of the visible. A child begins to see that way, obviously not knowing the meanings helps a lot :)
Mark, that's probably what fascinates me so much in your photography. You see that way, and when I am photographing bicycles, then I do it as well. I don't photograph bicycles because I particularly like them for what they do to us, neither do I do it for their romantic value, no, I do it for the fact that a bicycle is a very elegant and simple configuration of lines that can express so much.
That's another thing: if my meaning of "pure" correlates with yours at all, then seeing "pure" is only a begin. I see something, bereft of meaning, but when I make it an image, I put meaning into it, and that can be completely unrelated to what normally would be associated with the subject. Thus a bicycle can become sad or lonely or ... you get the idea.
Is it that? Or am I on a different path?
Btw: that's a stellar image again. More than an image: an archetype!