Ctein is experimenting with the latter, so far with very good results.
I tend to favor quick-and-intuitive myself. Not only do you get more done, but you also avoid the drawn-out struggle between your intellectual self and your Higher Self, simply by putting the HS in charge. And the HS thinks a million times faster than the human self, and can see much further.
The downside is that the ego feels, quite correctly, that it can't honestly take credit for the work, since it clearly "comes from above", and it really does not like that. So for those with a strong ego, this can become a struggle.
That can't be applied to photography where creativity plays such a minimal role.
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts, more or less fitting.
ReplyDeleteWell, if it is *that* good, great... And if you can so easily make contact with your higher self, get it down to work... It is weird,
I would think it you get there, creation should be making happy and fulfilled. And people with or without ego probably say they did the work.
And if the picture is really amazingly good, out of water, mud, sky, I would first think that nature is the amazing one... the photography reveals it anyway, it does not create it.
***
I do love to take pictures of water and leaves. Happy to see other people do that too.
Aniko,
ReplyDeleteYes, no, no, yes, yes, yes, and no. But only if the circumstances merit it.
Hum?
ReplyDelete(Sorry, lost this thread for a while.)
ReplyDeleteThe yes-no thing was a joke.
The ego (the self) often takes credit, and happily.
But some people say, essentially, "it was not done by me, but through me". (Though this phrasing I got from somebody satirising this attitude.)
I think photography can be very creative. It's hard to explain how, though. I think it's sort of a cooperative dance with the world.
---
Water, leaves, shadows, the meat and potatoes of photography. :-)