Why won't you remove this.

"The "expensive user" model isn't mine. If you run any type of business or organization, you'll be familiar with the concept."

 

As a business owner, I've termed these customers "time bandits." But! Over the years, I've discovered that the majority of the problems encountered were due to my business management failings as opposed to the customer being the culprit. I still have time bandits but I'm much better able to handle these inconsistencies in a profitable manner because I've learned from my past short comings.

 

The point, it's easy to look at the noisy customer as if they're the problem and for management to disregard the real reason for the problem, management unresponsiveness; ego.

 

You have a difficult situation Bob. For that I'll give you credit. But there are underlying inward circumstances that are the real problem which needs to be looked at realistically.

 

Myself? I'm out of posting on the "Philosophy of Photography" forum as the reality of the issue is, people don't like a differing view point, one that disagrees with their and the moderator's point of view; "birds of a feather" and all that rot as the "odd man's out."

 

In the beginning I was scolded for being an ignorant, uneducated, troll baiting bigot with an agenda. The veracity of my claims we're attacked because of spelling and grammar errors. My validity as a person is attacked cause I don't hold some sort of a degree in art history. The childish level of these attacks were astounding. These beginning attacks were not squelched as they should have been by forum policy. Instead I was scolded by the moderator to learn HTML or I would be kicked off the forum. So I set about to correct all these "deficiencies" and a year later I now have a fair HTML understanding in compliance with the unorthodox demand of learning HTML, which has not been made of any other poster on the "Philosophy of Photography" forum by the way. I have also acquired, at great expense, a library of information in regard to photographic art history which I'm happy to and do quote from extensively to support any claims I might make. This library is fairly comprehensive as it begins back at the Linked-Ring/Photo-Secession movement with Stieglitz and goes right up through contemporary Postmodern photographic think with Serrano's newest release, "America, And Other Work." And yes I've read about how extensive Jeff's library is but he won't post links or quote information in support of any countering claims to that which I post. I've complained about this biased forum moderation on a couple of occasions and been told flat out; if I don't like the moderation, take a hike. So management is supportive of this biased forum moderation.

 

Now? I dutifully post author's name, title, chapter, verse and page number in support of my admittedly conservative artistic contentions. I also freely post, via HTML code, hot links to additional web based information and yet I'm still accused of only trying to find information which supports my ignorant, troll baiting, bigoted claims in most hateful terms and yet the moderator supports this sort of contention without required forum policy intervention; no personal attacks allowed. All the while, during these attacks, nobody is posting countering information to the links which I freely post for others to use, just attacks of what a liar I am, what a troll I am, what a pig I am, which the moderator (Jeff) is sure to not remove. All personal attacks should be removed by Jeff, per forum policy. Management moderation is the problem as they allow these personal attacks to continue, become cacophonous in nature because of this lack of required intervention and then blames me personally for this problem of management creation. All one has to do is look to the top of this thread and make note of how fast two of the "Philosophy of Photography" forum members (Ellis and Mike) were to come here, lay their attacks and how these personal attacks have been allowed to stand and not be removed as per forum policy of personal attacks not being allowed. To me, this is the real problem, letting other have unfettered attacking privileges and then making me out to be the scapegoat by holding me to a personal standard which neither the other forum members nor the moderator is held to.

 

I can't count the number of threads that have been removed when the moderator (Jeff) accused me of making unsubstantiated claims, attacking me in the process and then when I posted links which supported my claims, the threads suddenly disappear. My wife has commented many, many times that the threads disappear because that's the only way he can make himself right or that's the only way he can feel good about himself after I post information invalidating his claims.

 

The point of my above is that bad choices have been made in the case of your moderators, management needs to look into this matter. All one has to do is look at the amount of art history information which I posted in the last thread I started to tell that I'm sincere in my love of photographic art history and photographic philosophy or the search for wisdom and make note of the number of attacks that were allowed to stand in violation of forum policy to realize where the problem really lies. I've many, many times politely requested that if the best you can do is attack, please leave the thread alone and the moderator, (Jeff) is not there a responsible moderator should be.

 

As always, it's your forum Bob. I doubt you'd be interested in my fair and even handed forum moderation offering because all attacking comments would be removed from a thread. Either the comments are even handed in nature, showing normal reasonably expected mature human nature or the comments would get removed. If someone wants to call another a liar, cool but it needs to be qualified with the quote that's being construed as a lie and allowing for reasonable rebuttal to any misunderstanding. One can't make unsubstantiated attacks. Substantiated attacks are valid. When folks realize their point will only go through, if the comments are civil or supported discourse is a requirement, then and only then will the tone of the forum remain mature and not be in needing of your time stealing intervention.

 

I'm happy to not post in the "Philosophy of Photography" forum as no good will come of it considering the current political environment which has been allowed to develop. I've enjoyed my tenure and will look forward to many years to come although greatly abated. My only misgiving is that due to my love of photography and the philosophical aspect of photography, there's no other place on the web I can find in which to discuss photographic history and gain a better understanding of contemporary photographic art through open discussing with others as unfortunately, being a small business owner, going back to university for course work isn't an option until retirement; five more years:)

 

Sincerely,

Thomas Gardner

Actually Thomas you should be commended for your autodidactic efforts. I've scanned some of the P of P threads from timt to time, abd was surprised at the amount of rancor aimed at you.

Hey try not logging on for awhile. It solves all problems.

The problem is that some users seem to "bait" other users, whether or not they do it deliberately I don't know. If someone attracts countless attacks from other users, you have to ask why. Most users don't attract such attacks.

 

Now it's sometimes difficult to assign "blame" here. Certainly those making attacks are at fault. Ad-hominem attacks are not allowed here. You can disagree with someones ideas and opinions, but you can't attack the person. At least that's supposed to be the case. When I see such attacks I delete them.

 

But if one person is constantly being attacked, you really do have to ask why. People generally don't go out of their way to do this. There must be some reason. Some users deliberately go out of their way to foster such attacks, or at least they seem to. Some may just have a way of expressing themselves that rubs everyone else the wrong way.

 

While healthy discussion and disagreement is generally good for a forum, it can turn pathological. The problem is what to do then. It would be nice if those involved in disputes could perhaps find a less antagonistic way of expressing their ideas, but the anonymity of the internet doesn't foster this. Rather the opposite in fact. People who would be polite in public are often far less polite online. It seems to be the nature of the beast.

 

I'm not citing any particular users here. Just making general comments about the difficulty of moderation and balancing what is objectively "fair" with what is best for the website. Supressing ideas (about photography, not religion or politics) certainly isn't something I like to see, but neither is constant bickering in a forum.

 

Life isn't always easy.

Thank you for your supportive comment.

 

I think the rancor is that in my intense focused studies I'm finding out much of what is held or reported as fact is fiction or an exaggeration as there's really not that much change which has occurred over the years and the change that has taken place is fairly shallow emotionally as some want/need to see it as deep.

 

An example I was reading about just moments ago is in regard to the lack of Atget's influence as opposed to the accepted notion of Atget being a major influence over early photography. Eugene Atget is held up as a very influential photographer but I'm reading about how he died in almost total obscurity, barely known to others and his images were discovered and rescued by Berenice Abbott, who apprenticed under Man Ray for years. Berenice returned to New York, from Paris, in 1929, two years after Atget died in 1927. The influence, if there was any by Atget (there's discussion of his surrealist influence), was that of his cataloguing of the time worn Paris which was in the process of disappearing which "could" have encouraged Berenice to do the same by photographing the ceaseless replacing of the new in New York City. Berenice Abbott came out with the results of this photographic effort in 1939 with "Changing New York."

 

The problem with this sort of information is that it flies in the face of popular opinion/myth over on the PofP forum and this sort of polemic commentary will set off a fire storm of attack related protests about what an ignorant, pot stirring, failure of a photographer who's nothing but an attention seeking troll. Few will post anything of substance countering or adding to what I might have to say as most of the same said folks would just start posting their childish attacks.

 

My recent studies have come up with a lot as to the why of what's happening today in contemporary photographic art. In reality, it isn't much different in style over what was happening in the 20s and 30s other then the subject matter of Serrano is a bit more freakish then that of Lisette Model or it might be a bit more formal then Weegee's street scenes or more shocking then Arbus's images, but all of them, in reality are just cataloguing freaks and freakish behavior. And it seemed historically, the images just got freakier so as to maintain artistic notoriety.

 

I've found what I think is the image which started the change towards Postmodern photography back in 1915; Steichen's "Milk Bottles, Spring New York, 1915." I've found what I think are the major influences which led to Postmodern photographic art, Lisette Model, Arbus and Szarkowski and I've found what I think is the dead end to the Postmodern photographic art movement in Serrano. This for me is all good. Some might not like what I have to write about but this dislike shouldn't rise to the level of intensity that it does. Normally, ya tell the guy he's freaked out in his pronouncements and you move on so I don't see the need for the rancor either.

 

Anywho, this autodidatic is going to continue reading and learning but sadly won't be able to share benefit of this research with others as what I'm reading is some way cool stuff:)

Bob, I think you have fairly described the dynamics at work in the forums, but the tricky part as a moderator is to be even handed about keeping or removing offensive posts without considering whether or not you agree with the sentiments behind them. Some posters are untouchable; some, it seems, are on a very short leash.

"Normally, ya tell the guy he's freaked out in his pronouncements ..."

 

Or better, ignore 'em completely and let them shiver in the cold and dark while you get on with your life.

 

Thomas, you and I will never see eye-to-eye on the importance of who-sleeps-with/marries and in what configurations, nor about the threat to the cultural universe posed by Serrano, nor about a myriad of other things, but I'm as appalled by the reflexive cant-chanting that impersonates intellectual discourse around here as you are.

<em>the tricky part as a moderator is to be even handed about keeping or removing offensive posts without considering whether or not you agree with the sentiments behind them</em>

<p>

That's quite true, but unless and until we have robotic moderation, I don't see any way around it. It's a fact of life that if someone pisses me off by sending me abusive email or posting abusive comments directed at me personally, their leash becomes very short. I try to be even handed, but like everyone else, sometimes I fall short of that goal.

<p>

Frankly, photo.net isn't a great venue for academic and intellectual discourse most of the time. It's fine for casual (or even serious) exchanges about equipment and technique, but there are some contributors who wouldn't recognize statements about the philosophical underpinnings of photography if they bit them on the leg and who's reply to such statements runs along the lines of "I don't understand what you are saying so you're wrong and you suck".

<p>

Such is life.

Will wrote:

 

"Or better, ignore 'em completely and let them shiver in the cold and dark while you get on with your life."

 

Sounds reasonable to me as they do make it hard.

 

"Thomas, you and I will never see eye-to-eye on the importance of..."

 

Which, as most will agree, makes for a more interesting intellectual intercourse, based upon the facts of course. Now as to Serrano's... :)

 

Bob wrote:

 

"Frankly, photo.net isn't a great venue for academic and intellectual discourse most of the time."

 

Believe it or not, the PofP forum is the only place I've found online where there's "any" intellectual discourse in regard to photographic history and photographic philosophy. Sadly, everything else seems to be as you pointed out about equipment and pretty pictures.

 

The studies engaged in have, are and will continue to prove fruitful and this is what one is supposed to look at in the grand scheme of what's important as to the particular purpose of any time and moment. That purpose, in this case, was to find out more about what one wasn't as the choices are so broad and many as to cloud the hunt for what one is. The executive version of findings; "A grateful religious surrealist," which has no chance of fitting in:)

Well, I did add the qualifier "most of the time". The reason I created the PoP forum was to try to provide somewhere that you could get away from equipment and technique questions. It actually works quite well sometimes, probably as well as can be expected in an open public internet forum.

Thomas,

I think your comment about Atget's influence on Berenice Abbot is generally accepted, not least because Abbott was very upfront about it. Ditto Walker Evans. Ditto Lee Friedlander (who was reputed to be prone to ask himself 'What would Atget do?' before clicking the shutter). Indirectly, Atget is therefore an important influence on modern photographers like Gursky and Struth. So in this case, I don't think there's much controversy in yr remarks, although there is a lot of debate and angst among critics as to how such an important 'artist' could have been ignored in his own lifetime, and what his work and legacy 'really' mean. Opinions differ, and a lot of the early enthusiasm was arguably the result of selective misinterpretation. Atget is intermittently marvellous, and you might like him. He certainly did not suffer from any of the 'disconnect' that bothers you. He clearly deeply loved his subject. For what it's worth, as both a historian and a photographer, I have found him an inspiration.

"I don't think there's much controversy in yr remarks, although there is a lot of debate and angst among critics as to how such an important 'artist' could have been ignored in his own lifetime, and what his work and legacy 'really' mean."

 

I think people are too quick or willing to make a claims of "great" influence. A postal worker's pleasant attitude can be considered having great influence on a young developing personality as can a high school history teacher or sporting coach. One can't go through life without being influenced but when you have such a tight knit yet diverse group of noted photographers of the time such as Man Ray, Abbott, Strand, Weston, Steichen and Stieglitz; to have one die in their midst, in almost total unnoted obscurity, one rightfully should question what I perceive to be an overly zealous claim of notoriety and the level this person's influence, in real terms, rises to.

 

You're correct, in that the comment about Atget, in of itself is a comment based upon reading other's observations and at no time do I question his love or sincerity of both photography or Paris, his chosen subject matter. But if I were to have cut and pasted the original comments of him not being very influential over on the PofP forum first, before here, the peels of aggressive attacks and name calling for making this sort of bold comment would be absolutely, through the looking glass, incredible. The moderator would allow these attacks to continue unabated and there would be almost zero mature intellectual expansion or debate on the comment itself as there are a few who do try to carry on mature intelligent discourse. This attacking really has been turned into a sanctioned blood sport by the moderator through the allowing of these insultive attacks to continue in an unfettered manner. The blame falls squarely at the feet of the inaction's of the moderator.

 

For my simple, unsolicited comment I would be called a troll, my character and grammar would be insulted and without substantiation the veracity of my comments would be called into question. I would be accused of having a hidden agenda, personal insults unrelated to photography as to my psychological state of mind would be made and complaints would be directed to the administration as to what a disruptive force to the smooth flow of the forum society I am and how I should have my posting privileges immediately suspended. The moderator would admonish me for my disruptive behavior, the negativity would be allowed to continue unabated for another day or three by the moderator and the inappropriate insults would not be removed as per forum policy; the moderator at times would even go so far as to add a few of his own uncalled for insults all the while admonishing me for defending myself against these unwarranted written attacks. All protests forwarded via the complaint form were ignored, including inappropriate comments made by the moderator which were cut, pasted and forwarded to administration for review and if there was a response, it was in admonishment for my complaints as being a disruptive force and should consider alternative venues as a solution. So much for the enforcement of forum rules. Which brought my complaint to this public forum.

 

There's a hard core group which comes out each and every time I start a thread, who attack me personally as two of them even took the time out of their busy schedule to come over here and unnecessarily lay their insult bombs on this thread. I was trying to give, via my Atget comments an example of the type of "controversial" comments which I'd post bringing about such rancorous outcry. As an admittedly conservative personality, I have a differing view or critique, as to values, morality, aesthetics and how I perceive the changes which have taken place in the photographic art world over the last hundred plus years and whether or not this has been for the artistic betterment of photography. I question status quo as should everybody else who's interested in the photographic arts.

 

Stieglitz was well known for his passionate rancorous demanding personality in regard to questioning, defending and breaking away from traditional conventions; Royal Photographic Society to Linked Ring to Photo-Secession to Camera Work and 291. Weston burned his earlier negatives in order to distance himself from his "Impressionistic" roots as he wanted to be known for his later work and went on with Ansel Adams to form f/64. Walker Evans had conflict over the political photographic style requirement of Roy Stryker the administrator of the FSA depression era project. Imogen Cunningham found Stieglitz and Co. to be elitists. The point, conflict and critique is part and parcel of photographic history. A conservatives critique today is both valid and very needed just as Marx and Capitalism need each other but a conservative critique is very unwanted and mostly I'm being attacked for these differing or conflicting values and my perceptions, based upon my historical reading of the contemporary photographic art world, both past and present.

 

The moderator has allowed the forum to become a one sided debate as to critique of artistic merit and if you're on the side of noted curators, educators and forum wonks, you're cool but if you're outside their think, then there's something wrong with you even though one takes the time to read, post author's names, titles, quotes, page numbers, links and dates to many writers and critics who are supportive of their point of view. First I'm attacked for being out of sync with the rest of the art world and then the attacks morph into; I'm just trying to ferret out those with supportive points of view which mirror mine. "Gee." "Do ya think?" :)

 

Either which way as to the outcome, I do appreciate the bandwidth which I've been allowed to get this festering point of view (complaint) out as I don't expect any change to take place in the PofP forum until there's a major change in moderator's attitude.

 

As always, wishing all well with their photographic efforts.

Bob wrote:

 

"Frankly, photo.net isn't a great venue for academic and intellectual discourse most of the time."

 

And no cooking in the kitchen!!!

 

Thomas has a lot to say and, remembering back to some of his posts on Roger Kimball's The Rape of the Masters, it's pretty clear that he's unwelcome for being a conservative.

 

The putatively "open minded" arts types who post vindictive comments toward him should be ashamed.

James, thank you for your supportive thoughts.

 

This from Susan Sontag: "On Photography";

 

"And making equivalents between freaks, mad people, suburban couples, and nudists is a very powerful judgment, one in complicity with a recognizable political mood shared by many educated, left liberal Americans. The subjects of Arbus's photographs are all members of the same family, inhabitants of a single village. Only, as it happens, the idiot village is America. Instead of showing identity between things which are different (Whitman's democratic vista), everybody is shown to look the same." pg47

 

And by supporting this photographic philosophy of no democratization, artistic criticism is mitigated because we all become freaks in this process and any form of social or artistic judgment (critique) is there after eliminated as being invalid for the purpose of preventing personal guilt. Everybody is forced to become willing or otherwise a "freethinker." If you're not a "freethinker" you then you must have issues you need to deal with.

 

What Susan has to say about the politics of these artistic issues in the second chapter of her book of essays is quite eye opening because these words were written back in 1977. Twenty-seven years have since transpired in which to prove her prophetic words accurate as to the social impact of this apparent urgent need to force the desensitization of the general viewer of photographic art to shocking images as they're no longer are seen as shocking by most. And indeed, in the case of a museum venue, the promoters of these images have sucessfull made them banal.

Exactly two people have complained in the last six months about moderation on PoP. One complains that I delete too many of Gardner's posts. The other complains that I don't delete enough of Gardner's posts. I think that makes it about even.

 

Nothing has been deleted for political reasons, however, despite the protestations here. The deletions were reviewed the last time this was made a public issue and there were no problems.

 

I do have a lot of complaints about rat-holing, prosletyzing, and unwillingness to back up statements by one forum participant.

And how many links, quotes, names of authors and page numbers are required and how come decent doesn't come with the same requirement?

Jeff. At least have the strength of character to write to me in the first person.

Jeffrey wrote: "Exactly two people have complained in the last six months about moderation on PoP. One complains that I delete too many of Gardner's posts. The other complains that I don't delete enough of Gardner's posts. I think that makes it about even."

 

Well now, there's the answer to a question nobody asked.

But the comment isn't true. Many more than two of my threads have been deleated.<p>

 

Here's the link to the last one recently deleated.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ADOf">Not a question: From the Getty Museum: "Railroad Vision</a><p>

Correction on my last; I read your comment to say that only two of my threads had been removed as opposed to there being two opposing complaints.

"Susan," as TG oddly refers to her, may no longer believe what she wrote in 1997. Evidenced by the fact that she heavily hung out with Annie Liebowitz in her later years and wrote an introduction to one of her books.

1997 s/b 1977

"...oddly..."

Address you in the 1st-person? Funny.

""Susan," as TG oddly refers to her, may no longer believe what she wrote in 1997. Evidenced by the fact that she heavily hung out with Annie Liebowitz in her later years and wrote an introduction to one of her books."

 

Sorry. I'll submit, based upon what Libovitz had to say on the matter, it was the other way around:)<p>

 

"Later the famous celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz, a close friend of Sontag, told that Sontag's views deeply influenced her life."<p>

 

I also submit, that based upon Susan's biography, her mind set was very mature by the time she wrote "On Photography," and was very aware of what she wrote considering her Berkeley, University of Chicago, Harvard, University of Paris, City College of New York/Sarah Lawrence, Columbia University and Rutgers experience. Shall we include the intellectual New York bohemian scene.<p>

 

"On the bohemian New York scene of the early sixties, Sontag swiftly acquired a reputation as the radical-liberal American woman, who had not only deep knowledge ancient and modern European culture, but could also reinterpret it from the American point of view."<p>

 

I submit that she was well versed in the term "liberal" and the liberal mind set long before she used it in the essay I quoted.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/sontag.htm">Susan Sontag's biography</a><p>

 

An absolutely amazing mind has she but it's "oddly" that they refer to her as Sontag.<p>