Camera, camera, what do you do—and I damn your eye, damn your wink, damn your memory—for with all of that you still can’t think.
—W. Eugene Smith
In 1937, Albert Camus, then just 24 years old, published his fist book under his own name—L’Envers et l’Endroit (variously translated into English as The Wrong Side and the Right Side, or as Betwixt and Between). The book consisted of several essays, deeply raw, introspective, and personal, recounting his early experiences growing up in French-occupied Algeria, and some of his early travels. The book received relatively little attention. Twenty years later, in 1957, at age 44, following the publication of his more famous titles and more mature philosophy, he became the second-youngest recipient of a Nobel Prize in Literature.
The following year, owing to Camus’ newfound fame, L’Envers et l’Endroit was republished with a new preface in which he reflected on his life and work in the two decades that passed. In the new preface, he wrote:
Every artist keeps within himself a single source which nourishes during his lifetime what he is and what he says. When that spring runs dry, little by little one sees his work shrivel and crack. These are art’s wastelands, no longer watered by the invisible current. His hair grown thin and dry, covered with thatch, the artist is ripe for silence or the salons, which comes to the same thing. As for myself, I know that my source is in The Wrong Side and the Right Side, in the world of poverty and sunlight I lived in for so long, whose memory still saves me from two opposing dangers that threaten every artist, resentment and self-satisfaction.
He concluded the preface, writing, “At least I know this, with sure and certain knowledge: a man’s work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened. This is why, perhaps, after working and producing for twenty years, I still live with the idea that my work has not even begun.” Less than two years later, he died in a car crash at age 46.
When I think about my own “great and simple images”: those in whose presence my heart first opened—my most meaningful and lasting memories—my first realization is that, despite spanning many different places, people, and experiences; and despite the broad range of emotions they inspire—from euphoric joy to deep despair—all have one thing in common: they stand out within the strange and intricate tapestry that is my life story as the most intensely beautiful.
Upon further reflection, another—less obvious—commonality emerged: none of these images is today manifested in any tangible form: in an actual, visible picture. This is a rather jarring conclusion for one who has dedicated much of his life to the study and creation of beautiful images.
I have long ago lost interest in images that merely, as Hermann Hesse put it, “attempt nothing except to be beautiful.” In photography, I have come to refer to images aiming no higher than to impart aesthetic pleasure as “photographic tautologies”: images that are beautiful for no other reason than that they depict beautiful objects. In previous writings I have referred to such images as representational—literally re-presenting aesthetics that would have been obvious to anyone who might behold the same subject or scene, the artist’s role limited merely to the skill of rendering them faithfully and/or at some fortuitous time, but adding no further personal, deliberate meaning to them beyond their obvious appeal to the senses.
This may seem at odds with my belief—affirmed often and without fail in nearly six decades of life—that the pursuit of beauty in any form may be the closest thing I may cite as my reason for living. But in fact it is not at odds. The beauty that Hesse referred to—aesthetic beauty—the simplest, most obvious, surface-level sort of beauty: a beauty that may be a pleasant veneer of some images, experiences, and thoughts but does not penetrate deeper than that, is not the sort of beauty that Camus referred to as “great and simple.”
The greatness Camus referred to goes beyond surface-level aesthetics. Being a perception corresponding to a person’s most cherished memories, it must stand out from among all other memories in some significant way, whether manifested in depth, complexity, intensity, mystery, elation, perhaps even pain.
Simplicity as Camus intended likewise it is not meant to denote ease, superficiality, or lack of complexity. The simplicity he wrote of—the simplicity of a person’s most cherished memories—is of a different nature. It is the kind of simplicity contained in expressions such as “be your true self,” or “do what you love”—a simplicity that, for each person, refers to things of inexpressible depth and complexity that, no matter how skilled a person may be in any expressive medium, can never be wholly conveyed to another in words or in artistic creations.
We may share with another person some aspects of deceptively simple words representing thoughts, feelings, experiences, beliefs. We may indicate to another person that they are important and meaningful to us. But in the end, the other person’s empathy, sensibilities, and own values must fill the gaps to form the perception of understanding: theirs, not ours. And so, for each of us our great and simple images are by necessity ones we can never render in all their depth and complexity in any tangible form: an object, words, or sounds. But if we are skilled in some expressive medium, we may still impart to another person the experience of meaningfulness—if not the same greatness and simplicity as we feel it, at least their vividness and beauty, and the intensity of our feelings toward them.
There are many examples I know of in art and literature (also in mathematics and science, for those trained in these disciplines). One that comes to mind is Norman Maclean’s famous passage in A River Runs Through It: “But when I am alone in the half-light of the canyon, all existence seems to fade to a being of my soul and memories, and the sounds of the Big Blackfoot River and a four-count rhythm, and the hope that a fish will rise. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it.”
There is also the famous scene from the film Citizen Kane where the character of Jerry Thompson, puzzled by his inability to decipher the meaning of “Rosebud”—Kane’s most profound “great and simple image”— concludes, “I don’t think any word can explain a man’s life,” only to have the tragic error of his statement then rendered in one of the greatest, most heart wrenching cinematic finales of all time.
“Alas! The memories that are swallowed up in the abyss of the years!,” wrote Paul Cézanne shortly before his death to his friend and patron Ambroise Vollard. He then mused, “I’m all alone now and I would never be able to escape from the self-seeking of human kind anyway. Now it’s theft, conceit, infatuation, and now it’s rapine or seizure of one’s production. But Nature is very beautiful. They can’t take that away from me.”
Another example are these simple lines in Rainer Maria Rilke’s poem, “Remembering”:
You think of lands you journeyed through,
of paintings and a dress once worn
by a woman you never found again.
And suddenly you know: that was enough.
You rise and there appears before you
in all its longings and hesitations
the shape of what you lived.
I tried to think of examples of “great and simple images” in the medium of photography but came up very short. I believe I have managed to come close to expressing a small handful of my own great and simple images in some of my photographs (perhaps five at best). Even for those, I doubt if or to what degree they may result in an opening of hearts in anyone but me, having the memories of their making to bolster their effect. I considered in contrast examples such I quoted above, which seem to achieve their effect consistently and powerfully even in people who have never experienced the things or events they mention. The same is of course true for some music, which may impart profound emotions by form alone, often without reference to any material things.
I was moved to write this essay today because I have come across one such rarity: a photograph that struck me as a great and simple image and opened my heart. It was a photograph of a young boy and his dog alone in a beautiful field.
I have been a young boy with a dog in a field. It is without question one of, perhaps even the, greatest among my own great and simple images, looming vibrant from among so many memories of an otherwise confusing and fearful childhood, in a place and a time that no longer exist. So vivid it is for me that I can recall even the smells—of the field, of the air, of the dog’s fur. Also, the sounds and the breeze and the sunlight on my skin. For all I have experienced in life, I have never known a better thing to be than a boy with a dog in a field. If I could choose one experience from among my decades of life to spend all eternity in, that would be it.
But I can’t help wonder if this same image would have aroused the same feelings in people who do not share my memories, my love of dogs and fields, or the settings against which this experience stands out to me so boldly, in the same way that Maclean’s or Rilke’s words may arouse people who may not share a love of rivers or a yearning for unresolved memories of chance encounters.


Hi Guy,
I find the timing of your post to be remarkable in that just yesterday I visited the site of Camus’ grave, which is in a small village in Provence where I just recently arrived for an extended stay. And just hours ago I picked up a copy of his most famous work L’étranger in its original French (which I am determined to struggle through with my limited French). Much like Camus, I am not one to find any meaning in these types of coincidences, but I do find the timing fortuitous if nothing else. (I am from NJ, so the chances of me standing next to Camus’ grave as you were likely writing this seems highly improbable).
I was not familiar with the quote from Camus that you cited, so thank you for those insights. I think we all hope to make at least one work that qualifies as “Great and Simple”. But just as you typically advise us in your writings, we should find meaning in the experience of the journey itself, and that alone can serve as the reward. I thoroughly enjoyed the post, it seemed a slight departure from your usual themes and I found it to be a refreshing read. Sorry for the long-winded reply, I think I’ve exceeded the acceptable limit for such things.
Thank you very much, Robert! Yes, the timing is fortuitous and I’m glad it made the post more relatable to you. Please feel free to be long-winded. In this age of declining reading, it’s nice to know there are still people who enjoy consuming more than just soundbites. I hope you enjoy your stay in France.
Some great and simple thoughts here! Thank you. I know you have gone camping alone with your dog in some of the most beautiful places on Earth. Does that sparked the same emotions? Or is being a child essential?
Gary
That’s a good question, Gary. Yes, my explorations as an adult do spark the same emotions, but not just these emotions. As an adult I seem to bring a lot more “baggage” into these experience, despite my best attempts to exclude it. Alas, I also find that it is easier to tell in hindsight when these distracting “adult thoughts” have diminished my experiences than in real time. Too often, I catch myself ruminating on (real or imaginary) problems or other distractions that get in the way of pure joy and mindfulness that as a child were just not part of my psyche. I often wish I could switch myself at will into and out of the same states of mind I’ve experience as a child, but I think that too much complex “wiring” has built up since, for better or worse.
Can the journey alone be the reward?
Absolutely, for those who adopt an intrinsic motivation mindset. Philosophers like Albert Camus argued that life’s absurdity means we must create our own meaning, often through rebelling against futility—Sisyphus finds joy in pushing his boulder eternally because he owns the struggle. Similarly, in Buddhism, the path (the Eightfold Path) is enlightenment, not a separate prize.
Balance is essential—use goals as guides, but enjoy the process.
In essence, the journey’s meaning is self-generated; it’s a choice to see value in the unfolding. As Ralph Waldo Emerson put it, “It’s not the destination, it’s the journey.” If you lean into curiosity and acceptance, that alone can sustain you, turning life into an adventure worth every twist. What journey are you on right now that might deserve a fresh look?
Balance is essential—use goals as guides, but enjoy the process.
Well put, Eli. Worth mentioning that in Buddhism enlightenment is a state of being liberated from the cycle of life/death/rebirth (samsara), which in a sense is a prize: becoming aware of what things “really” are, beyond the suffering which is the essence of life (according to the four noble truths).
The Key Words: becoming aware of what things “really” are
A classic Zen image is the moon reflected in a pond. The reflection (phenomena) seems distinct but is inseparable from the moon (reality). Mental constructs create the illusion of separation, but seeing suchness reveals their unity.
Good points. Zen practitioners sometimes talk about the “direct path” to perceiving things for what they are. Alas, this is one aspect of Zen that has been criticized and largely debunked by later philosophies and scientific studies. (This is apart from the unfortunate conflation of Zen, which defies dogma, with the religion of Buddhism which, at least in practice, follows very strict dogmas).
The idea of “things in themselves” (i.e., reality, distinct from perception) in Western “continental” philosophy (the “analytic” kind usually avoids metaphysics in general) is rooted largely in what Immanuel Kant referred to as his “Copernican revolution,” which was the realization that all our perceptions are filtered through our senses and psyches, so in fact all we have is phenomena. The fact that we are what we are—physical living beings—allows us only access to phenomena, but not to noumena (“things in themselves”), which we can only make educated guesses about. You can then trace the evolution of these ideas through Schopenhauer (“the will” being the “thing in itself”), Hegel (everything is dialectical, nothing exists absolutely), Husserl and Heidegger (phenomenology), and so on.
To me, these ideas become far more interesting when taken out of the realm of pure metaphysics and gaining scientific validation. As Einstein and the quantum physicists have shown, there can be no such thing as an observer-independent reality. So, even if we could access some kind of view into what things “really” are, this view, at least in some ways, will not be universal for all observers.
Sorry for the ramble 🙂 You can tell it’s a subject I’m very interested in.
Einstein and the quantum physicists agree that it will not be universal for all observers.
Why “God”? It metaphorically “gives mass” (life, structure) to the universe, echoing religious ideas of creation. Some fringe interpretations, such as in pseudoscience, refer to fundamental particles as “God atoms” to merge science and spirituality, viewing atomic complexity as divine design—returning to Einstein’s amazement at the universe’s elegance (he once said, “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world”).