2024-08-05
I've been listening to the Chris Williamson podcast a little recently (transitioning from Diary of a CEO - all the media I really engage in nowadays is podcasts - I suppose this is better as it's longform, but also I think that it is a vice in a way) with Freya India, where she mentioned some things that were downright unbelieveable. For instance, she mentioned that among young people, screen time is an average of 11 hours per day - wow! and that there is even a trend of having phone cases and T-shirts with your antidepressant medication, and that things like 'sexy girls take sertraline' is actually a saying now. Downright unbelieveable, but I guess I do see young children on their phones perpetually, even at extremely young ages (kids of probably five holding a phone that's twice the size of their hand - and it's their phone, not their parents) and I suppose they do something on their phone. I'd like to write and dissect all the ways that corporations abuse people nowadays. It seems that companies are given far too much freedom, and are now capable of doing disgusting things to people with almost no repercussions... well, they always were, I guess. That's for another wv. The culture today is very odd.
Anyways, it was mentioned that there were people who even take photos at childbirths, recording it and posting it to social media or something. Of course this is absurd, but I think I should think about what is good in terms of taking photos. For holidays, but also for meals, selfies on days out, etc. Not that I really do it, but is it good?
I suppose I should take several typical examples and evaluate them. It will be entirely opinion based, non-factual, etc.
The examples I will give are: 1) taking photos of a view on holiday; 2) taking photos during, e.g. a meal with family or friends; 3) taking photos of myself in private; 4) taking photos demonstrating actions performed; 5) taking photos of a notable occurrence for the purpose of sharing it with others.
Firstly, taking photos of a view on holiday: I do this. Ever since I was a teenager I wondered whether I really should, and I'm still conflicted. The problem is that taking a photo is a sacrifice: I sacrifice the current pleasure for a potential future pleasure, namely in observing the photos. Occasionally this future pleasure is realised, however often it is not, and the photos goes unobserved or unenjoyed in the future.
The issue is of losing the present moment, which for a view is the observance and enjoyment of the view itself, coupled with the surrounding atmosphere and any exertions required to attain the view, for the sake of the view (visible only) being preserved for a future self. Is this desirable? Or do I just want to enjoy something in the present?
If I do not take photos, I will have nothing I can look back on. For certain holidays this is ok - I enjoyed my stay at Draycott/Cheddar for instance (in Nov 22) but never really look back at the photos. Honestly, what I got most out of that holiday were things I did not take photos of: the hullabaloo surrounding the public transport situation there; the evening staring up at the wonderfully black night sky, tea in hand and somewhat chilly; the hour long walk in the baking sun with no water; the chats with the people at the bus stop; the depression I felt upon entering Cheddar for the first time and noticing the traffic and the tacky touristiness; locking eye contact with a nearby goat for the better part of ten minutes; the people about Cheddar avoiding eye contact as I went past them, as were it London; the man who I walked and chatted with for the second half of the Gorge walk; the defeat I felt realising that I was a part of the problem, as I bought some (quite tasty) chips in the tourist district of Cheddar. None of this can be captured adequately on film. It's either social, situational or emotional. It's not a view, nor a still image, nor a motion.
When I went to the Peak District with my friend, I took my camera with and took many photos. I don't look at them. Many of the photos were very nice, but again it is not really what I care about. I recall the memory of the people at the inn; the singular pub where I ate the same meal for five days in a row (linguini) to the extent that I barely needed to specify it; the charity event in the old school, where I bought some books for my brother and some delicious homemade redcurrant jelly; the mountain bike shop opposite our accommodation; the difficulties with preparing food and accessing the fridge; the mountain walks we did; on the way to a mountain climb, seeing and chatting to the people we met at the Devil's Arse; speaking of, the interesting place names within the Devil's Arse; the beauty of the village, oh I can't remember the name, where we went into the caves; the graves at the church, whose surnames matched those of the members of the church register; the grave of Jane Eyre... I could continue to enumerate, but the importance of all of these is the memory, less so the qualia of the experience itself.
And so, what of photos? Do they do any good?
I would continue to say they do in a way, or that at least they are worth taking, but importantly they should not predominate. Once the camera, and the taking of photos, seems a burden, it must be put in its place. Additionally, there are certain aspects of the joy that are inherently based on the qualia: the tree curved so as to appear as a letter C; the winding trees of the forest path; the comedic poses we assumed within our photos, for instance... These necessitate photography, do they not?
I think that taking photos during a meal with friends or family (selfies, as they usually are) fails the qualia vs. memories test as above. For the qualia of eating a meal - the appearance of the food, the lighting of the restaurant, etc. - generally are not important as compared to the company one is with, the conversation, the enjoyment, and the feeling of satiation derived from the food, among other things. Little of this is visual and so able to be captured. For instance, whilst the food itself is able to be captured - and potentially the food itself is captivatingly beautiful - the primary pleasure of food is in the eating, which cannot be captured. Likewise, the social exchange cannot be captured (only the words, intonations, expressions, etc. which are a paltry representation of the mostly mutually internal nature of social exchange); the satiation obtained from the food cannot be captured. If the lighting or atmosphere of a restaurant can be captured, the corresponding expression of this within the body cannot.
Then, what is the value of photography here?
I suppose partly it is social itself. One takes a photo so as to demonstrate visually to another the occurrence of the social event. For instance, a photo may be taken of the company which is then sent (via Whatsapp etc., generally during the social event itself, ironically losing that portion of the social event and potentially causing displeasure to any interlocutors in that moment) to another party in a co-occurring conversation. This is a loss of immediacy in the social event, though one many are inured to.
And so what of this? Potentially it is harmless, reflecting merely the greater need of senses starved of imagination for the bread of visual stimulation. Oh, they're sated already. Yet, though in this way vicious, it potentially is a symptom of a malaise, and not a poor act in itself. The problem with a fever is the sickness.
Fine, I would say. I do this every now and then (really no more than every two months) to see how my body is changing over time, or in response to exercise performed, etc. So long as it does not become an obsession, and is used for the stated purpose (i.e. to provide a visual on the aspects of the body that have changed, and to identify areas of improvement) I cannot see any real harm.
For instance, I recently sent my grandma photos showing a before and after of the leek bed, since she would not be able to see it otherwise. Personally, I think this is fairly harmless, and brought her some degree of pleasure - in that way, the act was benefactive and non-malicious. It (I believe) succeeded in the intended purpose of bringing her pleasure.
Perhaps, in a way, the social event one is of a similar nature? I suppose this again is a matter of qualia vs. memories... though memory is a bad word here. I mean to say: the different between the immediate stimulus and that which follows it, the emotional response. For the viewer of the image sent, there is a pleasure not in the immediate stimulus, the qualia, but rather in the vicarious enjoyment of the social situation. This can be performed with lesser means, e.g. mere words, or later conversation, and so... ought? I don't know if I want to get normative here, but via negativa is generally a good rule.
In the image I sent of the leek bed, there was no way to convey the stimulus (which was inherently visual, though potentially the pleasure was a step removed, being the labour that was necessary to produce such a sight) save for imagery. As such, I believe it was a valuable use a photo.
Related to both the second and fourth points. Here I am speaking of, e.g. noticing a, oh let's pick something out of thin air, red squirrel, or a fox eating grass (of which I, for some reason, possess a video) and taking the photo. Then distributing it to others (or potentially even not).
I'm not really sure. I hesitate to say social photography (social media is not social, really, but I mean either instant message or real life) is to be avoided, but I suppose it could be accomplished with lesser means.
Oh, I don't know. As for holidays, a few photos is okay, particularly where the qualia itself is the subject and not anything emotional - this will comprise precious few of the actual worthwhile memories of a holiday. As for in social occasions, likely not. As for demonstrating actions performed, likely only if the immediate qualia is the subject of concern and there is no lesser way to demonstrate the action. Potentially even pleasure is the main concern - the main reason I dislike people taking photos during meals is that they inevitable go about texting it to everyone, and "oh I won't be a minute", and before long I'm sitting there thinking "I would rather like to talk to you right now, but clearly you have other concerns". It's a loss of attention for immediate moment, and I am always on the receiving end of it (I don't do it to others as it is impolite, others do it to me (and everyone else too)). I just think, if I had a book, I wouldn't just open it and go "oh won't be a minute" in the middle of a conversation. The focus should be on the other person, not on something of mine.
Rambling now. I think I am not clearer in my head than I was before, though the distinction between qualia and memories may be useful to heed. Generally, I think I will try minimising photography to only those matters that are qualia pure. That way, I retain better the parts that are memories.
Have a good one.