Art and Rebellion
“… try for that other world, the real world, where orphans burn orphans and nothing is more difficult to discover than a simple fact. And with that pride of the artist, you must blow against the wall of every power that exists, the small trumpet of your defiance.” (Norman Mailer)
It appears I have committed a grave sin. A chiding missive from a concerned photographer informed me that my moral standards are too high, my approach to art incompatible with the contemporary definition of the term, and my writing politically incorrect. At the risk of further offending the sender, I admit the note prompted some anger, but also great pride.
You may be wondering what it was I said that prompted such a response. In summary, it was my audacious claim that the vast majority of what is presented as (fine) art photography today is meaningless, repetitious, artificial, and safely ignorable; and that found beauty is often a crutch for the creatively lazy.
Many an artist before me contemplated their role and agency in society. Indeed, I would say that anyone worthy of the title ponders such thoughts with some regularity. Regrettably, few dare express them and live by their convictions. To eliminate from one’s work and rhetoric anything that might offend, is also to eliminate from it anything that might matter. Call it arrogance, but I have little interest in being about things that don’t matter.
In the most ignorant of perceptions, art is about the mere production of beautiful things. Beauty is the soul and the bane of art. It lures those seeking distraction from the mundane, but if it fails to convey ulterior meaning beyond mere aesthetics, the work is little more than temporary entertainment, and ultimately of no real significance.
The production of objects and interpretations are ultimately the tangible legacy of the artist, but they are not what being an artist is about. Being an artist is about living passionately and deliberately; placing curiosity and awe and honesty and meaning ahead of social conventions and material spoils. It is not about finding beauty; it is about discovering it within, creating it anew, interpreting and elevating and morphing and sharing and celebrating it in defiance of all that is corrupt and cynical and greedy and bigoted and short-sighted in the world.
Works of art, however beautiful, are but the proverbial means that should never be confused with the artist’s goal, nor separated from it.
And so we come to photography of natural things. A rewarding hobby to many, but one also fraught with cognitive dissonance. When those who practice it proclaim to seek a connection with the natural world, yet limit their involvement to short-lived and well-planned “magic” hours, beautiful images may be made; a connection is not. When a photographer adds nothing of themselves to the outward appearance of found scenes, beautiful images may be made; meaningful work is not. And when images are made that are not founded in personal conviction, original concept, meaningful interpretation, and ulterior purpose; beautiful they may be, but art they are not.
We are the fortunate ones. We live in a world where adventure is still possible, where mystery still exists, where undiscovered beauty is still there to inspire, where great rewards can still be attained for relatively small risk, where the incessant cacophony of motors and gadgets and television sets have not yet banished all silence, where livelihood can still be made by personal enterprise and not in servitude, where fellow humans still find value in the elevating force of art, and their generosity still makes an artist’s life possible. Still, this world of opportunity and freedom is not to be taken for granted. With each generation, more and more are inclined to believe that a meaningful life can be had in the limited, dumbed-down bubble of artificial existence and in disconnect with the very things that make life possible, let alone their effects on the human psyche.
My work, to the extent that it may be worthy of being considered art, is not meant to offer benign glimpses into things that happen to be beautiful in their own right. If it is to be understood as intended, it should serve as a stern warning of the wager we placed on our ability to reinvent reality; and not just in the material sense; but in all the ulterior meanings, knowledge, peace, and awe that may never again be possible by artificial means. A generic image of a pretty place will not do. Only the deliberate explorations, revelations, and stories we tell through original work stand a chance of piercing through the walls of socialized indifference built over millennia of decadence and unsustainable practices.
I want others to have what I have, to know what I know, and to feel what I feel; even if they don’t yet know why it is important. I want to call to task all those who proclaim themselves artists yet limit their work to the purposeless pursuit of trophies (let alone trophies already shot, bagged, stuffed, and mounted by others, leaving little more than hollow shells of former glory). I want photography to be worthy of its rightful place as a creative, expressive, and important form of visual art, as valid and respectable as any other. If that makes me politically incorrect, so be it.
I am a greedy, selfish bastard. I want the fact that I existed to mean something. (Harry Chapin)
Aglow (part of The Good Badlands portfolio)
Category: Featured, Thoughts and Musings
There is much that I could write about this post, Guy – virtually all of it very positive and laudable.
I’ve been recently troubled by hyperkinetic stories of “photo walking” photographers quickly descending on vast, silent, timeless, and lonely places and pretending that they were “photographing” them, when in reality it might seem that they were actually simply acting out some personal drama that they believe could be exciting and interesting to others.
I’m not sure what that is, but I’m sure it isn’t art and that, beyond whatever gratification the participants might think they achieved, they learned little or nothing from the experience and their photographers conveyed little or nothing about their subjects. Their photographs do tell us, as photographs almost always do, quite a bit about the photographers – but much of it is not laudable.
Thanks for your post.
Dan
Sigh. Pardon my typos in that previous message. I think I posted too soon.
Dan
“Being an artist is about living passionately and deliberately; placing curiosity and awe and honesty and meaning ahead of social conventions and material spoils. It is not about finding beauty; it is about discovering it within, creating it anew, interpreting and elevating and morphing and sharing and celebrating it in defiance of all that is corrupt and cynical and greedy and bigoted and short-sighted in the world.”
Beautiful!! I love what you have say. I wish could convey my thoughts (through words) as you do. I struggle every day with these thoughts. What is my place in the art community? Im a worthy of a place? I make little money from my work, I cant be worthy? But it was never why I started. I begin for the simple fact that I love to create; my father was an artist his father was an artist, its in my blood and I feel most alive when Im creating. A part of something larger than myself.
As typical of your posts, Guy, this contains a good number of gems of wisdom. I’m not sure of the unifying message, but I understand it is a rant in response to silly accusations. Your being proud to be politically incorrect makes a good deal of sense to me. A great mentor of mine once said, “Find out what everyone else is doing and do the exact opposite.”
I particularly like these phrases:
“Being an artist is about living passionately and deliberately; placing curiosity and awe and honesty and meaning ahead of social conventions and material spoils.”
and
“…the vast majority of what is presented as (fine) art photography today is meaningless, repetitious, artificial, and safely ignorable…”
However, I disagree with the end of that sentence that lumps “found beauty” in with the preceding list of sins. Furthermore, I believe you contradict that sentiment as in:
“…found beauty is the crutch of the creatively lazy.”
Contradicted by:
“We live in a world where adventure is still possible, where mystery still exists, where undiscovered beauty is still there to inspire, where great rewards can still be attained for relatively small risk…”
Then you go on to say that found art might be OK, but not under certain circumstances:
“And when images are made that are not founded in personal conviction, original concept, meaningful interpretation, and ulterior purpose; beautiful they may be, but art they are not.”
Who is to judge whether photographers are fulfilling these criteria or not? You? Me? The museum curator? A gallerist? The general public? What is art? Who is to say what is and is not art?
I have read museum curators praising photography that is deliberately planned and executed using all the tools available as superior to photographers who happened to capture a happy accident. Yet, any artist who has been at it for a long time will tell you that some of their very best work happened very quickly, without much conscious thought, planning, skill or intention.
“When a photographer adds nothing of themselves to the outward appearance of found scenes, beautiful images may be made; meaningful work is not.” How are any of us to decide whether the photographer added anything of themselves or not? Is it even possible not to add something of one’s self to an image? Many who are proponents of heavily altering images post-camera claim that no photograph can possibly be “real” and therefore inherently is an interpretation of reality. This would indicate that it is not possible to make a photograph and not add something of the self to it.
Because I have been reading your superb blog posts and conversing with you for close to two years I believe I can tell where you are trying to go with this post, but at face value, it is lacking your usual clarity.
Fundamentally I agree with much of what you say, but what I take issue with is finding fault with the spontaneous gifts from nature that come in greater regularity mainly as a result of paying dues, being out in the elements longer, keeping your eyes and receptivity open and venturing further from pavement than the masses. Nonetheless and not any lesser as art can be the occasion when someone falls off the turnip truck, pulls off the side of the freeway with his or her outfit on auto and sneaks away with a superb work of “art,” whatever that is. It does happen, just as readily as the idea that the majority of work produced from this approach is not worthwhile. In my opinion, over planned and over post-processed work deserves possibly less respect, but does the process equal the result? I don’t think so. I believe inferior results come from inferior days, inferior thinking, inferior vision, yes, but inferior results can come merely from a good photographer making a mistake. And the inverse is just as true. Lame approaches and intent can sometimes produce great art too, by accident. Is it any less art? Well, let the debate rage on…
Just what I needed this day.
I am often torn about displaying the images that I find worthy or just the images I know others will appreciate.I confess that I sometimes go with the trophies just to get a few comments, rather than display the photos that I am most proud of, that will often be met with silence.
Thanks for the inspiring article.
“Only the deliberate explorations, revelations, and stories we tell through original work stand a chance of piercing through the walls of socialized indifference built over millennia of decadence and unsustainable practices”
Well said Guy!
I love this, Guy. I see some contradictions here … but I read the intent, in spite of a few words or sentences.
I am reluctantly wrestling with the distraction of forming words into “Artist Statements” and so forth. So, I am having similar thoughts, fist-raisings and other inspirations lately. Despite how much I loathe writing, I find that it helps reaffirm my passions for exploring essential concepts such as simple beauty, found beauty and so forth … through the refined clarity (or such is my hope) of my own solitary perception. It’s within such moments of beauty that I am able to best express myself as an artist. Unfortunately, that’s become almost cliché … but it’s still truth for me, and many others.
The very concepts themselves … found beauty, simple beauty, natural beauty, etc. … are now so politically incorrect, it seems, that I wonder why I bother in saying anything. Subversion, harsh realities and depression seems to rule art these days. Sometimes, even having the worthwhile meaning and purpose isn’t enough. I supposed I understand, on some level, why the art world is so jaded. After all, everyone is now a “fine art photographer”. It’s all so laughable at times.
I certainly believe that found beauty is a very worthwhile pursuit. It’s certainly the foundation of what I do with a camera. But yes, the effort towards lasting meaning requires a constant battle with the lazy inner artist in all of us – which I think it just reflective of the human condition today. Unfortunately, most simply rush through the process of creating “art”, and then try to inject meaning and rationalization after the fact (if the need to do so is even realized!). Or, it’s enough to simply rest within the “magic hour” mentality. It’s reflective of the world as a whole … and it’s not exclusive to photography.
We can redefine art all we want, but there’s no redefining the timeless qualities of beauty. The latter is what I’m most interested in, despite how it’s both frowned upon and bastardized by “fine artists” everywhere … by those who think too highly of themselves, and by those who don’t think at all. It’s a losing battle – your call to task. But yeah, I’ll sign the petition that banishes “fine art photography” from contemporary thought.
Careful Guy … you’re expressing enlightened thought in a world mostly satisfied with magic hours.
“A rewarding hobby to many, but one also fraught with cognitive dissonance. When those who practice it proclaim to seek a connection with the natural world, yet limit their involvement to short-lived and well-planned “magic” hours, beautiful images may be made; a connection is not.”
I am struck by how much of the photography I see is formulaic in the sense that it depends on iconic scenes portrayed in the “right light” with gobs of saturation applied in post. As one who has spent a lot of time in nature I know it didn’t really look like that and while I accept interpretation, I have to question whether such interpretation is a personal response or an imitation of a “look” that has become popular.
hi, guy, i blog for psychology today and am interested in your thoughts (i’ve done 35 books on many things, including art and meaning and activism and so forth). if you’d like to provide me with about a 600-word condensation of this post i’d love to present it on my blog, probably with a title like “Art and Meaning” or something along those lines (i write about meaning a lot). let me know your thoughts … best, eric maisel
I can’t help but feel a comparison to the letters Stieglitz would write aimed at his photography opponents challenging their narrow-minded ideals. I’ve never heard of someone having too high of moral standards.
I really like what Dan wrote too. It’s great that photography is enjoying such a high level of popularity as a hobby, but it does seem like many have turned it into a sporting event. I want to say there’s no harm in that, except I think there is harm in that as you’ve pointed out.
Thank you, everyone!
A few more notes and thoughts:
Before responding to individual comments, I’d like to address what seems to be a common misconception: that the designation “art” makes a work more worthy or elevated than other types of photography.
Artistic photography is simply photography practiced with an eye towards symbolism and ulterior meaning. It is therefore different from (not superior to) representational photography, literally re-presenting a scene.
Similarly, a great investigative report is not inherently inferior to a poem; a Rock song is not inherently inferior to a sonnet, etc. They are different things, worthy in their own right.
A poet may use rhyme, symbols, and metrics to convey moods and meaning; a journalist will not. Should the journalist be offended that their work is not dubbed “poetry”? Of course not.
By falling into the trap of overloading the term “art” with superior qualities, as compared to other forms of expression, we rob it of its true meaning: something that is created by an artist and by artistic methods, rather than a mimetic representational record. Better? Worse? Not necessarily. There’s just as much bad art out there as bad representational work.
To your comments:
Dan, you are right. The practice of “photowalking” is no more artistic than any other kind of walking (or photography). If some of the walkers happen to be artists and seek to deliberately create art, they probably may. I absolutely agree that such a group descending on an otherwise natural scene is extremely unlikely to experience it for what it is. I like to think of it as a variation on the Heisenberg principle. If your very presence changes the place, you can’t “connect” with it because you have no sense of what it is like independent of your presence.
Rich, the idea that art is only worthwhile if it makes money only serves to emphasize the corrupting influence of money. It seems no pursuit is free of this and, sadly, neither is art. Still, the term “starving artist” didn’t come out of thin air. Good art is good art. Art that sells is art that sells. There certainly is a degree of overlap but they are not synonymous.
David, I think you’re seeing a contradiction where there is none. The fact that beauty can be found and inspire artistic (or representational) photography is separate from degree of creativity. We all know of places where beautiful images can be made with almost guaranteed consistency. We see these images everywhere, by the thousands and millions. They ARE devoid of creativity. This doesn’t mean, however, that a creative image (artistic or representational) can’t be made with the same raw materials. The difference is up to the photographer, not the scene. If found beauty is ALL there is to an image, I still say the photographer is creatively lazy.
Not to belittle museum curators but how many of them would turn away a great Impressionistic painting? Today, probably none. In the late 1800s, probably all. So what?
You and I may not know what a photographer added to an image (though in many cases it is obvious). It doesn’t have to be visual gimmickry. It can be nuances of composition, color palette, or just about anything. And yes, it is possible to not add anything – when the photographer knowingly duplicates an image they had seen before.
And no, I don’t believe art can happen by accident. Interesting images, certainly, but not art. That doesn’t make them less worthy, it just makes them something other than art.
Guy
I’ve grown accustomed to calling myself a hobbyist lately, which is mostly what I am. Probably true of many folks sharing photos online (although our egos aspire to greater heights). Occasionally I consider one of my images artful. But the more critical I become of my output, the fewer images qualify.
There are indeed many eye catching images being created, but not so many that educate or elevate or leave the viewer wanting to know why. Mr. Tal is right to challenge his audience, whether they’re viewers or creators or both. While critics aren’t always right, critiquing oneself leads to education, clarity, and hopefully enlightenment.
That said, +1 on G. Dan Mitchell’s comments about found art, happenstance, and falling off the turnip truck.
Guy, Your clarification about your use of the word art is important to your discussions of the idea. This is obviously an excellent post full of very fine thinking, some of it in need of being condensed when translated into words on paper, as per the offer to have it posted on Psychology Today. Congratulations on that, by the way. You know I am one of your biggest supporters. This, of course, doesn’t mean I always agree. Where would these posts be without the comments from so many interesting views and banter about various points? In addition, you and I have both been enriched by our conversations, not any less so when we disagree. OK, soooo, found beauty: I hope I understand your point. You are essentially saying, among other things, that photographers ought to put more thought and effort into making meaningful art. Amen to that. Also, you are saying and have made statements before that merely going around to trophy locations and making exposures does not an artist make. Hear, hear to that also. I’m still going to go out on a limb and say that found beauty is almost NEVER all there is to an image. Carl Jung and modern physicists have made statements along the lines that the mere fact that you were there in that place at that time gave meaning to your being there and changed the nature of reality forever just by doing nothing. I will go further out onto the small branches and say that ALL landscape photography is to some extent found beauty. Possible exceptions might be occasions such as the studying of a photographer’s ephemeris, the fog patterns and how the weather effects the Golden Gate Bridge, then going out there at the right time of sundown to get just the right combination of fog, city glow, late sun and moonrise. This is STAGED landscape photography and certainly NOT found beauty, though by your definition, as written, it is art. Some of the people who go around to the iconic photo locations such as Zabriski Point, Tunnel View and Mesa Arch are putting in the same level of planning to come away with a photograph with the same framing, but more dramatic than those before. It sure takes a lot of thought, but is this more artistic? I wrote about similar issues in my blog post on Greg Russel’s blog, “Make Your Own Tripod Tracks,” http://www.alpenglowimagesphotography.com/blog/2011/12/make-your-own-tripod-tracks/ My father was a big fan of found beauty. In his artist’s statement he wrote, “My intent is not to awe, but to stimulate empathy and love. My basic concern is with what Emerson called ‘the integrity of natural objects.’ I am not interested in pretty pictures for postcards. I feel better if I just get a few people to see something they haven’t seen before. I rarely wait for light or for some missing element, partly because I wish to avoid pouring nature into a mold, but also because waiting for something to happen may well mean missing something else.” What you’re saying, in my understanding, agrees and disagrees with him. He did put himself into his photographs, but of course a good portion of his photographs are considered documentary rather than fine art photography. Perhaps that is the perspective I come from too, a sort of cross or combination of art and documentary. Although, some of the most celebrated truly fine art photographers were street photographers who photographed whatever “got in the way of the camera” as Minor White wrote about one phase of his San Francisco work. Even the guy who did the most to declare and establish photography as an art, Stieglitz, made many photographs purposely without a great deal of thought or planning. Certainly, I know that a photographer is at his or her best when she takes time for artistic considerations on location before just snapping off images. My father generally took more than an hour to make each large format photograph, though he could make one in a few minutes when he “found” a fleeting subject or the light was fading. His emphasis when he taught workshops was on the development of seeing well, which when most developed can happen in an instant, intuitively without much thought and can lead to more artistic, yet no less “found” photographs.
Your statement about museum curator’s tastes is superb and could perhaps put things into perspective to help get some of the current quality work such as yours and others more establishment recognition sooner.
A beautiful essay as are the many responses. Thank you for your continued artistic activity, both visually and commentary.
From David: “His emphasis when he taught workshops was on the development of seeing well, which when most developed can happen in an instant, intuitively without much thought and can lead to more artistic, yet no less “found” photographs.”
This is what I struggle with relative to the message Guy is trying to communicate. I believe what I do and the ability to “see” in these moments as David describes his father’s teachings, that is something beyond a “found photograph.” Who can lay claim to whether that is considered “art” or not?
As always Guy your writing is thought provolking and engaging. I’ve sent you a note too long and not all related to this post.
Lon
I may have to quote you somewhere, Guy. Your way with words is so expressive and appreciated. Lovely reading.
As I am not a photographer except by chance, I have nothing to add to the very interesting discussion above. But as a writer and (occasional, somewhat lapsed) blogger, I will say this post is among several I’ve read recently across the wild lands of the internet that both inspires me and kicks me in the behind to get more real in what I do write and post. So…thank you for that!
jdb, I appreciate your comment. Education, clarity and enlightenment are noble goals to strive for. I hope this discussion lives up to them, for my own benefit as much as anyone else’s.
David, thanks for the follow up. Rather than addressing it here, I’m working on a new post dedicated to the “found” theme, which was not my main point for this article. I’ll email you separately with a couple of questions I have.
Daniel and Julie, thank you for the kind words!
Lon, you should have my response to your email and I hope to address more of your questions in the same post I mentioned to David above.
Guy
Guy, I love your work, I find it beautifully understated and mostly lacking they eye-candy aspect present in so many landscape images (mine included). But I must say that some of your writing lately has been on the cranky side, and can easily be interpreted in the way that prompted your reader’s response. I myself was scratching my head a bit. Just sayin’…
Thanks for the kind words, Boyan, and you’re not the only one to feel that way. You’re right, I was a bit cranky while writing this and it appears I offended a couple of people as a result. I apologize for that; it wasn’t my intention.
I exchanged some private emails with others who felt that way and will have a follow up post in the next few days, as I think through these topics some more.
Having read the post, the replies and your clarification I can only say that your interpretation of the phrase ‘found beauty’ is diametrically opposed to my understanding of the term.
I hope I’m correct in saying that what you’re talking about is more in the direction of ‘obvious beauty’ or even ‘received beauty’ (in the sense of ‘received wisdom’). My interpretation is beauty ‘found’ by truly looking at a fairly anonymous location and seeing the beauty that others might not – ‘discovered beauty’, perhaps.
Julian, you are correct. The “found beauty” theme was not my main intent for this post and it appears I have not given it sufficient attention. As I mention above, I am in the process of articulating it in a separate, dedicated post, which I hope to make available some time next week. I hope you check back again as I very much appreciate your feedback.
Guy
Guy, you certainly gave thought-provoking post. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to write more in response, but I did want to raise one issue. That is the issue of photographers pursuing images that have been done before, and that is not art. Perhaps not for the wider world, but can’t that be art for the individual photographer – at least in the case where they did not seek to imitate another, but just wanted to make their own photographic in an iconic place?
Case in point, last September I made a trip to the Southwest. One place I’ve always wanted to photograph is the House on Fire ruin. Yes, it’s been done many thousands of times before, but does that mean I shouldn’t want to go there on my own? Does that make me a trophy hunter? My photographs from there do look similar to others’. I believe I put something of myself into the image, and I did not set out to purposely copy others. But if it looks similar, can’t my image still be art – if only to me?
Joe, I honestly can’t say. What I write about on this blog expresses my own perspective but how you define your work to yourself is obviously something anyone should do without deferring to the opinions of others.
I am working on a series of posts addressing the responses to this thread. The first of these will be posted on Wednesday. Stay tuned…
Guy
Thank you, for having the confidence to say these words that I’m sure a lot of us feel. Any artist needs to know their purpose, why they are taking this photo, and really feel it. Your words are inspiring and well put together. I hope more will read this and take a few minutes out of our way too busy days to reflect a bit… who knows what effect that might have!
Guy, the energy contained in these words is fantastic. I question some of what you say, but the passion with which you write is obvious and admirable.
Here’s one question…maybe just a comment…you write: “And so we come to photography of natural things. A rewarding hobby to many, but one also fraught with cognitive dissonance. When those who practice it proclaim to seek a connection with the natural world, yet limit their involvement to short-lived and well-planned “magic” hours, beautiful images may be made; a connection is not. When a photographer adds nothing of themselves to the outward appearance of found scenes, beautiful images may be made; meaningful work is not. And when images are made that are not founded in personal conviction, original concept, meaningful interpretation, and ulterior purpose; beautiful they may be, but art they are not.”
I think I get what you’re saying here, but you make a mental leap in doing so. I don’t understand how photographing during the so called “magic” hours precludes a connection with the natural world. Even if a photographer’s work truly is limited to these times, how does this alone prevent a connection? How can you say that this person adds nothing to the outward appearance of a place or scene? I just think this is terribly judgmental, and again, maybe it’s simply how it has been expressed that I chafe against. I’d like to hear your thoughts.
I have something similar to say about G Dan Mitchell’s comment. Here he seems to develop an opinion about art based on an imaginary scenario, and the commentary seems as false as the opinion rendered. The ways in which a photographer pursues his art (and dare I say it, vision) is his alone to choose. And who are any of us to judge the scenario he describes as the pursuit of art in the first place? Maybe, like Joe alludes to above, it’s a deeply personal experience this person is after and not art at all. It seems to me that Mitchell rails against something more than, or different than, what he actually says.
In any case, this post made me think, and has added to the perspectives with which I think about and approach photography.
Cheers,
Wesley
Thank you for the kind words, Wesley!
One of the things I love most about blogging is the interactive aspect of the medium. I’ve always been one to wear my heart on my sleeve and speak openly, knowing that doing so may put me at odds with others on occasion, and that every so often I may say things without fully thinking them through. Still, I’m also always open to conceding when presented with questions and alternate views that trump my original thoughts. The responses to this post certainly gave me much to think about, which I’m still in the midst of, and I’m grateful for the insights I received.
In the portion you quoted, I deliberately used the word “limit”. We are often accused of romanticizing the subjects we photograph. To me, that is not really a concern as I consider the purpose of (my) art to communicate an inner (or even invented) reality, rather than an objective one. What I wanted to tackle was the tendency by many to not only offer romanticized images, but to also insist that they are representative of the artist’s deep understanding of, or connection with, the place. Certainly there’s nothing wrong with photographing in aesthetically favorable conditions, but when the photographer’s impression is limited to just these conditions, I feel that claims of a “connection” are disingenuous.
Just like someone can’t claim to know a person they only rarely see, and only in their finest moments, or to convey a deep truth about a poet when they only ever read their one most famous work; I don’t think anyone can claim to have a connection with a place they only visit for an hour or a day and when that visit includes little more than a superficial impression of its most attractive features.
Guy
Thank you, Allison! It’s a fine line between confidence and over-confidence, and I admit to have crossed it on occasion. I still believe that most of what I said above is true, but am also working to refine some points so they are more consistent. I will have more to say about it in future posts.
Guy