The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Albert Camus, “The Myth of Sisyphus”

while islam and christianity both do have some gross implications and quotes and rules within them, I think all sane believers disagree with those parts and believe them to be outdated. I think they understand that the reason the bible and the quran were revealed to the prophets/messengers were to counter the hedonism expressed by pagan or secular societies. so both books were responses to that, albeit written in different ways and at different times. the societies of the 21st century do not experience the same issues that people 2000 years or even 500 years ago did, so many things from religious books are now obsolete. but many things written are universal truths and wisdom people believe could only have been revealed to the Earth by a god. anyway... a bad person or an ignorant person can read the Bible or quran and use it to justify their badness or ignorance, and a good person can read them and use them to justify their goodness. and the concept of an afterlife is good for a society, mourning is a lot more difficult when you believe death is blackness and nonexistence and not a transition into a land where you're rewarded for all of the good you've done in the world. also... I think humans just naturally have the tendency to seek a greater purpose in their lives. isn't it better for people to seek spiritual knowledge or to be at peace with death than to seek endless fame or wealth or sexual pleasure during life? this is very incoherent sorry it's 6am and I haven't slept I can message you about it more sometime

I ve already counter point the point you re missing when you argue about the relationship between the believer and the message in first paragraph of your text in a previous ask. There is no such thing as a sane believer. Those who profess any sort of religion have to agree with all that it is written there otherwise they are just spiritual people whose spirituality finds adherence to certain parts of the holy text. Those principles who are in accordance with modern morality. A religious text is a text which can not suffer any type of hermeneutic interpretation. If you do so you re subverting the universality and intemporal sacredness truth contained there. The inherent purpose of it. Veiculating an intemporal truth. If you give yourself the privilege to interpret the text or contextualize it you re killing the God you claim to belive. Is this so hard to understand? I get it must be hard to face but you can't deny the logic of it. The sane believers, as you call them and I agree are decent people who understand that the holy scriptures contain in the most part messages against the individual subject and humankind. But they want to preserve this leap of reassurence brought by the spirituality of their religion. And that's all. Those are the ones who can form part of a multicultural society with which I TOTALLY AGREE!! The holy texts must be seen as what they are. Outdated, historical projects of society uniformism and MARVELOUS PIECES OF LITERATURE! People are afraid of thinking critically about things and can't see beyond the lens of their inner comfort. And I get it. You must realize that I'm concerned! I don't want society to be more divise that already is, although I can't think of an alternative or a solution to this clash of ideals. As a leftist all I ever wanted was the possibility of finding a way to enables us, above all our divergences to live peacefully with each other and enrich ourselves with one another's.

I'm sorry but you re not being historically accurate when you trace back the reason to the apparence of those monolithic religions to put a grip on hedonist pagan societies. Like what? You should well know that pagan societies deeply involved themselves with questions of ethics and morality. I think I don't need to remind you of such names as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca and so many others that brought those questions forward and actively tried to living in accordance to the conclusions they arrived. The hedonism is a philosophy sect that arises in Greece as so is stoicism and for as I know stoicism certainly does not defend the hedonism you mentioned. And talking about secular societies back then is just pure ignorance or distraction of yourself as you said you re writing this at 6 am. Like really? They were pagans as you correctly pointed out and this fact profoundly influenced their style of living.

You must be joking! Which univeraal truth is revealed in a monotheisticc scripture? Are you kidding me? Wtv...

Yes it is true that the idea of an afterlife is very appealing to the individual and a society. Human nature doesn't deal well with uncertainty and the unknown. That's actually a great read those religions do of the psychological individual. Taking profit and feeding this fear in many forms imprisione the mind of the believer and make him as malleable as he can be to their project of totalitarian morality. Now I ask you what if the "good" you have to do in the world clearly violate the principles of a secular society. Afterall your task as a believer is to expand by any means the ALMIGGHTY TRUTH of the proclaimer. You know this is true! All sorts of liberties and rights are jeopardize in the name of this preaumably afterlife. An afterlife which is chosen by default! Where you ll encounter those so merit deserved virgins (an obviously complementary view with the struggle women have to emancipated themselves) and so on... If you read the Quran you know all about this. And I m taking Muslim faith as I could take Christian one. It's the same chained doctrine.

And once again I agree with you. Humans do have a natural tendency to find a greater purpose to their lives. The existentialists took great account of that and the unfortonate consequences that came with the anguish of not finding one. It's our condition whether you like it or not. The purpose is something you invente to yourself, either you create it, discover or reveal to within you when questioning your passions, desires and ambitions. Maybe you won't be able to find it outside of the values we lost when we realize the plausible possibility of an absence of God. Maybe you turn into a nihilist idk. The thing is God is dead (don't misinterpret) and you re responsible for your destiny. Whether you go down the road of pleasure and wealth or spiritual peace, asceticism and so on is not of your concern. You lack the legitimacy to judge those ways of life UNLESS! UNLESS! those styles of life go against the articles present in the ultimate source of equality, justice, freedom and dignity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is the REAL SOURCE BY WHICH ALL HUMAN BEINGS MUST ACT!

Driely S Interviewed by Dannah Gottlieb

RDG: Hi D! Long time no see. Can’t wait to see what you’ve been cooking up on the West Coast. Thanks so much for being open to answering some questions about your process, looking forward to hear what you have to say! Lets get started...What got you into using historical processes and alternative photographic techniques originally?

DS: I have always been attracted to the physicality of film and being in the Darkroom. How much more hands-on it feels, and how much more involved you become in the birth of an image. Not just conceptualizing and shooting, but the full alchemy of fleshing it out in a tangible way. I also don't like calling it ALTERNATIVE PHOTOGRAPHY. Truthfully, these are the first Photographic processes to ever exist. I would argue that Digital is what is Alternative Photography since it came much after. Historical is a term I don't mind as much.

DG: What significance do you find in using these historical processes to create images in our digital, instant gratification fueled culture?

DS: I don't think much in these terms. I do it because it brings me satisfaction. It is something I enjoy and I no longer feel the need to have to justify my interests beyond the fact I like shooting what gives me joy. I could give two fucks for Instagram culture. There is no reason other than my curiosity and need to experiment. When I first started implementing these processes into my commercial work, editors would always inquire why use such "archaic methods", and it always frustrated me because I didn't feel like I needed to justify my interests in that manner. I still don't think I do. If I get bored of shooting any particular process, I can just stop and move on to the next thing. Is just what I am attracted to, but I don't question the reasons why I like the things I like. I just follow a flow of attraction and I try and make something out of it. Not everything has to mean something to anyone other than yourself.

DG: Louise Bourgeois often referred to a "psychology of the medium" that influenced her to use certain materials in her sculptures. Do you think about the psychology of the medium? If so, what do you find interesting about the psychology of photographic chemistry in regards to your subject matter? DS: I have nothing against digital. I care only for my internal discovery process and I believe all mediums to be valid to the development of your ideas. Whatever gets your point across. As much as I am an existentialist philosophical abstract cunt that loves wax poetic-ing about bullshit like the psychology of everything, I also believe sometimes you just have to follow the magic things and see where it leads you, without questioning too much. Overthinking rarely makes it for good art. I just let my instincts guide me and I try not to overanalyze.   DG: What is your favorite process and why? What psychological, historical, or tactile significance does that process have for you? 

DS: I don't have one. I often joke that the best camera is the one I have at my hands when I need to shoot whatever I feel like shooting. To me all that matters is to get the ideas out of my head when I see them. If at the time, all I have is a cellphone, I don't see any less artistic merit on that than if I shot with an 8X10 camera. I think the debate on analog x digital can sound rather foolish and elitist at times. Analog folks can be such snobbish pricks. Is not the medium itself that matters, is the final image. I see plenty of Wet Plate Collodion photographers these days doing the most mundane use of the process, as if the technique alone is to earn them artistic merit, while the final photograph is always flat, bland and devoid of soul. If that portrait you just did on Tintype had been shot on a digital camera, would you still find that final image interesting or does it transform into just another banal and boring headshot? A good photo is a good photo, regardless of medium or technique. I think discussions on medium need to always remain focused on the artistic merits of an image, not just on technique. DG: Do you feel differently about images you have physically created with your hands versus those that your hands never touch? (i.e. digital images, or even images that have been scanned and printed by someone else)

DS: I do feel that I have a different ownership of an image that I fully handle myself from concept to realization. They are more personal in many ways. But I also have someone that prints my work for me in the Darkroom when I am too busy to do it myself, and I do have an assistant that operates the darkbox on certain Collodion assignments, and I have learned to appreciate what their involvement brings to the table since they are physically making decisions that have a significant impact on the final creative output. So I also enjoy the surprises that comes with collaboration. But since the nature of my work is so idea/concept oriented, even when they are handling aspects of the technical processes, they are always using my ideas as a guide. DG: Do you consider yourself someone who has ever struggled with the quest for perfection? If so, do you find solace in the imperfect, unpredictable nature of photographic chemistry? DS: I am a mix. I think most artists are. I maybe share 5% of what I currently shoot and I would like to get to the point where it becomes 1%. I think editing makes practice perfect and you need to go thru an overwhelming volume of shooting to figure out what works for you. That thing people say about shooting 100 photos and maybe ending with 1 good image is true. Is only when you develop a critical eye towards your work that you evolve. You need to purge regularly. But I wouldn't say I am in search of perfection either. I absolutely love unexpected fuck ups. The ones you can't predict but that add an entire new dimension to the work. There is nothing quite like when you fuck up just enough to make things interesting. I don't like anything too clean, I welcome the dust, I like fingerprints, I love imperfect things that make an image unique and entirely its own, and impossible to replicate. Life is not perfect, why should art be? Things that most people would consider to be flaws, I view as what makes something singular. Perfection is boring and an illusion. Fuck perfection. 

DG:  When creating, say, a palladium print, you end up with an image that is very difficult to reproduce in the exact same way. What does the value of a 1 of 1 piece add to your work? 

DS: I love art that can only be fully felt in the presence of the art itself. I see a lot of merit in something that forces me to have an in-person experience. Sure it limits the reach of the work, but it also enhances its meaning. I rather 1 person to have a deep meaningful experience with the work, than 1000 extra views with meaningless interactions. And is also OK if that 1 person turns out to be just you. You don't have to share everything you create, ideally you are creating for yourself. If others relate, great. DG: Is there anything else you'd like to add about the processes, or how the processes coincide with your subject matter? DS: I often ask if there is anything else the process would like to add to me. I just wholeheartedly and blindly trust the process to add to my subject matter in ways that remain a mystery to me until the image finally comes out. The fun is in never fully knowing what you will get and how that will add to your ideas. There is magic in alchemy.

You can check out some of Driely’s work here: http://drielys.com/

Alexander Wang shot on Ruby Glass Ambrotypes: http://drielys.com/alexander-wang-highsnobiety