Travel on my mind

I can by no account be called a traveler, for I have been to very few places in this world; although in my mind, I am a wanderer, a person who likes to explore and a person who knows geography - as it is shown in maps and recounted in the numerous travelogues and history books, I have read.

But more or less, since the time I last posted on this blog, my travel quotient has been higher - I have had the opportunity to go to few places, and all these have left me with richer knowledge, unforgettable experiences and above all a great sense of being!

I do not know when I will get around to writing a travelogue for all these journeys, but here are some photographs which tell the story as well -

1. Journey in the Konkan - Ratnagiri, Guhagad, Ganapatiphule, Chiplun
2. In Durian Land - Kuala Lumpur
3. Amongst the Rajputs - Jaipur
4. Rooftop of the World - Leh
5. Beach cocktail - Goa

I came across this wonderful article by Pico Iyer (amongst many books, the author of The Global Soul; which I think is a superb book every traveler should read) about Somerset Maugham, titled The Perfect Traveler.

Here is a superb description of what I agree should be the characteristics of a perfect traveler, from this article -

The perfect traveler must be a perfect contradiction. She should be open to almost everything that comes her way, but not too ready to be taken in. He should be worldly, shrewd, his feet firmly on the ground; but he must also have the capacity to give himself over to moments of real wonder. He or she must be curious, observant, spirited and kind—ready to spin a spell-binding tale of adventure and irony at the Explorers’ Club, and then throw it all over for a crazy romance in the South Seas.

The above characteristics and an attitude as described by Robert Frost in "The Road not taken"(in its philosophical but also in its literal sense) are my prescription for a traveler!

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference

Three articles that are worth reading.

Here are three articles I find very interesting.

1. 'Macroeconomics is Complete Bunkum' - by Bill Frezza: For a free market supporter and a strong follower of the Austrian School of Economics like me, this article rings as being very true. As the author mentions, it is only Hayek, Rothbard and other Austrian School economists like Menger who advocated the futility of the use macroeconomic statistics and its direct result - central planning. I say down with this macroeconomic, central planning nonsense! Viva Liberty!

MACRO-ECONOMIST: Voodoo Indeed!

(Hat Tip to Mr. Sadowski in the RCM comments)

2. 'Our Friends in Bombay' - by Christopher Hitchens: Staying true to my earlier call that people around the world need to be continually sensitized about the regular nature of terrorist attacks in India - the most by any standard, outside of a war zone - I find this article as a superb piece of straight talk by Mr. Hitchens.

3. 'Eye Spy' - by Priya Ganapati: Finally! Here is something I have always hoped would happen. A camera in the eye! As a photography enthusiast, one of my regular complaints is the fact that in the presence of a camera, people being photographed, stop being 'themselves' and pose. While I accept that it is a mark of a great photographer who can prevent his subject from doing this, I have hoped many times that the camera become invisible. Like an extension to ones' eye. Well, a camera in one's eye socket is the closest to this dream as can be!

Three Dimensions of Photography

A recent article by Christopher Hitchens for Vanity Fair, commemorating the culture magazine's 25th anniversary since its relaunch in 1983 narrates the story behind the famous photographs which have graced the magazine pages over the years. The author writes, during the course of the essay

"To have once or twice worked with photographers like James Nachtwey is to have appreciated the way in which - contrary to a once cherished belief of mine - the photographic image can possess a moral weight greater than words"

Photography to me, is an exalted art form. Never in the past four thousand years of human existence had an art form come close to the pinnacles which photography has reached in the past two centuries. Photographs as chronicles of our times are a medium par excellence. Great photographs over time have captured in mind blowing detail every aspect of our lives - from daily mundane activities to avant-garde expressions of human exisitence. But the beauty of photography also lies in the abstraction they so easily impress upon their viewers. Literature poses a level of abstraction which is presented in the tone and style of the writer's language. Painting delves into a level of abstraction which is presented through the palette of the painter, sculpture in the chisel of the sculptor. These art forms are essentially two dimensional. They are either seen from the perspective of the writer, the painter, the sculptor or through the perspective of the reader and viewer. The characters of literature are moulded by the style of the writer. The painter's brushstrokes paint the emotion of the subject and the sculptor's chisel shapes the subjects form. It is only photography which allows for three dimensions in perspective - that of the photographer, that of the viewer or audience and that of the subject which is being captured.

It is true that the influence of the photographer on the subject is critical and the photograph may be in essence what the photographer 'intends' it to be. But essentially, photographs are capsules of time and essence which necessarily include in them an additional variable - the implicit nature of the subject. Be it a 'capture' of an animate character in a portrait or a 'capture' of an inanimate object like a building, the very nature of the subject is never lost in the photograph. It remains despite all external perceptions, all superimpositions it is subject to - it remains in the texture, it remains in the film grain and it remains in the exposure.

From my collection - August 2008

The story of a photograph can be told through three distinct narrations. One is the story of the photographer, who through the camera in his hand tries to capture for posterity what his eyes see. He considers the camera to be an extension of his sight, hopefully invisible to others. He hopes the photograph to be an extension of his thought, made visible outside his mind. The second story is that of the viewer. He considers the visual stimuli of the photograph and tries to fathom the meaning of the frame of time. He considers the opinion of what has been captured by the extended sight of the photographer. He tries to understand the nature of the subject. The thrid story is that of the subject - who may never see the photograph or might not have the capability of sight itself, but nevertheless has a story to tell which is expressed in the way the subject is captured at that moment in time.

I was once asked to come up with a quotation to describe photography, to put down in words what a photograph stands for. After much deliberation and thought I came up with the following-

"Look into my eyes, you may know what I see; Look at my photograph, you may know what I think!"

I won much praise for this. But I still believe that, just like prose is two dimensional in the way it can be understood, explaining what a photograph is - in prose is two dimensional and therefore incomplete. Hence even this essay here is also incomplete.