Philosophy of Philosopy of Photography Forums

<p>Nozar:</p>

<p>Thanks for your feedback. I lost touch with academic philosophy some time after reading and wrestling with Prof. Kripke's work on rigid designators. Unfortunately, I never read his work on Wittgenstein. My loss . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I suspect that the forum discussions would be far more valuable to all concerned if the comments posted would stay on task.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Welcome to the internet. Enjoy your stay.</p>

<p>Oddly this "Philosophy of Photography" forum attracts real students of Philosophy! Must illustrate the value of locating the servers at Princeton.<br>

Matt thinks that (personal) world view and morality are important for achievement. It strikes me that as much as personal characteristics inform a person's productivity they do not necessarily come out in the finished result. A person (or team sometimes) makes the work, but then later on the work remains and the maker is forgotten. There is no way I can find to understand the maker to my satisfaction once all that's left of him/her is the work. We know the names of a great many people who have left great art behind, but what actual personal details can you tell me about their lives as a result of examining only their works? Even if you are right, there is no way to put the parts together so you can claim to help anyone. Artists have personalities like everyone else...<br>

I'm not quite sure whether the fuzz or fog shown in a photograph would be the most helpful in identifying the maker as a Philosopher.</p>

<p>My point, Albert, is that it's not unreasonable to discuss a person's world view and value system when doing something as complex as analyzing their artistic works or placing them in an historical context while discussing something else.<br /><br />Art is a message from the artist. Just like any communication, it can be helpful to know if what's being communicated to you is part of a pattern, a piece of an agenda, a bit of sublime satire, or just the artist scratching his armpit.<br /><br /><em>We know the names of a great many people who have left great art behind, but what actual personal details can you tell me about their lives as a result of examining only their works?<br /></em><br />That may be the inverse of the real question. It's better to wonder what you can learn about the art by digging for scraps of what you can find about the artist. Certainly, if we don't have enough details to put a long-dead artist's work (or a culture's artistic output) into some sort of rich context, then... we simply don't. Historians do a fair amount of guessing about Da Vinci, for example. Some conclude that he was gay, but have to infer that from all sorts of indirect clues. Does it matter? No. His works are wonderous, regardless. But if a significant aspect of his life was led in stark conflict with the teachings and edicts of the most powerful social institutions of his times, doesn't that alter how you might approach understanding his art, and the motivations behind those communications? At least a bit?<br /><br />Regardless, I was reacting to the broader sentiment that point of view simply doesn't matter. I think it does (or at least should, more often than it does). For example, I'd rather buy art from someone I respect. I'd rather make and sell art <em>to</em> someone I respect, given a choice in the matter. And my respect is largely derived from an understanding of how another person sees and relates to the world. Their <em>point of view</em> makes a difference to me - and may inform a piece of art (or the way in which it's presented/sold) if its intention is to <em>change</em> someone's point of view. But I've also sold my work to people I've never met... and my only estimation of them is that the payment went through. In those situations, I leave it up to them to decide if the work itself - or whatever information about me, the subject, and my process - tells them what they need to know to be comfortable spending their hard-earned money on a photographic communication from me.</p>

<p>I'm going to take that blank post, Fred, as a sign that <em>my</em> post (just above) may not have been taken in the spirit in which it was intended - it's possible that two of the concepts I mentioned could be conflated by the reader into one point. Which they're not. It's what I get for commenting before I've had enough coffee!</p>

<p>Honestly not, Matt. I was going to comment on the irony that this thread has wound up pertaining as much if not more to the discussion of intrinsic/extrinsic as the thread (specifically on that topic) in which the ad hominem arguments were made.</p>

<p>I was tempted, and thought better about it (but could only edit it away and not delete it entirely), to bring it back to some specific ad hominem statements made in that thread that were not directed toward Sartre. It seemed to me the lives and times of photographers and philosophers were less the point of this thread than ad hominem statements. I don't mind ad hominem statements about philosophers. The issue for me is when such statements are used to characterize one's interlocutors. But, when I got specific, I realized I was dancing in territory I'd prefer to avoid.</p>

<p>I honestly hadn't carefully read your last post but had seen the direction of the thread away from the ad hominem stuff. To me, ad hominem is not whether Da Vinci was gay or not. "Gay" is not a similar descriptor to "narcissist." Gay defines either a culture or more pedantically the gender of who someone has sex with. "Narcissist" characterizes.</p>

<p>As for " . . . if a significant aspect of his life was led in stark conflict with the teachings and edicts of the most powerful social institutions of his times, doesn't that alter how you might approach understanding his art . . . ?" Maybe. Maybe not. But I tread lightly. Let's take today's world. A substantial number of people, gay and straight, live their lives in stark conflict with the teachings of the church. Yet, I fear we might overinterpret a gay person's artistic "motivations" compared to how we might interpret a straight person's art.</p>

<p>I've had my own photographs interpreted as to how I see gay love. How about how I see love?</p>

<p>Truth be told, there are times when I am very consciously motivated by being gay and when it will overtly come out (no pun intended) in my work. Just as we are all motivated to some degree by various aspects of our lives. There's a balancing act that has to take place between what we see as universal strokes and what we see as more particular.</p>

<p>Sometimes a man is just a man.</p>

<p>Thanks, Fred. In fact I specifically wanted to make sure that nobody (well, you!) was mistaking my Da Vinci reference as a lumping-in of his innate sexual orientation with an affected thing (like narcissism). No question that there are places in the world today where coming out (in the contemporary sense!) can still be a death sentence - and I would say that understanding how an artist relates to realities like that would surely inform an appreciation of that artist's work - especially to the extent that it deals with those issues, or is connected to them.<br /><br /><em>Sometimes a man is just a man<br /></em><br />Indeed. And the more you know about him, the more you know when those times are - or when <em>he</em> believes those times are. Not that it has the same import, but sometimes I'm just a guy with long hair, and sometimes I'm a guy saying something with long hair. It's always amusing to see people guess (almost always incorrectly) when those times are. As you've gathered from some of what I post here, image-wise, I often circulate among groups of very tradition-minded, old-school rural folk who sometimes have to work hard to overcome my visual trappings. I see it as a challenge, I suppose. I don't mean to equate those hair-related challenges with the <em>actually</em> difficult road that gay people walk - but (especially having spent some years in theater!) I do "get it," I assure you. :-)</p>

<p>I do sense that you get it. No, I never mistook your conflating "narcissism" with "gay" though a study could be made . . . :)</p>

<p>And I think you're right when you say "especially to the extent that it deals with those issues, or is connected to them," although the relevance could be there even when said gay artist is not overtly dealing with those issues. His experience of his gay life could inform his shooting of landscapes, though there might be no narrative connection. And the reverse is true that sometimes I may be working with as intimate a subject as two naked men in bed together and people will make certain assumptions about my motivations not knowing that what was motivating me more than the gay plight or sensibility was that my dog died the night before. The naked men were just the tools (again, no pun intended!) at hand (and again).</p>

<p>And, like your experience with long hair, there are sometimes when I want to and need to be quite vociferously gay.</p>

<p>I'm not a regular on the Philosophy of Photography forum because it reminds me of the quote: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." (Variously attributed to Frank Zappa, Elvis Costello, Steve Martin, Laurie Anderson and others.) I'd rather be re-reading <em>Gorky Park</em> or <em>Foucault's Pendulum</em> for the umpteenth time than debate the values of something that, to me, is better enjoyed for its unspoken visual appeal and abstract contextual messages - photography.</p>

<p>So take my opinion for what it's worth, the uninvited, possibly unwelcome opinions of an interloper who can't pronounce "shibboleth" and, worse, declines to learn.</p>

<p>I read the cited thread, "<a href="00SDm2">The intrinsic and extrinsic matters of photographs</a> ". I saw no evidence of ad hominem attacks. What I saw was strong evidence of an interpersonal dynamic that apparently has developed over time in previous debates. What I saw, to put it bluntly, was the "hot button effect." Over time a few folks have apparently developed various buttons, levers and switches (and in some cases have proclaimed them, in effect teaching others to operate them), and not surprisingly those controls have been manipulated. Chips are worn on shoulders, dares are issued to knock them off. Tripwires are set and invitations are issued to walk through the traps. Predictable results follow.</p>

<p>But I didn't see any personal attacks. I saw disagreements over the ground rules for debate, disputes over what terms meant, and debates over whether it was necessary or appropriate to adhere strictly to conventions of philosophical terms. And I saw signs of frustration over these disagreements. But nothing that would qualify as inappropriate personal attacks.</p>

<p>It appears that some would prefer to exclude from the conversation anyone who has, in previous debates, shown a tendency to stray from the preferred tenor by insisting on specific tenets. In other words, you'd rather just chatter with like minded souls and not be hampered by the inconvenience of defending your assertions if someone perceives a flaw in your argument (whether accurately so or not).</p>

<p>I suppose that type of dynamic might be considered inappropriate on some forums. I certainly don't welcome a certain type of debate on the b&w forums (no need to go into details there). I shamelessly admit that I lean toward a fanboy aesthetic on those forums.</p>

<p>But what's the purpose of a philosophy forum if you bristle at the usual conventions of standard debate?</p>

<p>From this interloper's perspective, the original assertion in this thread seems disingenuous, *if* it was specifically in reference to the "intrinsic/extrinsic" discussion referred to. It may be unpleasant to face challenges to defend ones assertions, but isn't that the fire that refines ore into gold?</p>

<p>Hmm, well I'm inclined to dismiss anyone who uses the words "ad hominen" as someone who wouldn't last twenty seconds in a decent pub debate... :)</p>

<p>And yeah, I read the thread in question, and noted more confused, myopic mumblings by the bookshelf brigade, tarted up with the usual arse-kissing "arguments", name-dropping nonsense, and blatantly self-selling "philosophical" shite.</p>

<p>Let's face it, several of the regular contributors clearly use this forum as a some kind of sorry-arsed substitute for a good, old-fashioned, real-life chat, and others are clearly trying to dress themselves (and their photography...) in cheap'n'nasty "intellectual"/"artistic" attire for reasons that an average twelve year-old could see through. But OK, we all know that there will always be certain folk that'll lap this stuff up... :) I guess they end up "challenging themselves as artists" on Williamsburg rooftops, or sucking on the cultural/commercial sewer pipe that is the New York publishing - sorry, "art" - scene... :)</p>

<p>"Fred Goldsmith" noted that photography is a form of communication. Correct. So is writing. Just a bunch of little visual symbols that are interpreted one way or another by the ever-moody - and easily-manipulated - unstable mass of manure that is the human mind... :) Such is life - and it's all good fun and all that - but don't expect me to take it particularly seriously... :)</p>

<p>Oh, and one person's "attack" is another person's observation... It's all in the interpretation folks... :)<a href="

/> </a><br>

<a href="

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/arts/design/16auction.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/arts/design/16auction.html</a></p>

 

<p>I am not up to reading the thread in detail, but the Philosophy forum is one of the most contentious and long-winded on P.net. Maybe that's why it's called the "<em>philosophy</em> " forum? I guess the Truman-era adage about "staying out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat" applies, and I confess that although I check this forum, I am very choosy about which battles I join on this forum.</p>

<p>It's a shame that "history of photography" topic got put in here instead of being given its own forum, but that's another problem. It's impossible to post on the history topic without being attacked for being off-topic for the forum even when an effort is made to label a history topic as such.</p>

<p >“In other words, you'd rather just chatter with like minded souls and not be hampered by the inconvenience of defending your assertions if someone perceives a flaw in your argument (whether accurately so or not)”</p>

<p >So, true...and of course set your own rules and agendas to be strictly followed.</p>

<p >Reality is the chaos of unlike minds and thoughts usually lead to greater understanding and perceptions. </p>

<p >“But what's the purpose of a philosophy forum if you bristle at the usual conventions of standard debate?” </p>

<p >Indeed,somewhat more interesting than someone’s private little ball park discussing topics in the manner of a private gentleman’s club.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >“Let's face it, several of the regular contributors clearly use this forum as a some kind of sorry-arsed substitute for a good, old-fashioned, real-life chat, and others are clearly trying to dress themselves (and their photography...) in cheap'n'nasty "intellectual"/"artistic" attire for reasons that an average twelve year-old could see through”</p>

<p >And burst into tears if others challenge their assumptions which they have dressed in words of fine clothing but in truth only the face of a 12 year old looks out.</p>

<p >Apart from those observations it is an alright place to mooch around in ;)) </p>

<p>Honestly, this is one of the only places where I can find actual critical thinking about photography. Just because things have a tendency to go off topic or get a little personal, doesn't mean its not relevant. Thinking laterally is quite important to this process and I welcome all opinions. I don't agree with some of the things said and I'm sure the sam goes for others, but it ALL must be taken with grain of salt. When I get frustrated by the bickering I just stop- unless I'm part of it. Not only do we have to listen to what others have to say ( and maybe learn a little), but also we must stand behind our statements and form ideas that hold up to criticism. This is a great place for that. </p>

<p>Thank You Paul, very well stated as is "Painter of Nothing". Mirrors are useful ornaments but often we don't see our own true faces, ... "the greater understanding and perceptions". These would be really interesting and refreshing rather than this "sorry-arsed" tossing of repetitious philosophical, sometimes, good shit. Sorry guys, I'm a 2 year newbie and realize I am on sacred ground.</p>

<p>Paul:</p>

<p>"Hmm, well I'm inclined to dismiss anyone who uses the words "ad hominen" as someone who wouldn't last twenty seconds in a decent pub debate... :)</p>

<p>And yeah, I read the thread in question, and noted more confused, myopic mumblings by the bookshelf brigade, tarted up with the usual arse-kissing "arguments", name-dropping nonsense, and blatantly self-selling "philosophical" shite."</p>

<p>Actually, I love a good pub debate. And, actually, I love just shooting the shit with people I know and people I don't.<br>

In case you haven't seen this, this thread was posted in the "Philosophy of Photography" forum. If I wanted to post a thread in "Pub Debates on Photography", I would have done so. Having posted in this forum, I made an ass out of you and me (I assumed) that anyone who posts comments in this forum wants to engage in a philosophical discussion. My bad . . .</p>

<p>As I said above, I really think I overreacted to one item, and otherwise put some points badly. Again, my bad . . . But, one thing that makes me feel damned good, I suceeded in really stirring the shit. And, if that ain't what philosophy is about, I don't know what is.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael, should we take a "Philosophy of Photography" forum any more seriously than a "Philosophy of Sandwiches" forum...? :) There's a "philosophical" question for ya... :)</p>

<p>Not that it really matters, but just for the record my personal "philosophy" is that the answers to "philosophical" questions are probably best found in one's own mind. Why...? Because what's significant, meaningful, thought-provoking or "philosophical" to one mind may well be trivial, banal, tedious or ludicrous to another. True story...</p>

<p>And hey, once human beings start thinking/chatting about such stuff, it usually doesn't take long before ego, hypocrisy, self-interest and conceit enter the equation... :) Well, we can all tick those boxes from time to time, eh...? :) This may be interesting or irritating or whatever, depending on the people involved, one's mood at the time, and any individual agendas, interpretations and misunderstandings and so on...</p>

<p>Anyway, if in doubt, my advice is to simply say "Pfft, bollocks to this...", then cheerfully walk away from the PC and do something more useful... :)</p>

<p>Paul:</p>

<p>Good advice . . .</p>

<p>Paul...that was hillarious.<br>

The great thing about this particular forum is this is the place we all get together to compare the size of our intellectual balls and whoever can't hang gets happily drummed out. But it's all in good fun!</p>

<p>Nicole:</p>

<p>I love your response - - very metaphorical! (By the way, am I drummed out yet?)</p>

<p>It actually seems like several folks have drummed themselves out. That's a shame. I hope you will continue to participate, Michael. What has to be drummed out is all the background noise.</p>

<p>Fred:</p>

<p>I'm not easily drummed out of anything. In fact, I'm really a stubborn s.o.b.</p>

<p>I will continue to keep an eye on discussions in this forum, and I certainly will participate when the time is right. However, having learned several valuable lessons while posting and reading contributions to this thread, I will not be stupid enough to assume anything about anyone.</p>

Michael, I do what I can ;)