Once we were hunters (and most still are)

Do you remember talking about my classmates in language classes? The ones who were jealous about me for odd reasons?

Are you sure that they were angry about your language capabilities?

I realized that the same psychology is behind almost all our actions.

Misplaced jealousy, you mean?

We can say more generally, rivalry. We feel competitive against people who live similarly to the way we do and whom we happen to know. We live to outdo them.

I didn't know that your life goal was to get ahead of your next door neighbor!

Others who live differently---who belong to a different tribe, class, nation, gender, etc.---are less prone to become targets of jealousy, even if they are much more endowed.

Didn't you tell me that a classmate in your Klingon course stood up during pronunciation exercises and said, "If someone from the Andromeda Galaxy can say that word right, I should be able to."?

Such things happen... The comment by the student from the Triangulum Galaxy was based on the thought that both galaxies are known to produce linguistically handicapped creatures and that Andromeda was worse on that score. The fact that they were in the same class had already set the stage for the Triangulumian to feel competitive against the Andromedean.

Having hailed from places which are comparable in terms of notoriety for their inaptness in languages, the Triangulumian felt much stronger jealousy... Tell me, did this student manage to master Klingon pronunciation?

If she had been equipped with the ability, she wouldn't have had to make that declaration in the middle of the class. By the way, do you also remember why we are eager to own more and something better than the people around us?

The things that we own and the persons to whom we are closely related are extensions of who we are. By adding more extensions, we attempt to become more powerful than others.

In sum, we want to be superior to the people around us, and one way to achieve this end is to accumulate objects and relationships. There is more to this equation, though. Most of us not only wish to acquire more, but also enjoy the process of acquiring.

Don't count me in. I am one of those who prefer to go straight to the item that I intend to purchase in the store, pay, and get out as quickly as possible.

It doesn't have to be shopping. I know that some people are into fishing, because they love to eat what they catch, but I also know some others who release immediately whatever tugs the line.

Are they vegetarian fishermen who use fishing lures?

Not necessarily. Most of them go to the supermarket to purchase fish for dinner.

Does that make sense?

We can say that the process of making something our own brings us satisfaction.

That sounds familiar, all of the sudden. What about chasing a potential lover until that person becomes interested in you?

It is another case of cherishing the process more than the prize at the end.

Aren't we talking about rather perverse cases here?

Many of us love bargain hunting.

But we also value what we end up buying.

Are you sure about that? You must have some items in your closet that you bought with great excitement because you thought they were good deals, but are now covered with a thick layer of dust.

How did you find out about my wear-on-your-wrist mosquito detector?

Suppose everybody knows what is available at what price, at which store, at what time.

There would be no opportunity for bargain hunting.

Exactly. We tend to think that perfect information is always better than imperfect information, but not so. Many enjoy making use of that imperfection.

And, it has to be you who has less imperfect information than the rest of us, right?

That is what everyone wishes for her/himself. The joy of finding a good deal comes from outwitting the masses. Suppose you come across a great find and purchase it. That should make you happy.

But if I discover the following day that everybody in the neighborhood bought exactly the same thing at the same price...

Or even slightly cheaper...

I would feel very disappointed. I may even feel stupid or angry.

You see? Here, too, is the desire to be better off than others.

I thought it was more about outwitting others.

You are right---the word, 'outwitting,' is more suited for our discussion. The word can nicely explain our attraction not only to good-deal hunting, but also to animal hunting and fishing. In the latter, it is about outwitting the animals and fish that you want to catch.

Whereas in good-deal hunting, it is about outwitting other buyers.

We could say that we outsmart the sellers, too, because we are paying less than we are willing to for that particular item or service. Or at least, that is how we perceive good bargains. In some cases, the sellers succeed in giving us that impression through clever merchandising.

That's true. I have seen advertisements for offers with limitations. It is valid only for members, only for a certain period, or while the supply lasts.

They sometimes take the opposite tack and say that it is an opportunity that nobody should miss. If you do, you are stupid.

But you know, I derive satisfaction from taking advantage of a good deal, and that without talking about it to other people.

Do you feel smart and lucky when you find a deal of your liking?

I don't feel dumb and unlucky for sure!

You will feel dumb if you later learn that the 'deal' was not exactly so.

I may not confirm that the deal is truly a deal by boasting about it to others, but it is important for my satisfaction that I believe in its value. Is this your point?

Yes, you need to be convinced that you have gone about more cleverly than others.

Deal-hunting is all about trying to be smarter than people around us, then...

Do you know what is so infuriating about the squirrels that feast on your strawberries in the garden and manage to avoid your traps?

They steal my fruits of labor.

That, of course. More crucially, they are outsmarting you.

With their tiny brains! I wouldn't ask them for shopping advice, though.

The other side of the coin is that our aversion to being outwitted is so strong that it prevents many of us from behaving cooperatively.

We are afraid that compromising would be taken as a sign of weakness and submission.

It is possible to get the message across that it is not so, but that would be a long-term project.

Civility and civilization are time consuming...

Our view is supported by the evolution of Slow Food movement into a more general Slow Movement.

We have talked about how proximity breeds jealousy. I think it is also true that proximity engenders compassion.

How does that work?

When I was in primary school, we were taught that we should not forget that we are all alike. Therefore, if an act by someone inflicts pain on us, we should not act similarly upon others. In short, we were told to be nice to each other, because we were more or less the same.

What your teacher taught you is ideal and what I argued is reality.

I disagree. When we think that the other party consists of beings which are below us, we hesitate little in hating them. Consider war propaganda, for example. But once we recognize that they are human beings, just as we are, we develop warm feelings toward them.

If that were true, we would have no conflict among people who recognize that all of us are of the same species.

I'd say some of us have not embraced that fact.

We can say that. But attaining that understanding is not the end of the story.

How so?

Once we get used to each other, or realize that we are alike, we enter the situation that I described.

Competition against one another?

There is a honeymoon period in any relationship, be it between persons or between a person and an object---we talked about it some time ago. The ideal is to stay at that stage, but the reality is that sooner or later it degenerates.

Little respect for each other? But how do you explain your case of helping the starving babies in Darfur, then? That is based on the recognition that we are all on the same boat.

Many of us are ready to help others if doing so would not empower them to threaten our standing.

You're terrible...

You're shooting the messenger, my dear comrade. Think about it, life would be deadly boring if there were no room to strive for the ideal!

That's what friends are for

Tell me, why did you come today?

Is that a greeting? I arrived on time, although you are not Barack or Hugo, or sister Sonja for that matter...

My dear comrade, it is a simple and honest question.

We finally agreed to meet today after nearly a month of feet dragging on your part.

You didn't have to come, though.

¡Madre mía! We set up an appointment, but you did not want me to come?

Comrade, I am glad that you came, but I wouldn't go to your house and pound on the door in case you failed to show up.

I came because... We're friends, aren't we?

It is that question which has been bothering me. Why are we friends?

That one... Aren't we stuck with each other in a way?

The give-and-take elements in relationships have come to my mind more often than I like lately.

What did you---or I---do to make myself feel obliged to come here?

I do not wish to claim that all of my friends have the explicit intentions to benefit from keeping me as a friend. There are instances when I sense their true concern for me.

That statement sounds rather weak.

It does to me as well. In too many cases, I cannot dispel the idea that I serve some purpose in their lives.

I thought that is how friendships should be.

What I call 'some purpose' includes all sorts of things. For example, I know that some people like being seen with me.

Really? Do they work for a circus or a You-Wouldn't-Believe-It museum?

It's just that there are too many sloppy dressers around that if you pay a nano second of attention to what you wear, you are more or less a winner.

That says something about your living environment rather than you... If they don't work for a circus or the like and still want to be seen with you, isn't it because your allure is rather off the mainstream?

Some keep me on their friends' lists just because there are not many who were born in that odd corner of the world.

What is there to complain? You are contributing to diversity.

To some, I am a little lamb to be saved, and that is why they like me.

Proselytizing? I see that they hardly have any clue about you.

There are some others who like me because I always share all costs incurred during an outing.

What's wrong with that?

Others like me because I let them grab the bill.

A patronizing type can be useful, though.

Some others think I am worse off than they are in all aspects of life, and that is why they like me.

There isn't anyone who likes you because you always take out your wallet before s/he does? ... By the way, we do like some people who are superior in just about everything.

That doesn't happen unless it is a person who is distinguished for talent that we value. As Seneca the Younger said, "[E]nvy operates on what is at hand, but we can more openly admire things from a distance."

It is easier to be fond of a movie star than an acquaintance who has it all and whom you have the opportunities to see in person.

The funny thing is that the acquaintance usually has much less than the movie star, but we tend to harbor jealousy for the former and admiration for the latter. I have had analogous experiences in language classes, especially at the beginner's level.

Why beginner's level?

The student body would contain so many with no linguistic aptitude, and they would drop out before reaching advanced levels.

Whereas you would go to higher levels and never see them again in the same class---is this what you mean?

They would hate me with passion!

Comrade, that is quite a novel way of bragging.

But it's true! It made no sense, because there are millions of people in this entire universe who have studied and become fluent in Klingon, and my classmates were not jealous about them. They admired the fluent speakers, but hated me.

Are you sure it was all about language skills?

Never mind the native Klingon speakers; they, too, were off limits.

If their rotten command of the language was making your classmates feel nasty, they should have hated the ones with the most agility in that language. But instead, they turned to the fluent speakers with dreamy, starry eyes, and to you with angry, square ones... Are you sure it was about foreign languages alone?

Should I say that my classmates in any subject hated me, because I am a polymath?

And you have been preaching us about modesty!

It was just a rhetorical question, comrade. Getting back to the discussion of what constitutes a friendship, it is not that I constantly scrutinize each relationship.

Am I supposed to believe so after this discussion?

I don't devise a strategy every time I see a friend. It's just that sometimes what they say or do makes me realize why they like me.

Are you sure they don't hate you?

An ideal friendship is about two people caring about each other, not about filling the void in your world map of friends or taking advantage of her/his attributes.

Don't you think that there is give and take element in any relationship?

My view is that when the relationship is satisfactory to both parties, they don't engage themselves in such calculations. Suppose a friend that you really value asks you for a favor, you wouldn't think twice about agreeing to it.

Whereas if it were a Class-B friend, you start listing all the things you have already done for her/him?

"I walked her dog for three weeks when a very important project was due. I visited her grandmother in the hospital at her request although I barely knew her. I have tried to remember her favorite brand of tissue..."

"And now she's asking me to attend her cousin's wedding on the opposite side of the globe and that under the guise of her lover, because she doesn't want to be grilled by her relatives why she is still single!"

If you genuinely value someone and the relationship you have with her/him, you derive enough satisfaction from your action for her/him alone and do not think about what s/he could do for you in return.

For Claude, I would gladly go to the Amazon and collect information on his behalf. I know that such trips have become difficult for him, especially since November last year.

It may have become easier, we never know. Anyway, do you think he would reciprocate your action? If yes, I'd say that you and Claude are very good friends, but I think we can safely say that the answer is no.

Lacking reciprocity, it's not a good friendship, but just one-sided admiration, you mean?

Just as we wouldn't make a list of what we did for a very good friend, we wouldn't itemize what we like about that person. We could, but it would look rather absurd and false. The same holds for a lover.

It's her/him as a whole... I don't think it immoral that I take good care of the bushes that separate my house and the neighbors' in the hope that they would reciprocate the gesture.

I don't either. What I would say is that they are your neighbors, perhaps good neighbors, but not good friends.

I can't be good friends with everyone, though.

Luckily, you are not running for any kind of political post. My point is that true friendships are rare. What puzzles me is that many people do not seem to care whether friendships are genuine or not.

If genuine friendships are rare, why should you examine your set of friends only to find out that most are based on give-and-take?

We are bound for disappointment if we do not recognize that fact. Many of the frictions among people that I witness are based on the illusion that the relationships are altruistic, much more so than they could be.

But if we act wisely from the accounting department's point of view, we would be overly shrewd and unpleasantly cunning, don't you think?

For the manipulative ones, that is the ideal.

Although it is inevitable that most relationships are based on business-like considerations, we should not act so as to make use of that fact, because that would push us more in that direction. Is this our conclusion?

The acknowledgment of that nature would make relationships launch on a downward spiral. On the other hand, such considerations would encourage you to be nice to a person that you cannot have fond feelings for.

It's useful, then.

A condition has to be met: s/he would reciprocate your good-willed actions.

In sum, while most friendships are not pretty under the surface, we should not think about it too often, because if we do, it would negatively affect the nice cover. Oftentimes, the pretty cover is all there is to it. If friendship of any kind is inconceivable, it's best to think the relationship as business.

That is life, it seems... I find it interesting that if the friendship is a very good one, I wouldn't hear lines such as, "That's what friends are for," "I meant it well," etc., from that friend.

Your friend does not need to explain that s/he is a nice and kind person, either.

All is natural, and there lies the pitfall.

A pitfall of yours, again?

When something is very natural, we take it for granted. As for good relationships, we often fail to appreciate them and do not realize their value until they are lost for some reason.

A good relationship lost for some reason? It's impossible by definition.

Ach, if only good reasons prevailed in this world!

Not just any good reason, but yours, right?

My reasons are good, all of them, all the time.

Okay, okay, let's just say that you're not a verificationist...

It's mine, mine, mine, and not yours

If you like it, you want to make it yours and preferably exclusively yours.

And when it is yours, you care about it more than when it isn't.

You care more because you like it, not because you own it.

I know that you absolutely adore macarons parisiens. Suppose you are promised to have a dozen of them delivered every week.

From Laudrée? Or Gérard Mulot? Can I choose? Is this arrangement forever?

Now wipe that rather viscous liquid off your face, please. It's just a hypothesis.

What does such a hypothesis have to do with our discussion?

If you are not involved in any way with the ownership of the pâtisseries, you don't mind whether one closes or not.

As long as I can get the same macarons...

But if you happen to have some stake in the ownership of a pâtisserie, you would make efforts so that it would stay happily open.

My interest is not in the macaron business, but purely in the macarons.

Think about your house. Your ultimate interest is in the service that it provides, but that means you are interested in the house as well. They are inseparable. The point is that exclusive or near-exclusive ownership has great significance in terms of how we treat that object.

What concerns us is the function of the house, such as the quality of the roof, the number of toilets, the orientation and the size of the windows, etc. However, if we are renting the house, we tend to be less careful about its maintenance as compared to when we own it.

You see?

Isn't that about responsibility and not ownership, though?

Even as a tenant, you have certain responsibilities, and in fact, it is in your interest to do your best for its maintenance. We know that if the tenant buys the same house, her/his attitude toward the house changes.

Doesn't it depend on the landlord whether we feel like doing our best or not?

To some extent, yes. But I can safely say that, on average, owners are more concerned than renters. The principle applies to any rental: car, furniture, sports equipment, party dresses, etc. That is one of the important reasons why home ownership is encouraged by numerous governments around the world.

Why are they worried whether we look after our dwellings or not?

Once the house becomes yours, you start thinking about the neighborhood more as your neighborhood. You will be much more concerned about the wellness of the community, and hence, of the nation.

You don't want any anti-government riot down the street that would damage and even destroy your house.

For example, yes.

On the other hand, we know that making everything belong to everybody does not work.

Collectivism and communism have made a grave error in that sense. Our desire to own is so basic that any system that attempts to suppress it is doomed to fail.

We could say that they tried to satisfy that very desire of everyone by making ownership a collective one.

Yes. But remember: if it purports to be everything, it is in fact nothing.

Applying that to our case, we can say: if something belongs to all of us, it is equivalent to not to belonging to anyone. Right?

Unfortunately, the answer is 'yes.' If all of us could muster the same enthusiasm that we have for our own houses for our ultimate home, the planet earth, we wouldn't have had serious environmental problems in the first place.

I think the key is the knowledge that something belongs to me, but not to the archenemy in your class or office.

True, we take greater care if that allows us to exhibit our superiority to people whom we are not fond of. The same principle works with those that you like, too. In that case, we may say that it is pride---instead of superiority---that you feel.

It sounds more benign, but the core principle remains the same.

Right again. You want your family members, for example, to be proud of you, but that does not make too much sense if every family has a member who has achieved exactly what you have. In other words, instead of individual against another individual, it is family against another family.

I'd say ownership is a powerful device for enlarging or enhancing who you are.

You can become more desirable and elevated in status if you own an object that everyone else wants but does not have. The item that you own is an extension of who you are.

We know many men who flaunt their pretty lovers and spouses in the identical manner as they show off their fancy cars, Rolex watches and fat cigars.

Women tend to put similar items on exhibition: successful lovers and spouses, Hermès scarves and so on. Perhaps you remember---we talked about how we treat our family members as extensions of ourselves. We bring up the members' skills and abilities in a certain domain, when the person in front of you has an upper hand vis-à-vis you in that field.

You may be better at flapping your ears than I am, but let me tell you, my brother is reaaaaallly good at it. That one?

If an object is under collective ownership, it is not clear to which individuals it owes its current existence. In contrast, if it belongs to you and nobody else, people around you will get an unmistakable message that you alone are responsible for its condition, splendid or miserable. In short, private ownership gives a clear signal as to who had the power to acquire it and who put in the efforts for its upkeep.

All of us are eager to show to others that we are powerful enough to obtain consent from the object to be possessed, or from its former owner to transfer its ownership to us.

Isn't it funny and sad at the same time that we discover tremendous energy in order to get ahead of, or even defeat, not only the ones that we do not like but also anyone around us? In the same vein, if collective efforts are to be fruitful, we need a common enemy.

All we need is not love, but a galaxy wide contest for containing the excessive emission of greenhouse gases!

Do you think extraterrestrial beings are as stupid and selfish as we are? The paradox here is that we would not survive collectively, if we do not follow our egotistic instincts to some degree---that is, if we do not look after the little world around each of us, because that is what most of us are equipped to do and no more.

Let us be selfish for the common good, then.

There is great danger in saying that. 'Everyone for her/himself' certainly does not aggregate into 'the system for itself.' It's a fallacy of composition. Here's another tenet of mine: the optimal is between the extremes.

Isn't that a logical fallacy as well---that any compromise between two positions is correct?

I think not. The Golden Mean Fallacy concerns any two propositions that are present, not necessarily the extremes.

Okay, another one of yours: we will never come to an agreement where that optimal is.

Because if we unanimously agree, it means someone had her/his arm twisted.

Comrade, it's a promising start for the new year!

Gotta have it, it's retail therapy

Absolutely anyone with an artistic pair of eyes can take good pictures these days.

We agreed on that last time. The 'auto' functions of the latest cameras and Adobe Photoshop go a long way in compensating for the lack of technical skills in photography.

I do not see many photographers making efforts to take good pictures, though. When tourists come to a scenic spot, they very often use it as a simple backdrop for hastily composed group pictures. How artistic can that be, and hence, interesting to others?

I thought your complaint was that there were too many of overly serious amateur photographers.

Yes, that is one of my complaints.

Another is that there are too many of bad photographers, is that it?

Comrade, you're beyond my wildest dreams... I have noticed that if it is a couple, the guy usually does the shooting and orders his spouse/lover/girlfriend to pose in front of a monument, etc. It's often a command. "You stand there," kind of a line, his model scurries to the spot indicated by his finger, she turns around to look at the camera, and immediately a click.

Now, are we talking about the artistic values of tourist photos, the manners of tourist-photographers, or relationship dynamics?

They are all related; if a person fails in one, s/he tends to also fail in the other two. How many times did I stand next to a guy to mumble to myself, "Oh no, you shouldn't do that. Her clothes/hair-do/posture does not make your disastrous angle any better."

Mon dieu ! Have you thought about the possibility of his thinking along the same line about you? "What's the use of taking a picture of a church, from behind a pillar? The poor soul must be nuts. The fact that I can't tell where this person originated confirms my suspicion," for example?

To me, ill-taken pictures of a tourist spot have no value other than for establishing an alibi.

That the photographer was there with her/his legitimate partner, whoever that is? You never know with digital trick these days...

... I know! The purpose of such pictures is to rub it in that they went to places where their friends and families have not been but would love to.

That may be true, because many say things such as, "You have been to Mars, haven't you? Oh, I had forgotten, but you are from Mars, aren't you? Then, you don't have to see these pictures of sexy rocks from that marvelous planet. But, John, I know you haven't been there, come see these photos. Aren't they gorgeous?"

For some reason, it is almost guaranteed that people who forcibly make you look at their photographs take horrible shots.

It makes sense, doesn't it? If the goal is simply to show off to others that you had the opportunity to go to a place where they have not been, or never would even if they wanted to, why care about artistry? Plus, being artistic does not mean anything to some people, you know.

There is something more fundamental to our urge to snap.

Which is...?

It can be traced to our desire to possess what we find beautiful.

Taking photographs is the second best after purchasing the pyramid, you mean?

If Napoleon Bonaparte's people had the technology to cart off the pyramid, they would have. Think about the fate of obelisks that presently sit far away from where they used to be---the one at the Spanish Steps in Rome, another at la Place de la Concorde in Paris, and so on.

Nowadays we create images of the object which become ours instantly.

Most of us have become civilized in that sense, because we simply take pictures of the object instead of stealing it, carving off a piece of it, or defacing it with graffiti.

The use of flashes when we are not supposed to is still destructive.

Vandalizing acts are based on our desire to demonstrate to the public our power over the fate of that object. If benign, the desire takes the form of owning the object in question. On the other hand, vandalism is self-defeating, since it makes the object less desirable.

We obviously wish to see objects that touch us, but our desire to claim power is even bigger...

Isn't it scary? The same pattern is seen in purchases of so-called souvenirs. When we are very much taken by the place we visit, we feel the urge to purchase something that is unique to that location.

It's a variation on the theme of owning what you like, I take it.

That's why some of us spend money on ridiculous, ugly, and/or useless items that we would never purchase had we found them at the grocery store that we visit weekly. We see similar phenomena in relationships. If you like someone, you want to be her/his best friend, or if the sexual orientation is right, her/his lover/spouse. You want that person to be yours.

True, we even acknowledge that desire by saying, "be mine," "tuyo/tuya para siempre," etc.

It doesn't even have to be romantic relationships. You have heard children arguing, "He's my papa," "No, he's my papa," although they are siblings. I remember wanting to be the only child holding hands with either my mother or father, but it was problematic because there were more than two children in the family and all of us wanted that exclusivity.

I have a feeling that there is more to our desire to possess what we like and admire.

I think it is the nature of being fond of something and what the disclosure of that information entails. Being in favor of something means we are inclined to make concessions for that object or person.

In other words, when you announce that you admire something, you are also telling people that you would do more for preserving or obtaining it than for other things in the world.

You are showing your weakness, so to speak. In numerous languages, the expression, "to have a weakness for something," means "to be fond of it."

Whereas dislike and hatred are more linked to combativeness.

As you make your weakness public, you naturally seek compensation for that act.

Naturally?

Alas, that is our animal instinct, and the compensation is in the form of obtaining an exclusive relationship with that object or person.

Mutual submission?

Exactly.

But I don't mind at all telling people that I admire Itzhak Perlman's performance as well as Gil Shaham's.

Some people can hurt you by telling you how better other violinists are and that you understand nothing about classical music.

I am old enough not to be bothered by such childish behavior.

What if someone says s/he will give you a ticket to Perlman's concert that is impossible to obtain on your own, and in turn, you have to share with her/him what you'd rather keep as a secret? Your preferences can be used to manipulate you.

You make it sound as if we were so calculating.

But we are, at least unconsciously. As I have been emphasizing, the civilization consists in acknowledging the unsavory streaks and suppressing them. Talking about civilization, I have been appalled lately of blatant appeals to our base desires by the retail sector.

Is it more than telling you how good a certain product is?

I saw signs such as, "Gotta have it" and "Retail therapy."

Hmmm, pretty raw, I'd say.

I'm glad that you agree. The terrifying thing is that, although I was very much displeased and even shocked when I first read them, they became rather convincing after some time.

Gotta have it...? How do you know? Gotta have it? Really? Gotta have it? Perhaps. Gotta have it, maybe. Gotta have it. Gotta have it. Gotta have it! GOTTA HAVE IIIITTT!... Is this how it goes?

... Kind of...

Retail therapy? How shameful you talk about your profit making scheme as if you were helping us. Retail therapy may work for others, but not for me. Let's examine the first word, retail. Yes, I purchased something. Therapy? Well, the purchase has not exactly made me unhappy. Retail therapy. Perhaps. Retail therapy, maybe. Retail therapy. Retail therapy. Yes, retail therapy, because I'm happier after buying! ... This is how it works, right?

...

Comrade, I'm calling my marketing people right now. What do you say to holding a press conference about the triumph of le capitalisme anglo-saxon?

I'd rather have a discussion with a sociologist or a psychologist over the effects of words and the power of propaganda...

Are you sure? Think about it. There will be lights, cameras, microphones, and everyone will be focusing on you, baby... oops, comrade!

If I am not allowed to see a sociologist or a psychologist, can I have a session with a psychiatrist?

The Joy of snapping

Digitization may have had bad effects by making us more inclined to take pictures, but it is also helping us to be environmentally friendlier.

By not using film, we are doing away with hydroxylated benzene compounds, for example, employed in film developing---it this what you mean?

That's one. Think also about all the paper that we would have needed to print out the massive amount of shots that people take nowadays.

I see quite a few mediocre pictures taken by amateur photographers on the web for sale, followed by raving comments. It is all thanks to technological progress.

What's wrong with that? I thought you knew that we shouldn't expect to agree on matters of taste. You must be simply overwhelmed by the explosion of the number of photographic work that you are exposed to.

You're right. With digital cameras and the Internet, we have suddenly gained access to more shots. It is also true that I wouldn't be complaining if there were more of good ones compared to bad ones.

Last time you said that there are many more good amateur photographers than before, and that was not only the sheer number, but their proportion has increased.

When the numbers of both the good and the bad go up, we tend to focus on the increase of the bad. The same applies to anything from donation versus theft, safe versus reckless driving, etc., to cafés serving good coffee versus bad coffee.

If it is not the improvement in the average quality of amateur photography, what exactly is bothering you?

One is their eagerness to sell the work, rather than simply share. It is not that they turn to selling, because there is no other means to verify the quality of their efforts. Many of us think about putting it up for sale as soon as we create it.

Isn't that natural during this economically difficult time?

There has been a growing trend to commercialize whatever possible, and that is in terms longer than the usual ups and downs of business cycles. It doesn't give me good feelings.

Is it alienation à la Karl Marx?

Congratulations, my dear comrade, although I must say that it was rather elementary.

Now tell me, did you intend it to be a praise or an insult?

Che Guevara said, "Man really attains the state of complete humanity when he produces, without being forced by physical need to sell himself as a commodity." We can extrapolate that to "without being forced to sell what he produces as a commodity," and I am more than 100% certain that he would give me a ride on his motorcycle upon hearing this.

Most people are not forced to sell their pictures, but they want to.

How can you say that we are not the victims of le capitalisme anglo-saxon?

We can say so as much as we are of our own culture or society.

We are forced to think in a certain way and that unconsciously by the society we live in, and the economic system is one of the important facets of a society.

At the same time, we are the ones who are the parts of that whole. So, we ourselves are responsible for whatever happens in our society to some extent. As for me, I have never said anything like, "Making so little? Are you an id..."

But the responsibilities are far from equal. Think about Joseph Stalin. You would agree that he had done much more than the rest in the USSR to mold the Soviet culture and history.

Or Billy Graham... It all stems from the fact that many people are not independent thinkers, but followers, doesn't it?

To a degree, yes. As for the lure of money, it is so powerful that we do not need proselytizing. Money allows us to possess far beyond what we can produce ourselves. In other words, it appeals to our base desire, and there lies the strength of capitalism.

Why did we not see earlier the extent of commercialization that we have today?

First of all, technological progress has made many more products and services available. There are literally zillion more ways to spend money, which gives zillion more reasons to make more money. Secondly, with the arrival of modernism, almost all the social constraints on what we are allowed to own have disappeared. You don't have to read much in economic anthropology to be struck by how much social conventions used to dictate what we may own.

For example?

In many pre-industrialization societies, what kind of role you should play in the community is determined by your gender and age. That is translated into what kind of house and other household goods you must have in unambiguous terms. Moreover, they are provided by the community, because production of most things requires collaboration.

It is still true that I cannot manufacture a motorcycle on my own. I think even Che would agree that I have to purchase one.

That's where this elaborate exchange system that uses money as the medium comes into play. Under a barter system, you need to have exactly what the motorcycle manufacturer would like to get in exchange, but money has eliminated the need of coincidence of wants.

So modern capitalism liberates us!

It alienates us, too. The rise of post-modernism testifies that we were not completely satisfied with what the industrialization and the concomitant development of capitalism brought us.

Where does that alienation come from?

I think the root is in the change of our focus. In the case of photography, instead of aiming for something that is artistic or that is satisfactory to the photographer, the goal becomes getting a shot that would make someone take out her/his wallet from the pocket.

What others want to buy is not going to be very different from what you want to buy, and hence, from what you want to possess and further produce, doesn't it? If so, there is no change in focus as you claim.

You must have heard of artists' agony to create what they do believe in versus what would sell. It's an age-old problem.

My argument is logically impeccable, though.

Creative persons are so, precisely because they are different in taste from others. If s/he produces work that you can see anywhere, we wouldn't think that s/he is creative. Bigger profits are obtained by selling to more people. That means you would like to appeal to the most common denominator, and we know what that consists of.

To rake in the most profit is to be good at mediocrity?

I would say to aim at a tiny bit beyond so that the masses would appreciate the difference: not exactly mediocre that it appears banal to them, and not too off the main-stream that it becomes beyond their comprehension.

You are so disparaging at times, you know... Many say that they take pictures for fun. They claim that, if the pictures sell, they are all the happier, but they would remain happy even if nobody buys.

Once the price is posted, it will be difficult not to take the absence of a buyer negatively. Think about it, you are putting your work on offer, and if there are no takers...

That is another addictive aspect of capitalism. We are prone to take sale as something that endorses our very selves and non-sale as rejection of us as persons.

That is normal psychology when you offer something that you own, including yourself. The ultimate case is declaring romantic love for someone.

The feelings of triumph, pride, and joy, or those of defeat, self-loathing, and anger.

If you say you will do anything for the one that you love, that translates into pricing yourself zero or even negative... Getting back to how many more pictures people take these days, I think we are sacrificing quality at the expense of quantity.

That's the usual rule for quality and quantity.

I disapprove of the casualness.

Should we care if you approve of it or not?

...

Okay, let me ask why not?

It is usually quite distracting and inappropriate.

I understand the distracting part, but why inappropriate? If you see something beautiful, you would like to take a picture of it, too, wouldn't you?

I do not know any object that came into being exclusively for photo taking, excepting those made by photographers for photographic art or shows organized for shooting purposes. That means taking pictures is never of primary importance to the object or the scene that we try to capture with our camera.

A temple or a church is a place of worship, but as tourists, we take pictures instead of meditating or praying---that kind of a thing?

Precisely. Instead of consoling the survivors, we photograph the exotic costumes and the ornaments of a funeral. Instead of purchasing a strangely shaped fruit from a street vendor, we take a picture of it, and so on.

And when there are too many serious photographers around, it's a chaos.

Just as there are basic manners that tourists should observe as intruders to the everyday life of the places we visit, there are also manners for tourist-photographers.

Such as not standing in front of another person with a scary face and a camera in his hand, right?

You got it all wrong...

It's a joke... By the way, how much are you asking for your pictures? ... It's a joke. Trust me!

All right, how much are you offering?

... Comrade, I am truly scandalized!

It's a joke, trust me...

The Photographer in all of us

I see that you've got suntan. Were you outdoors in the past weeks?

I was on the road. I tell you, it was pretty wild at times.

Were you in the wilderness somewhere?

Not quite, but I was often surrounded by beasts.

Hmmm... I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I sense that you were not in the pristine woods, on an unspoiled savanna, or anything of that sort.

The beasts all had cameras in their hands.

Are you talking about tourists?

Locals usually don't go around taking photographs, you know.

What's so beastly about tourists' picture taking? That's a natural part of sightseeing. Besides, you were one of them, weren't you?

Gone are the days when we had to take into account how many shots could be taken with the roll of film in the camera, and be careful about each shot. With the advent of digital cameras at affordable prices for the masses, people have been transformed into self-professed photographers. Mobile phones with camera function has made the situation even worse.

We should welcome such developments. It's democratization of photography.

I was in a town known for beautiful architecture. It was packed with tourists, and if I took a shot, it would be just an image of the crowd. Then, I noticed one guy walking through the crowd, turning his head to the right, raising his hand up with the camera, taking a few steps forward, turning his head and raised hand to the left, and repeating the whole process.

You mean, turn right, click, march forward, turn left, click, march forward?

He didn't even stop for each shot. He simply kept on walking. It looked particularly bad, because with digital cameras, we do not put our faces close to the viewfinder. That gives an impression that you are not serious about the shot.

I knew that you had some prehistoric opinions...

Later, I was in another even more crowded place, where tourists were taking turns to see the interior of an historical building through glass panels of a door.

How large was the door?

It was a regular sized one, about 80 centimeters wide and 2 meters high. I waited for some time, being jostled this way and that. Finally, my turn came and I took a peek. Immediately, someone tapped on my forearm. When I turned around, it was an old lady looking very frustrated. She said, "I'm trying to take a picture," as if I had been intentionally obstructing her doing so for hours.

What did you do?

I stepped aside by shoving myself into the crowd. She took a picture, and left without thanking me! That was the first time in my life when someone told me to get out of her way so that she can shoot.

You were annoyed because you take pride in being circumspect. Correct?

In another popular spot for tourists in another town, a group was occupying a small room with a guide. They were there for a long time. When the guide led the herd out of the room, three people lingered on to take pictures. I waited for a while, but stepped into the room before they evacuated because it was taking too long.

Did you get yelled at?

I didn't, but again, I was tapped on my forearm. When I turned around, a guy indicated by way of swinging his chin to the side that I should get lost.

Was it that bad?

He looked awfully frustrated and angry.

You may have become too self-absorbed to take notice of people around you. Have you thought about that?

I tried to make sure that I did not interfere with their obsessive photo taking, but clearly, I failed. What can you do when you are admiring something and someone arrives afterward to take a photo from behind you?

Are you sure that is what happened?

I swear... What I don't understand most is the zeal with which people go about photographing literally everything.

Do they take pictures of rubbish bins, though?

Don't you agree that most of them are probably not professional photographers?

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they do not have the right to take photos.

But what do you think they are going to do with all the pictures?

Show them to friends and family.

I dread seeing vacation pictures. It is purely out of courtesy that I say 'yes' when my parents ask me if I want to see their photos.

Not everybody's vacation pictures are boring or bad, mind you.

You think so? I can enjoy them more if the vacationers are there to comment on them. They serve as visual cues for curious or funny things that happened, but could not be captured as an image.

Sure, comments like, "You know, when I was trying to take this picture, there was a tourist who stood right in front of me and wouldn't budge. Absolutely oblivious. Talking about manners..."

How many times do you look at your own pictures?

Not so often.

I bet after a good round of showing, you never go back to them.

True... But some of us enjoy seeing other people's vacation shots.

It is beyond my comprehension that some ask for mine.

It certainly is! But there's nothing wrong with that. They are being polite with you. Plus, some people are genuinely interested in seeing images from faraway places, even if they were taken by you.

That may be so, but that poses a problem as well.

I knew it... Everything is a problem with you.

When I show my pictures on request, people get tired pretty quickly.

Well, that speaks volumes about the quality of your photos, doesn't it?

Not entirely. They are expecting an interesting story woven together by the images. That means I have to select a good sequence to entertain the viewers.

I see, you are complaining about the work that their request entails.

I am also asked to do some explaining about my black and white photographs.

Why black and white when color is possible, that one?

I often hear dissenting noises.

Through their noses?

Because I am weary of explaining that bit, I started taking pictures in color, too.

Just for people who want to see pictures in color?

When I think a certain angle may have popular appeal, yes. Other times I think colors are important in a certain scheme, and switch to color.

You know that you couldn't have done it, if it were not for a digital camera.

There is no denying that we owe enormously to digitization, and hence, to Nicola Tesla. But the zealousness for pictures at tourist spots, it's almost frightening, and that's all because of the enhanced accessibility of photo taking. What's the point of tourists' using a flash when it is forbidden so as not to damage the art work?

That would apply to animals in captivity and on exhibit, too.

It's not that they admire the art or the animal first, and then, decide to record it. They start taking pictures as soon as they see the object, take pictures, and leave.

Well, let's hear how different you are from them...

I have also noticed that increasingly more amateur photographers are ready to wait for a good shot, although it used to happen only, I think, among the professionals. If there is just one hovering around nervously near an ornate gate, that's perhaps tolerable. But what if there are several of them, all wishing that other tourists-turned-photographers would leave and getting more irritated by each second?

May I ask how you know that people in fact wait, ahem?

Going back to the quality of laymen photography, in the past, there were a handful of very good amateur photographers and most of us took bad photos. Now there are many more good amateur photographers, because if you find a good composition, the 'auto' function of the camera would do the rest for you. If not, you can twinkle quite a bit with Photoshop.

You are contradicting yourself, have you noticed? You implied earlier that vacation pictures are bad and boring, but now you are saying that many pictures by amateur photographers are of good quality.

I think vacation images are not interesting to others as much as they are to the vacationers themselves, unless they are taken with artistic consideration. While there are a lot of mediocre photographs on the Internet, I am often surprised how many of them are good.

What sets the pros apart from the rest of us, then?

In the old times, they were the ones who carried cameras everywhere. But nowadays, many more non-professionals do so. Opportunities to show work to the public were available mostly to pros. Digital technology and the Internet have changed all that.

Doesn't that mean that there are numerous wanna-be-professionals? And if many of their pictures are good, doesn't it further mean that it is reasonable for them to harbor such aspirations?

It is. But then, I am certain that most wanna-be's will never be paid for their work, because too many of them are around.

We need a baker for every neighborhood, though.

How many people can bake good croissants at home, compared to the number of people who can take nice shots of Taj Mahal? If amateurs are capable of taking near professional quality photographs, photographer as a profession is almost dead.

Now think hard, comrade, because if we leave it at that, we will get not-so-pleasant letters from the professional photographers' associations, even with your 'near' and 'almost.' You are saying that the art of photography is much more banal than that of bakery.

I thought we were talking about how absurd vacation photo taking has become, weren't we?

Let me ask you once again. What are the skills that professional photographers possess, but are hard to come by among amateurs?

Perhaps it is the skills required in shooting animate objects, things that sense and react to the fact that you are focusing on them. Taking a good photograph of the Eiffel Tower, for example, is not that demanding. Plus, any good angle of immovable objects has been already photographed. I would find a particularly good composition only to discover later that the postcards or travel-guide photographers thought the same. I had that experience several times during the past trip.

What about moving, inanimate objects?

For that, we have consecutive-shooting function on selected cameras. As a child, I thought those were available exclusively to professional journalists, but now it is just another feature on the cameras for the masses.

I'd think taking photos with limited light also requires skills.

I agree. With auto-flash function, we often get terrible results, but simply turning off the flash doesn't help either.

Dusk, dawn, as well as under rain, fog, hail, snow... What about certain texture or shine, for instance, chiffon and silver? I think we are saved from angry protests!

The professionals will become more specialized in terms of objects than they used to be. Doesn't it say that, too?