Walker Evans & Time

[Annie M.]

I have a brief reference among my reading notes that Walker Evans felt that a linear conception of time was an indication of ignorance.....unfortunately I did not note the source of this reference. As non-linear time is now at the core of my photographic landscape work I would be very interested in once again locating the book that was the source of my notation... find the context and also see if there was any mention of how the concept influenced his photographic work. Could it have been in the intro to America.... sound familiar to anyone?
Thanks....Annie

[Alex Hawley]

Don't know Annie, but could it have come from his Photography book?

Actually, in my quite humble opinion, I think Einstein may have agreed with Evans. I don't make any pretense of thoroughly understanding Einstein and I won't debate it, but in order to understand him, one has to get away with from the rigid concept of time that we sequence our lives around. Nuff said on that.

Perhaps Evans looking through his lens saw he was recording time on the negative, from the very old to the very new, all in one image, without the linear separation of events that created the objects he was seeing.

Just a ponderous thought!

[tim atherton]

It isn't on American Photogorpahs (and I had forgetton how good that is - must be one of THE photo books of the 20thCentury) it only hasd an essay by Lincoln Kirsten.

But that whole concept is an integral part of Sugimotos work (especially the seascapes and movie thatre screens) - there is an essay on his use of the idea of kairos time, by Francesco Bonami.

Also, Berger writes on a similar area in Another Way of Telling, about the modern conflation of history and time.

[d.s.]

T.A.R.D.I.S. Time And Reletive Dimension In Space.

dee

[Kevin M Bourque]

Photographs (or any work of art) don’t create themselves in a vacuum. They come from photographers, and those photographers have minds and those minds think thoughts. Maybe they think about fstops and paper grades, or maybe they think about non-linear time or little pink fairies dancing in a circle. Even if it’s “only a photograph” you must have been thinking SOMETHING when you took it, even if it was just “hey, look at the tree”. Those thoughts, whatever they were, brought the picture to life.

Wynn Bullock was famous for rambling on about his pictures in ways that were comprehensible only to him. Was it psycho-babble? Not to him, because it reflected the thought process that led him to the print. Our inability to understand doesn’t mean the pictures aren’t any good.

Jerry Uelsmann is another that comes to mind. His pictures are very personal, coming in many cases from dream imagery. There’s no way an outside observer could fully appreciate the thoughts that went into their creation. Those thoughts might not even make sense to us. But they were essential to creating those photos.

Most photos are somewhat literal, by the nature of the medium. The thoughts that went into them can be anything at all.

[David R Munson]

The basic human concept of time may tend to be linear, in that we take it to be a manifestation of the regular units that we use to measure time, but the human experience of time essentially never is linear. For me, this is evident in my photography in that, often times, when I make a photograph, it is at a point when I see something and everything else just sort of goes into suspended animation for a moment. A lot of my 35mm street stuff is like that. I may not rationally be thinking about the photograph in literal terms, but there's definitely a visceral reaction of sorts and time does seem to slow momentarily.



It strikes me that the concept of non-linear time is both perfectly valid and perfectly compatible with the photographic process.

[tim atherton]

As for non-linear time, almost all photography relies on this concept in some way - it is part of the inherant ambiguity of the best photographs. When all is said and done a camera is really nothing more than a box for transporting appearances. You take what is usually a fraction of a second of time (or a few seconds at most) and transport it to some other time and place for viewing - out of place, out of context, generally, out of linear progression.

"A photograph is a photograph" I'm sure if that concept it shouted more loudly each time it is expressed it may possibly become more meanigful (presumably after a joint or two)? Otherwise, what exactly does it mean?

[Paul Butler]

I feel ashamed to be a member of this forum. Until now, it seemed different from other internet fora where, unfortunately, common standards of decency break down just because people aren't face to face with each other.

"Linear" vs. "nonlinear" perception of time (tied into "eastern" vs. "western" attitudes towards reality) has been a topic in the art world at least since the 1950s; it comes up in any art history class. In fact, the idea of "eastern" vs. "western" expression in art is a little old fashioned and 20th-century-seeming in 2005.

I suggest consulting with an enthomusicologist or ethnologist for further clarification.

Many participants in this forum, myself included, engage in photography in pursuit of "fine art" ends even if the discussions we have here tend to be technical in nature. I'm very surprised that the question would inspire the worst sort of obnoxious "flames" in response.

[Brian Ellis]

"Non-linear time" sounds like Wynn Bullock but I have no idea whether Evans ever read anything Bullock wrote or even knew of Bullock's existence. Bullock's ideas about time, many of which are a little difficult to follow, are set forth in a book written or edited by his daughter, sorry I don't remember the title or her name but it shouldn't be difficult to find with a little effort, there aren't that many Bullock books out there (assuming of course that you're still with this thread which I hope you are). It might be interesting (to most of the people here) if you started a separate thread explaining your work and ideas in more depth, no reason why we have to confine the discussion here to f stops and bellows extension factors.

[Mark Sawyer]

Michael- there were a couple of "that's not photography- that's psycho-babble" responses last night immediately after Annie posed what I thought was an interesting issue. Sadly, two posters (who's words I cleaned up considerably may have driven Annie away. Our loss; I'd like to see or know more about her work.

We live in an age where string theory, quantum mechanics, strange and esoteric philosophies, etc. are changing the way the universe can be interpreted. I'd love to see Noam Chamsky, Wittgenstein, Sontag, and Steven Hawking get together to discuss art for an evening. Some don't take photography farther than "my flower is more orange than your flower," and are somehow offended if another tries to see more.

I think of myself as a practical person, but sometimes I wonder if the only thing that keeps the earth spinning on its axis is a circle of buddhist monks chanting in a temple somewhere in the Himilayas.

"A photograph af a leaf is not a leaf. Sometimes it's not even a photograph." -Todd Walker

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Ok, I guess nobody is going to ask so I will....what is this "non linear time" idea with respect to photography?

I am not a physicist or a mathematician, but I do have some vague idea of non linear time as it applies to quantum chemistry, yet for the life of me I dont see how this applies to photography.

[Mark Sawyer]

Jorge- I doubt there's a clear answer to that from anyone, which is part of the subject's allure. Non-linear time has some basis in older art forms from Mayan calendars to mandalas to medicine wheels (to name only examples that begin with "m"). With today's new sciences of quantum mechanics, string theory, chaos theory, fractal geometry, etc., it opens up new areas for art to try to understand and interpret. (Mind you, "new" goes back in this case to Einstein and Evans and e=mc squared, to cite only sources that begin with "e.") Makes one curious, though...

[tim atherton]

"I am not a physicist or a mathematician, but I do have some vague idea of
non linear time as it applies to quantum chemistry, yet for the life of me
I dont see how this applies to photography."

Understanding concepts of non-linear time by means of physics or mathematics are only two ways among many of understanding the ideas involved.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Understanding concepts of non-linear time by means of physics or mathematics are only two ways among many of understanding the ideas involved.



Huh?....I was looking for an explanation, not an obvious sound bite.....



Michael, thanks...this is what I was looking for. If I understood what you wrote correctly then this is not "non linear time" but relative time which is influenced by our perception, not really a part of the "physical" world. We all know the simplistic explanation of the theroy of relativity, if you hold a hot coal a minute will feel like hours, if you are making out with your significant other, then an hour will only feel like a minute. I never agreed with this example simply because time as it is perceived and time as it is measured are two different things and really does not express the mechanics of the phenomena.



Your example, while very illustrative has nothing to do with time IMO (and BTW I know you are just giving me an explanation), but the emotional and personal response to an object which IMO happens in many instances. For example, how many of you have visited an historic site and wondered about the lives and the "things" such objects "saw". I know it has happened to me when I visit something like the Pyramids, or the Coliseum. I wonder about the people who walked, sat, fought, in those places.



I am not sure that calling the emotional connection one might experience with an object that has some past history is the correct appelation of "non linear time" . In any case thanks for the response!

[Mark Sawyer]

(On a "non-linear tangent,") One key aspect of the Cubist art movement now largely forgotten was its fascination with interpreting the "fourth dimension," a new popular scientific avenue of that day. It was reflected in the attempt to "see" in the fourth dimension, where a three-dimensional object could be "unfolded," and more than one side of it be seen at once. It also heightened the awareness that a two-dimensional image was a much-altered interpretation of reality, yet one we automatically accept. (When a man showed Picasso a photograph of his wife to show what she looked like, Picasso replied, "Oh, is she really this small and flat?")

[domenico Foschi]

Timelessness. Art , in its true form shows us that time assumes a different connotation from that of linearity.
It is not about a value measurable by the continuous happening of events, but it assumes a more universal value.
When we see an exemplary work of art, don't we feel as if an energy has been trapped n the work itself?
And when we experience this how could we neglect to put in the equation time? Could it be that the energy in that painting , or sculpture or whatever it is you are looking at, might be physically trapped in the work, or that time might be a much more malleable measure? Thank you for indulging me...

[Bill_1856]

Apparently I'm not allowed to express my opinion.

[tim atherton]

Here is the Evans connection - it was a quote about Evans (courtesy of Annie):

From an article by Dean Brierly.....

"Evans is primarily remembered as a photographer of the environment; not the natural, open countryside, but manmade urban and rural landscapes. To better grasp the meaning of this part of his output, it's important to first understand Evans' nonlinear conception of time, which is revealed in his reverence for the architecture of America's past. In his pictures, the past, present and future often come together to interact with one another on a metaphysical plane. Evans felt that a linear conception of time and fixation upon the future was an indication of ignorance."



Whioch fits failry well with what I have read about Sugimoto's concept of time in his photography

[Mark Sawyer]

"Apparently I'm not allowed to express my opinion." - Bill

I think it was more that your opinion was understandably taken as an insult.

[Alec Jones]

Sadly, I too find myself on the other side of the PC arguments, not able to express my opinion either. I notice no one yet has explained how this subject fits the Guideline that:
The forum is only for questions specific to LF photography.

Guess you can't depart from linearity with a 35mm camera. As Tim says, it takes a big box.

[tim atherton]

"I notice no one yet has explained how this subject fits the Guideline that: The forum is only for questions specific to LF photography. "

Ha haa - better not start any discussions of the proverbial rocks, waterfalls, trees and mountains photography eh. You can do that with those nasty little 35mm cameras too....

Seems to me it fits the Aesthetics & Philosophy section of the list - as well as the fact that Annie uses a LF camera to do her work.

(BTW - whoever it was asked Annie to expound on her work - she has done so at length in many of the other posts she has made here over the years - often in quite some depth)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Michael, I understand and I am not taking a pot shot at you. I was simply stating my opinion and how I percieve this "non linear time" idea. So far, from your example and the quotation Tim posted it is not clear what is meant by "non liner time."

you say:

What is being called non-linear time is not "emotional and personal response,"



so then what is it?

Tim's quotation somewhat explains this in the following paragraph:

it's important to first understand Evans' nonlinear conception of time, which is revealed in his reverence for the architecture of America's past. In his pictures, the past, present and future often come together to interact with one another on a metaphysical plane



To me the most important part is the notion of this "metaphysical plane." Sorry, but if this is the case about what is "non linear time" then I have to side with Bill on his opinion of this. Seems to me another case of meaningless drivel art speak . I have seen some Evans pictures and I dont see this conjoining of the past, present and certainly not the future.



Bill's answer might have been harsh, but I have to say I agree with him. In any case, thanks for taking the time and effort to explain to me, I learned something today. Even if it was not something I consider enlightning. :-)

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/evans.jpg
I think the resolution to this whole discussion is contained in the Evans photo above.
Note the predominance of non-linear subjects, such as fish, watermelons, people, etc. Not to mention the hand-painted lettering.

Mr. Evans must have had a good sense of humor to make this one.

[Alex Hawley]

This is ironic; I heard this morning that this is the 100th aniversary of Einstein's paper on relativity.

Michael has an excellent point; physicists often make what appears simple into something incredibly hard. Einstein and Hawking surely go into the Black Hole trying to explain what they see mathematically. There are few who can follow them. But you don't have to be one who can follow such high level mathematics in order to understand the concept, or see the concept in a different medium. Many is the time (instance, not spatial) I have heard the expression "Them Perfessors get paid lots of money tryin' to explain what ev'ry Farm Boy knows."

I know nothing of Buddist Monks, East/West philosophies, metaphysics, and I sure don't care for pshychobabbel (however it may be spelled). However, to hear a photographer express the same concept as Einstein, seeing it through a different medium, makes me grow Vulcan ears and say "Fascinating". Annie, wherever you are, you sparked an excellent thread!

Dominico - well said and Bravo.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

That is just it, this is not physics and to tell you the truth it sounds like people trying to see something in photographs that is not there in an effort to sound knowledgeable. If there ever comes a time when art can be quantified then perhaps a notion of non linear time can be introduced, but so far it really just sounds like comentators with no knowledge whatsoever of quantum mechanics or physics stealing the terms in an effort to explain what they "think" they see in a photograph.

Perhaps I am a shallow person but really this notion that a photograph connects the past, present and future has got to be the biggest load of nonsense I have ever heard.......as that comedian says, just my opinion, I could be wrong.. :-)

[Paddy Quinn]

"That is just it, this is not physics and to tell you the truth it sounds like people trying to see something in photographs that is not there in an effort to sound knowledgeable. If there ever comes a time when art can be quantified then perhaps a notion of non linear time can be introduced, but so far it really just sounds like comentators with no knowledge whatsoever of quantum mechanics or physics stealing the terms in an effort to explain what they "think" they see in a photograph. "

Jorge - you seem unable to see outside the realm of physics or mathematics in this particular area. These concepts have existed long before the development of modern science in several different areas of thought.

Scientists don't have a monopoly on understanding concepts of time or history or memory. In some ways science may be not the best choice at all to try and make sense of those things.

Scientists don't always make the best philosophers (though a surprising number of mathematicians seem to become theologians) and they rarely seem to make great artists. But the philosophical, artistic and even theological viewpoints in this area are many senses equally valid.

I don't think these commentators and artists are trying to explain aspects of their work in scientific or mathematical terms, nor are they "stealing" the terminology. They are, however making reference to debates and concepts that are well recognised and thoroughly and painstakingly developed.

"Perhaps I am a shallow person but really this notion that a photograph
connects the past, present and future has got to be the biggest load of
nonsense I have ever heard....."

Your words - they do possibly indicate something of a closed mind as outlined above

[Alex Hawley]

Jorge, you have an excellent point. One shouldn't feel "shallow" or whatever because they don't see things the way others see them. This should be considered healthy IMO! For the life of me, I can't see what Picasso was trying to get at with anything. Going along with the herd and nodding approval may be polite in some situations, but I think all too many do this just because they are afraid of being called ignorant. I would bet when Evans made his comment, this same discussion occurred somewhere with the same results. So some say they can see his point and some say they can't! That's healthy!

Einstein's concept of light was totally contrary to that which his collegues believed to be true. And its still being hotly debated, 100 years later. As for me, I'll take light whichever way it comes.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

These concepts have existed long before the development of modern science in several different areas of thought.



Oh really? please elaborate....of course if you are going to start talking about the methaphysical then all bets are off. Like religion, methaphysical dicussions cannot be proven or refuted, they rely on "faith" and as such my opinion is as valid as yours.

I am not saying that scientist have a monoply on the understanding of time and history, blah, blah blah...what I am saying is that the term "non linear time" used to explain the emotional response to a photograph or any object for that matter is misapplied, and IMO just plain silly. The idea that a photograph connects the past, present and future is ludicrous, specially given that a photograph is the capture or freezing of a moment in time, by this definition it follows that a photograph becomes a static object, whatever your emotions and rationalizations make you see are yours and your alone and not perpetually present for everybody to see.

Your words - they do possibly indicate something of a closed mind as outlined above



Shallow and closed minded are two different things, I had enough curiosity to ask what it was all about, once it was explained to me by Michael and Tim I find the notion just plain dumb, and think Mark should put Bill's answer right back up...he got it right the first time...

[Bill_1856]

I wanna be on YOUR team, Jorge.

[Kirk Gittings]

"Evans is primarily remembered as a photographer of the environment; not the natural, open countryside, but manmade urban and rural landscapes. To better grasp the meaning of this part of his output, it's important to first understand Evans' nonlinear conception of time, which is revealed in his reverence for the architecture of America's past. In his pictures, the past, present and future often come together to interact with one another on a metaphysical plane. Evans felt that a linear conception of time and fixation upon the future was an indication of ignorance."

Clever statements by art writers should not be confused with science, history or even fact. They are oftentimes more about the self-absorbed wit of the writer than they are about either the art or artist. A close friend of mine wrote his doctoral thesis on Evans. I showed him the above statement and was amused (to put it kindly).

[Alex Hawley]

GACK!!! Kirk, you mean all this may have been started by some writer full of artspeak? If so, I withdraw everything I said!

[Alec Jones]

Jorge speaks for me too!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

In retrospect once Michael explained and Tim posted his example I should have said thank you and dropped the matter. I have never enjoyed these kind of discussions about the methaphysical because I find them non sensical.

The funny thing is that after thinking about it for a few minutes it struck me that this concept of "non linear time" in photography is so simple that can hardly be qualified as earth shattering or an important line of thought. Basically if one is willing to get past the obvious "clues" that date a photograph then in some cases a photograph can show us a slice of time that can apply to different times. Lets take for example Ken's posted picture, if we get past the obvious clues as the clothing, hair style etc, we can see that this photograph can apply to many rural fruit and vegetable stands in the past of the photograph, and that most likely some stands like it will exist in the future. Using the art speak we can say that all "times" are contained or connected in this one single photograph. IMO this is really stretching the boundaries of credibility.

Strangely enough Paddy, in science we also have this concept. Quantum chemistry teaches us that electrons around a nuclei do not exist at a single moment of space and time, but occupy ALL regions of space at one time in a determined manner. So you see, some of us closed minded guys can think about things even if we dont accept them....

[Michael Mutmansky]

Jorge,

You have hit on exactly how I see the non-linear time being applied in a photograph.

You can look at a photograph as capturing a segment of time as most people do, but when a photograph captures longer than a single 'frame' of time that we normally perceive (something that is generally considered about 1/24th of a second if you're in the motion picture industry, or 1/30th if you are in television) what is it exactly doing? It is distorting time in a manner that we cannot perceive on our own, except possibly with the assistance of acid or peyote.

We've all seen a photo of a sprinter that is blurred due to the duration of the exposure. That is a distortion in out perception of time, becuase we don't see them blurred. We've also all seen the fantastic Edgerton images of the bullet piercing the apple. They are somewhat natural to us now, but imagine the paradigm shift that had to occur for people to accept an obvious distortion in their perception of time.

If a photographer concientiously composes an image with a specific intent to include a historical or timeless historical aspect in addition to the modern, there is a representation of the past with the present.

You can look at the scene before you as 'now' with nothing else implied but the present event that is unfolding before your eyes, or maybe you could look at it as the culmination of the history of that spot since time began. What is before you is the result of the past millions of years of erosion, weather, habitation, etc. on the location. This concept is easy to consider when you are looking out over the Grand Canyon or some other place where the forces of nature have worked their magic. It's a lot harder to conceptualize when looking at an urban scene.

Fundamentally, it's all about perception, not science. But you cannot dismiss this perception as a possible motivating factor in someone else's work just because you may not factor it into your own work. For Annie, her work is apparently motivated with the exploration of these concepts (by her admission).

I think that dismissing a concept like this is taking the easy way out. Rather, the next time you are out photographing, think about the concepts and see if there is any room in your creative mindset for the concept to find a niche. It's the personal growth (in photographic mechanical skills as well as artistic maturity) that will take a photographer from their current place, to another level. A concept like this may be just the trigger needed to get to another level.

---Michael

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Michael, let me start from the end, I would agree with you that dismissing a concept like this outright without giving it any thought would be the easy way out. I hope I have demonstrated I have given this some thought and no matter how I spin it, I come out with the same conclusion that this is a load of manure diguised as chocolate truffles with clever words.

The problems I have with this are many. For instance, following your train of thought and using some art speak one can say that every photograph represents creation as well as the end of time since we are capturing light in an infinite continium.....clearly what I just wrote is bullshit.

Second, as I said before a photograph captures a moment in time and space, whatever results is it. Nothing more, nothing less. Any attributes that are given to the photograph subsequently are the result of the viewer's intellect, imagination, education and emotional response. Thinking that a photograph connects the past, present and future just because I or you or anybody else can imagine certain events, situations or places triggered by the photograph is nonsense. These events are the product of our response and not contained in the photograph. IMO this is similar to people giving human attributes to their dogs, like when a male dog comes close to my female dog and the owner says "aww look he likes your dog!"...and I am thinking "It has nothing to do with liking or love, the damn mutt just wants to hump every bitch in sight, it is instinct not like!"

Third and my biggest peeve is that as Kirk said these are mostly clever words coined so that the writer in a flash of self importance can show us , the unwashed masses of barbarians, how ignorant we are and how erudite they are. All this in an effort to give greater importance to a body of work that in many cases does not need it. If I was able to zap away from your brain the concept of non linear time and leave you with the rest of your experiences would you think of Evan's work any less worthy? I think not, his body of work speaks for itself, it does not need for anybody to pile on additional attributes that are not there.

By continuosly showing my work I have come two learn there are 3 types of people to whom we show our work. 1- the one that is genuinly interested in your work and regardless if he/she likes it or not gives you interesting feedback. 2- the one who is at war with the world or lives in a perpetual artist angst and has to put down your work. 3- the one who could not give a rat's ass about what you are showing them but has to impress you with their knowledge, and if they cant they will certainly try to baffle you with their bullshit. I think this non linear time thing falls in the last category and I dont mean as an example of knowledge.. :-)

I dont know if this has happened to you, but it has happened to me that I show a photograph to someone and right away they start telling all that they "see" and "feel" in the photograph, and all the while I am thinking " gee whiz...all I intended was to take a picture of something I thought was visually interesting"....... I have never understood this knee jerk reaction that photographs have to have an ulterior meaning, message or attribute. Why cant a photograph be just that, a photograph?
So if you ever get your prints published in a book you should ask me to write your foreword, this way you can use more pages for your prints and not waste 10 pages on meaningless drivel...I would probably write.. "M&M Rules" or "M&M is the man!"... :-)

Bottom line Michael, while on the surface this notion of non linear time appears to be an interesting thought, once I dig a little deeper I find I need some hip waders......

[Struan Gray]

I would agree that physics is a distraction. Quantum mechanics is linear in time, as is special relativity with its e=mc^2. Non linear time only crops up in general relativity, and anyone who has followed the media circus around Hawking knows that the problem of linking that to the world of human experience is both hard and unsolved.

Neurophysiology is another matter. Observant people who have timed long exposures with a second hand will have noticed that the first second they count having looked over to the clock seems longer than the following ones. This 'chronostasis' is a deep clue to how our brains perceive time, and the way they scramble to build a coherent, consistent model of the world from our sensations. That concept alone, the idea that our own physiology unavoidably coddles our minds with the illusion of continuity, is something photography is well-placed to explore.

And then there's the philosophers. Most leave me cold, or seem to be mistaking catagorisation for hard science, but Huw Price's book on the perception and meaning of time is an exception. "Time's arrow and Archimedes Point" is well worth a read if you want well-expressed ideas and concepts without obfuscation or jargon. There's quite a bit of laymans cosmology there too. It's the philosophers who really address the questions raised by Einstein's (terrible) example of a minute with your girlfriend vs. a minute with a hot coal in your hand.

My favourites among my own photographs are pure visual artefacts: spatial poems I am happy to carry around in my memory rather then hold in my hands or hang on the wall. I don't worry too much about making them into desirable physical prints, and I hate it when people ask me what they are photographs 'of'. I have a scientist's over-active distrust of metaphysical mumbo jumbo, but that tends to mean that when I do come across a concept that makes instinctual sense, it resonates all the more strongly. It's a truism that what resonates with me may sound dully with you.

Non-linear time strikes me as just such a concept. It expresses the sense of wonder I get when seeing very high speed photography or long, long exposures. It explains the attraction I feel for blurred photographs of disparate crowds of people, each with their own degree of indirection or fuzz. There are at least two photographs by Otto Steinert called "Ein fussgänger" that sum up the whole thing neatly without words. It's not about clear explication or demonstration, but rather subjective hints and references. Art, not science.

[Ellen Stoune Duralia]

There should be a disclaimer at the beginning of this thread:

"Don't attempt to read this prior to your 2nd cup of morning coffee!"

But seriously, regardless of one's opinion of the subject matter, this is an interesting thread and the ideas presented do force an expansion of thought. Glad to see the topic has been transformed into one of thoughtful debate and while it might not pertain to JUST large format photography, I think that's ok. 'Outside the box' thinking, IMHO, pushes artists into new realms of creative expression no matter what their medium.

[Oren Grad]

I think to some extent people are talking past each other here. What strikes me about the various quite thoughtful responses about different conceptions of time is that they all have to do with what's going on in somebody's head, either when viewing or (and this is speculation with respect to Evans) when taking the picture. But I think this is consistent with what I take to be one of Jorge's main points - whatever may be going on in the mind of someone taking or viewing the photograph, it's not inherent in the photograph itself, which is a purely visual artifact.

I've seen plenty of Walker Evans' photographs before, but have not read deeply into photo-crit analysis of his work, and the stuff about a non-linear conception of time that he may have had never occurred to me. Whether my perception of his pictures should or will change now that this point has been brought to my attention can be argued, but it just underlines the point that it's not something inherent in the picture, but rather an attribute of the viewer.

I'm reminded of the work of Minor White. I think it was David Vestal who once remarked on how White would work himself up into a metaphysical lather over what he was trying to do with his photography, but despite all that, he actually succeeded in making some good pictures.

[Mark Sawyer]

[Michael Mutmansky]

Jorge,

I generally reject art critic language as mind ejaculations, so I'm with you on this.

I do think that a concept like this can be a very useful mechanism for artistic development. Once a photograph is made and on the wall, the motivating factors of the photographer is much less important than the psychological response of the viewer.

The portrayal of a concept or theme in a photograph may or may not result in a response from the viewer, but when it does, what exactly is it doing? It is tugging at a particular facet of the composition of the viewer's personna in some manner. If it does it enough, you may make a sale.

While it's true that a photograph is just a photograph, when it evokes a response from a viewer it has made a connection that somehow is much bigger than the physical dimensions of the object that is the photograph. This is where the flowery artspeak comes in, in an attempt to somehow quantify exactly what about the photograph has triggered an emotional response in the viewer, and the impact it has made on the psyche of the viewer.

I generally leave this connection somewhat undefined as a viewer, but as a photographer, I do try to develop my own intellect so that I may produce a more meaningful image for others. I can't say I've been too successful as of yet.

You will be the first I'll ask to write my foreword.

---Michael

[Oren Grad]

Matthew -

I respectfully but completely disagree with everything you've said.

There is no correlation between the complexity of the philosophical and psychological baggage that someone brings to the act of making a picture, and the quality of the resulting picture.

Not that there's anything wrong with having all that baggage as a photographer or a viewer. I've certainly got some of my own. People have many different reasons for making or viewing photographs, and if doing it within a particular conceptual framework helps make the activity more rewarding, that's cool. But that framework will not necessarily be apparent or relevant to anyone else - nor does it matter.

[William Blunt]

This is not about Walker Evans but along the same thoughts expressed in this thread....
Minor White photographed at Point Lobos over a number of years. His precisely detailed close-ups of rocks, driftwood and other objects he gave metaphysical meaning. He frequently brought classes to the Monterey Penninsula. Once he was critiquing an Edward Weston photograph of a rock at Point Lobos, and began to interpret from it a somber symbolism. From the back of the class, Weston spoke up, saying," That is a photograph of a rock." White said no more and went on to another photograph.

[Mark Sawyer]

Weston's words, from Weston's Daybooks, vol. 2, pg. 154:

"I sent the following statement to Houston, Texas, where I am showing forty prints during May:

Clouds, torsos, shells, peppers, trees, rocks, smokestacks, are but interdependant, interrelated parts of a whole, which is life.

Life rhythms felt in no matter what, become symbols of the whole.

The creative force in man, recognizes and records these rhythms thith the medium most suitable to him, to the object, or the moment, feeling the cause, the life within the outer form. Recording unfelt facts by acquired rule, results in sterile inventory. To see the *Thing Itself* is essential: the quintessence revealed direct without the fog of impressionism, -the casual noting of a superficial phase or transitory mood.

This then: to photograph a rock, have it look like a rock, but be *more* than a rock"

(Asterisks indicate Weston's own italics.)

I suspect Weston's statement was meant more to embarrass White in front of his class for Weston's own (infamously) antagonistic reasons. Weston was a great photographer, but he could also be a jerk. (Like most of us...)

[Annie M.]

OK..... I feel a little like James Brown here.... but I have to grab that microphone just one more
time.... thank you for your indulgence.

I see a few of my postings were edited from the thread... (in case you missed it there was a little
scuffle and I in my indignation left the forum never to return... I wasn’t ‘chased’ off ...I made a
noble and dignified exit!) I have no problem with people disagreeing with my ideas... but as
photographers I am sure you all understand the importance of presentation... and I sincerely
believe that the tone of the initial responses to my query were unwarranted. In the archives there
are many postings that are off topic in the manner of my posting and they did not receive a
reception of the hostile nature that mine did ... so I must assume that there are people on this
forum that for their own reasons harbor feelings of ill will toward me (or perhaps they just find
me annoying), however, that is something I cannot remedy nor do I wish to... I also see that my
ideas of time are still the source of some amusement... good... there is too little laughter in the
world and I do not take it personally..... but I also see that there has been some
misinterpretation.

The other day flipping through my notes I discovered a scrap of paper upon which I had written
‘W. Evans...linear conception of time = ignorance’ Of late I have been interested in time, so I
was very interested in finding the source and seeing how the concept influenced his
photography... I admire Evans’ work and hoped to discover some insight into how a great
photographer dealt with the concept of time. Ironically, once the source was found and I read
the article about Evans it had very little to do with the concepts that I am now exploring.......

Me & time......
My primary subject matter is the sea and the formations that reside in the tidal zones... a very
fluid, cyclic environment... it was my subject matter that demanded that I begin to consider
time... I was not trying to force some obscure mental construct upon nature... she forced it
upon me. Sea caves are quite dark and during the exposure I would look and count.....I don't
own a watch... it is a lot of counting... the exposures are long... so naturally I began to think
about time and how it is entangled with photographic perception (and reality itself for that
matter). After all every photograph we make contains a slice of time as well as a cone of light.

Also one day as I was photographing waves I observed in the gg a visual contradiction between
sea and swell... I guess the wind was just right...the surface waves appeared as if they were
reversing themselves in time while the breaking waves continued to move forward (interestingly,
breaking waves are a non-linear phenomena)...... visually it was absolutely entrancing but the
experience also had a palatable sense of a confluence of times. So my interest in exploring the
time/photography relationship has come to dominate my work for now.... I'm sloshing time
around in my photographs like it's water.....it is a powerful metaphor.... and I have come to
believe that we are not just painting with light but also with aspects of time that can be
conceptualized and manipulated the way we do tonality.....dodging the past and the present
are easy... it's burning in the future that is tough.

The nature of my time work.... I recently did a sequence of 89 night waves... 89 individual
exposures on one sheet of film as each wave of an incomming tide crested in the moonlight ...
much easier with a LF camera than other formats I think... I have also done similar sequences
with windy trees, night storms, people sleeping by candle light under white sheets and my
favorite caves filling with the sea so they appear under and out of water at the same time...
basically I am slicing and reshuffeling time like a stack of baloney (that metaphor is for you Bill,
I thought you would appreciate it)..... they do not look like the usual long exposures... so I do
not consider them linear. I am just beginning with these ideas but I certainly will continue... to me
the photographs have a strange beauty. So there it is ..... there were some wonderful ideas in
this thread... things that I had never considered.

Oh and Bill...... it may be a pile of bullshit..... but it is MY pile of bullshit and I am actually
considering starting a second pile just for you... :)

Oh and alec.... what the hell does non linear time have to do LF photography?.... any
photographer worth their salt knows that if you are photographing the future you have to use a
little tilt if you want to get it all in... :)

Cheers and fond regards to all...... Annie... now I’m done.

[Richard Fenner]

As someone who wasn't part of this thread at any previous stage...

The wording of the critical posts wasn't great, but it was hardly material to make someone walk off. This is a fairly straight-talking forum, which thankfully lacks a lot of the art-speak some publications get lost in. I for one DON'T think the presentation that important (compared with content, anyway) - and while your post might have appealed to some, I found it vacuous. I can say that, and you can disagree. We shouldn't get into a rude and long debate about it, just agree to disagree. But there's no reason I should be prevented making that comment any more than you should be prevented saying it in the first place.

I don't think anyone who wants to say one last thing then says they're leaving, has made a dignified exit. You've seen enough people put their foot in their mouth here, yet life goes on for them. Do what most people who have a bad time here do - ignore the threads for a week, then come back as if it never happened.

[domenico Foschi]

Annie, any way we could see some of your work online?

[Alex Hawley]

I second that Annie. I have been interested ever since you started talking about the caves.

[Annie M.]

Sorry..... not only are my questions vacuous so is my wallet at the moment... I have been getting blindsided from all directions lately it seems so I have unable to obtain the scanner etc. I require to get my work on-line... I honestly thought I would have a website up and running by this summer but that is not to be..... as soon as I have work on line I will let you know... thank you for your interest and your kindness.... now I will leave the stage in a dignified manner (the dignified thing was a joke... I guess my writing skills are even worse than my photographic concepts).

...gone fishing.... Annie

[domenico Foschi]

I tried to send you this e-mail, but it seems like you changed address.
Well , here it is:
Hi Annie,
my name is Domenico and i am a member of the LF phorum.
I see you are in need of a scanner.
The fact is that i have anEpson perfection 1640 su, that i do not use anymore, has a slight problem in the sense that has a few sensors that do lnot work , which means that when it scans you can maybe detect 6 - 7 thin lines through the image , but believe me it is barely noticeable , especially for images to scan for online reproduction.
It also has a transparency adapter for 4 x 5 , ( but i am afraid i do not have the negative carriers , but i might be wrong ).
I have always thought that it doesn't deserve to be thrown in the trash ,and if you are in need of one , i would be honored if you would accept my offer to give it to you for the shipping expenses.
I hope you have a Mac, since it is compatible only with such computers.
Let me know , i would love to give it a new home.
Take care,
Domenico

[Steve Williams_812]

There is a fine little book by Alan Lightman called "Einstein's Dreams" that deals with issues of time and perception is a fascinating way. Well written and easy to read---no heavy critical stuff and a bargain at under ten dollars.

If you are interested in the connecitons of the mind, perception, time, images, and physics, this may be the first book you want to read. Available at Amazon.

steve

[kenya]

thank you for that suggestion and i will buy that book. i am interested in the non-linear time concept and i think its a natural as photography is indeed a direct footprint, or light tracing of what is (was) already there. it's interesting when looking at a photograph that has captured the essence of someone i love who is no longer with me. i am looking at, not a painting or a portrait, but at (though in another form) those very same light rays that were reflected from that person at that time.

i have never participated in a forum but joined because i stumbled upon this thread, and hope i will be able to retreve your responses.

[Bill_1856]

B.s.

[kenya]

I would agree that physics is a distraction. Quantum mechanics is linear in time, as is special relativity with its e=mc^2. Non linear time only crops up in general relativity, and anyone who has followed the media circus around Hawking knows that the problem of linking that to the world of human experience is both hard and unsolved.

Neurophysiology is another matter. Observant people who have timed long exposures with a second hand will have noticed that the first second they count having looked over to the clock seems longer than the following ones. This 'chronostasis' is a deep clue to how our brains perceive time, and the way they scramble to build a coherent, consistent model of the world from our sensations. That concept alone, the idea that our own physiology unavoidably coddles our minds with the illusion of continuity, is something photography is well-placed to explore.

And then there's the philosophers. Most leave me cold, or seem to be mistaking catagorisation for hard science, but Huw Price's book on the perception and meaning of time is an exception. "Time's arrow and Archimedes Point" is well worth a read if you want well-expressed ideas and concepts without obfuscation or jargon. There's quite a bit of laymans cosmology there too. It's the philosophers who really address the questions raised by Einstein's (terrible) example of a minute with your girlfriend vs. a minute with a hot coal in your hand.

My favourites among my own photographs are pure visual artefacts: spatial poems I am happy to carry around in my memory rather then hold in my hands or hang on the wall. I don't worry too much about making them into desirable physical prints, and I hate it when people ask me what they are photographs 'of'. I have a scientist's over-active distrust of metaphysical mumbo jumbo, but that tends to mean that when I do come across a concept that makes instinctual sense, it resonates all the more strongly. It's a truism that what resonates with me may sound dully with you.

Non-linear time strikes me as just such a concept. It expresses the sense of wonder I get when seeing very high speed photography or long, long exposures. It explains the attraction I feel for blurred photographs of disparate crowds of people, each with their own degree of indirection or fuzz. There are at least two photographs by Otto Steinert called "Ein fussgänger" that sum up the whole thing neatly without words. It's not about clear explication or demonstration, but rather subjective hints and references. Art, not science.
i know what you mean about most philosophers being dry. but one you may want to try is merleau-ponty. his "primacy of perception" and 'phenomenology of perception" may be right up your alley.

[kenya]

enlightening

[Chris Jones]

I am a poet ands recently have been considering how the still lifes I am working with are like lyric poetry which has a relation with modern ideas of eternal time. Nietzsche's eternal return...

[Brian Ellis]

Wynn Bullock wrote an essay about the influence of time and space (I think space was the other part of it) on his photography. Unfortunately I can't remember the title of the book in which I read the essay but he didn't write all that much, if you're interested it shouldn't be difficult to find. It may have been contained in a book about him written by his daughter or possibly his wife. Perhaps someone here will know the essay and book I'm talking about, it's been a long time since I read it and my memory of it is vague. But if you're interested in how the concept of time and space (?) influenced another photographer, it would be worth doing some reading about Bullock.

[Chris Jones]

Another interesting and very worthwhile approach would be Gilles Deleuze's writing on cinema and theories of the image. I did a seminar on his theories as an undergrad and was very impressed. These decades later it seems Deleuze is now considered the most important philosopher since Kant, so I find myself going back there.

[kenya]

I am a poet ands recently have been considering how the still lifes I am working with are like lyric poetry which has a relation with modern ideas of eternal time. Nietzsche's eternal return...

Chris,
Funny you should mention Nietzsche ... I am interested in his philosophy of the "sagasity of the body" ... and the feeling of a breaking down of barriers between the photographer and subject during the artistic process. I have experienced this "illusion of unity" and thought I was alone until I read Nietzsche and an excellent book by Marion Milner called "On not being able to Paint".

[kenya]

[QUOTE=Chris Jones;517978]Another interesting and very worthwhile approach would be Gilles Deleuze's writing on cinema and theories of the image. I did a seminar on his theories as an undergrad and was very impressed. These decades later it seems Deleuze is now considered the most important philosopher since Kant, so I find myself going back there.

Chris,
Can you recommend a book about/by Deleuze that is accessable, and particularly pertaining to photography? I am not familiar with extreme psychological/philosophical terminologies.

[Chris Jones]

kenya, speaking of weird time glitzes, this four year old discussion appeared on my unified view as a current discussion. I thought I going mad when I realised I was addressing an old discussion as if it were happening now. (It was an internet cache.)

I must admit, I find Deleuze very difficult. The two books which are generally suggested as easier to read are Negotiations by Deleuze and What is Philosophy by Deleuze and Guattari. Deleuze also wrote a book on Nietzsche. (They can be expensive to buy so check out a library.)

I have also been reading The New Zone System Manual by White, Zakia and Lorenz and on pages 45 to 47 is a discussion of interface which I now read as an experience of the body in unity with the camera and subject. Ansel Adams, The Negative, also seems to say the same thing, at least in my 1st edition. What interests me about the zone system of these writers is it covers basic steps which hobbyists can follow and stretches into some difficult aesthetic ideas which I hadn't noticed until my recent reading. Interface is also a cybernetic system which places the body into the system, following Norbert Weiner.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions, also. Best wishes, Chris Jones.

[j.e.simmons]

When I was a professional musician, many of my bandmembers talked about becoming one with their instrument - it was as though it became an extension of their body. I think cameras can become the same through long use.

Of course other musicians thought this was foolishness and would play any instrument they could get out of the pawnshop before the gig. And many photographers use many cameras.
juan