In the flicker-ing of the twitter age, what’s left for
writers and photographers? Is it time to fold up the tent and go home?
I’ve constructed several conventional novels and I enjoyed
writing them. One almost sold big. Almost only counts in horseshoes and atom
bombs and not, for damned certain, in novel writing. I’ve also almost won
fellowships. And, I’ve almost given up.
Which led me to read through a few pages of a would-be novel
from this time last spring. When school is out I always get the bug. Sometimes
it lasts all summer. Sometimes, like last spring, it lasts a few hours.
I liked what I had written but I was not bitten by the bug
to finish it, at least not in the form it was begun. First, I realized I had
stolen the idea from another novel I had read. Second, I realized the only
places with energy were places where I let go. And letting go seemed right
though I’m not sure I would want my students or my dean reading those parts.
Could I bring myself to write a novel that did not portray me in the way I
wanted to be portrayed?
Ah, I thought. Exactly. I’ve constructed my entire life to portray me in a
certain way… a certain boring way. A safe way. A wholesome way. But, now, I want to write something that’s
all energy and no regret. Something that isn’t about how I want to be seen.
Something that takes more chances with the reader’s ability to understand the
writing and the reader's willingness to give the writer a little slack.
A while back it struck me that photography is always trying
to define itself. Better said, the photographer is always trying to define
photography. The very nature of
photography is to answer the question: What is a photograph? Ansel Adams
defined the difference between a postcard and a photograph. Diane Arbus defined
the difference between a snapshot and a photograph. Frank Hamilton found a
photograph in an old door and the edge of two windows. Every successful
photograph answers the question “What is a photograph?”
I’m as obsessed with technique and skill as the next guy
with Dektol-stained fingers. But, I’ve come to realize, “Why did you make this
photograph?” is a more important question than, “How did you make this
photograph?”
A photographer stands poised with the camera, composing. The question he or she faces is always the same. Why
pull the trigger?
This, it seems to me, is a dilemma particular to
photographers. Surgeons and strippers don’t have this problem.
One photographer photographs a naked breast covered in
goosebumps and droplets of sweat. Another photographs a garden trowel wet with
rain. Each sought unconsciously to define the purpose of photography.
So it is with writers. Every writer, it seem to me, is
trying to define writing by answering the question, “Why write this?” In a
world exploding with words, this is not an easy question for any writer who isn’t
a journalist to answer.
Maybe you are writing to be paid and if the reader will buy
what you’ve written for her own purposes, her own entertainment, you have an
answer.
Maybe, like me this morning, you are writing to write, because it feels good. You have answered the question.
Maybe, like me this morning, you are writing to write, because it feels good. You have answered the question.
Maybe you’re writing to work out your problems. The Santa Fe
poet, Donald Levering, says writing makes lousy therapy. I agree. It also makes
lousy writing.
Maybe you have something to say. Maybe you have some insight
because you’ve been there or because you’re paying extraordinary attention.
Either one answers the question.
But notice, none of this asks about the words, the grammar,
or the plot. None of this asks about character development, feminist critique,
modernism or paper stock. Photographers in the age of Flicker are going to have
to define what a photograph is because their images will be swimming in an
ocean of exquisitely colored tropical fish. And writers will have to define
what writing is in the Amazon-dot-com era when suggestions of a dozen new
stories whose algorithms fit your particular taste appear every morning in your
e-mail basket.
The bigger question is this. To what use should writing be put? This is the same
as the photographer’s question. To what use should the camera be put? What can
the camera do that still needs to be done? We have enough novels, poems and
short stories to last us several lifetimes. We certainly have enough photographs, especially in the era of
iPhones and Flicker. Exactly what should we use these tools for in our short
time on the planet? What can we do that hasn’t been done? And, done to death.
--Lofflin… for a set of photographs that test these
questions check this out...
I think the most powerful thing about viewing writing and photographs to me is what it makes you reflect about yourself and your mortality. A good example is the novel Lolita - you can definitely identify with him at the beginning, and by the end, you're questioning your own sanity. At some point, you've forgotten where you stopped identifying and started loathing. You forget where you made an excuse in your head for him and yet can't separate from it.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same with the controversial war photos we look at in ethics class. You have to reflect on your own humanity when you see someone about to get shot, or on fire, or running from a bomb. You have to wonder what the photographer was thinking, and that mystery makes the photo more powerful.
My observation is that most inquisitive people explore the nature of life, and our place therein, through various activities; teachers shape minds (‘reality’), artists and photographers frame their interpretations (of ‘reality’) for us, financers create whole systems of (reality) exchange based on (notional) scraps of cloth, writers relate…well, every piece of ‘reality’ they can articulate.
ReplyDeleteAnd on and on and on.
This is what creative, enquiring minds do…attempt to understand, shape and relate ephemera.
Limiting the scope of these activities/dalliances/obsessions to what use they should be put to is rather missing the point I think. Despite our own egos all arts are illustrative, not formative.