Wordnet Senses:
1. Muse — (in ancient Greek mythology any of 9 daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne; protector of an art or science)
2. muse — (the source of an artist’s inspiration; “Euterpe was his muse”)
1. nympholepsy — (a frenzy of emotion; as for something unattainable)
What is a muse?
What is that thing that creates artistic expression in you?
The late photographer Chris von Wagenheim said “sometimes, taking a photograph is like falling in love…” and in a way, my experience behind the lens bares this out.
John Hodgman, in Wired, points out in “Why do fools fall in love?” that you can:
“Blame the neuro-chemicals that fuel the brain’s built-in reward system. Triggered by the sight (or smell) of that special someone, the brain releases dopamine, upping the desire for sex. Serotonin levels plummet, creating that “can’t live without you” feeling. The attachment chemicals, oxytocin and vasopressin, also kick in. No fool can resist.”
While this explanation of the chemical processes is fascinating, it does not actually move any closer to the ineffable why. What part of cognitive recognition triggers the dopamine serotonin oxytocin vasopressin dominoes to fall?
I started thinking about this last night.
Miss Aniela (of whom I am a fanboy) , recently started a group on flickr called “Envy of Flickr!”, based on the assumption that inspiration is related closely with envy.
My question back to her was “is it actually envy or homage…a respectful and affectionate tribute”.
The reason that I find photography, love, envy, homage and jealousy closely associated is that they all smack of nympholepsy, wanting something that you can’t have, or perceive that you cannot have.
In photography, the idea, a meme as it were, is captured as a two dimensional representation of a situation. Making a compelling photo is a bit like capturing a butterfly, an ephemeral moment transformed into a portable and tangible artifact.
In Kevin Kelly’s Out of Control, he points out that
“Memory becomes an reenactment of perception, indistinguishable from the original act of knowing. Both are a pattern that emerges from a jumble of interconnected parts.”
A camera may be the most democratized perception/memory creation device ever invented. Combined with the fantasy/suspense of dis-belief that digital editing tools deliver, and the immediacy, interactivity and networked effects of the web, the power of still images to move, motivate and muse has never been greater.
Today there is a huge emphasis in the news media on the video explosion on the web. Video is certainly a powerful medium, but the skill, time and resources required to put together a good video are several magnitudes greater than a good photograph, and the access to tools (cameras and software) is several magnitudes greater. That said, Photography is moving through an incredible renaissance, today, that is only being noticed by photographers.
Photographers used to shoot a roll of film, developed it, made a proof sheet, looked at the proof with a lupe, and made a print. There is a lot of romance associated with the process, but mostly it just takes a lot of time and leaves your hands smelling of sodium hypo sulfate. Today, there is immediate feedback available, which allows a photographer to adjust situations in real time. That allows photographers to learn more about the medium exponentially faster than when I was young.
There is good and bad however; with film, the state of the image is in the photographer’s “mind’s eye. Communication with the subjects becomes more of a matter of trust, since the photographer can choose whether they will share the vision or hold it close. With digital photography, there is a tendency to constantly look down at the camera to check your work. Not only does it break the ‘natural flow’ of old fashioned photo session, but it creates an opportunity for distraction in the relationship between the photographer and the subject.
Ken Bank, Photographer, once said, quite profoundly, that “a camera is the thing that gets in between a photographer and the picture”. With instantaneous review and approval, this has never been truer.
The flip side is that photographers are improving their skill in creating compelling imagery at an unprecedented pace. The truly remarkable thing about photographers like Miss Aniela, meds.’s, Amanda Olbrys, and maxigumee’s are the pace at which their work improves. Tools like Flickr allow the casual observer to browse through entire careers of young photographers, watching them quickly evolve from nymphs to butterflies, and it happens REALLY FAST.
So while all of this is exhilarating, the question of why still lingers.
So why is one image, one beauty, one horror, more compelling than another?
Kevin Kelly points out that the only way to model a complex system is to run it.
I wonder if that’s why we call them models?
About Peter Duke