Does photography affect biography?

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570"><em>Luis G</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 07, 2009; 05:37 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Rebecca, I think that in the snapshot, there is a very specific aesthetic, and the content is also very specific. The generic artsy shot routinely fails spectacularly (outside of being "purty" or technically apt, both yawners) precisely because it lacks specificity in both aesthetics and content.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, too true !<br>

Among the "must have" shots of "artsy" shooters.....<br>

- Sea gull on the beach<br>

- Snow fence on the beach<br>

- The beach<br>

- Tree stump<br>

- Abandoned factory<br>

- Bird (non-seagull) <br>

- Bright window in a dark room</p>

<p>The list goes on......................., and on.........................................</p>

<p>These shots tell be a lot about the photographers' biographies, or at least what they want me to know, which is their desire to be accepted as a "photographer" as defined by the current trends.</p>

<p>Yes, I'd rather look at family snaps of people I don't know. Seriously.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>The Museum of Modern Art had a great exhibit of newspaper photographs, taken with medium or large format in the day, but not trying to be art. The photographs, chosen by Diane Arbus, were blown up to maybe 3 feet by 4 feet, which alone gave them a monumentality the original wouldn't have had. The people who had taken them obviously wanted to be photographers, but I don't know if they'd expected to be in the Museum of Modern Art or not. But I can't now remember any particular photographs, the way I can remember some from the Harry Callahan exhibit I saw decades later, or the arty Exacta shots of mushrooms some woman had taken and sold to a photography magazine in my teen years maybe a decade and a half earlier.</p>

<p>Weston's "Peppers" come to mind immediately; the shot of a pine twisting out of a rock comes to mind immediately. What we remember -- our own photographs included -- has become part of our internal lives.</p>

<p>Sometimes, I'll look at shots I took, put them aside, and see if they drag themselves out of my memory before posting them anywhere. Probably not often enough.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079"><em>Fred Goldsmith</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 07, 2009; 05:36 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><strong><em>Luis--</em></strong><br>

<em>Thanks. I understand what you're getting at, the similar and strong aesthetic of the snaps which you've related. I think I'm using "aesthetic" a little differently and maybe in a slightly different context. I don't think of aesthetics as separate from craft, despite their differences. It might be too strong to say that all craft comes under the umbrella of aesthetics but I do think of aesthetics as including craft. For me, the aesthetics of photography includes craft and technique: the use of technique to be expressive and the use of the characteristics of a particular craft. Beauty, emotion, taste, etc. have to be considered, too.</em></p>

 

<p><em>So, on the one hand, I understand now what you mean by snapshots having a rigorous aesthetic, and I agree with you and appreciate your expanding on it. What confused me is that I think of craft as a significant aspect of aesthetics, and snap shots don't seem to be too concerned with deliberative craft.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred,<br>

My "take" on craft would be that a disinct lack of what many consider craft becomes craft in its own right.<br>

In the world of "traditional" art, it's called "Folk Art".<br>

It exists in a universe all its own and has its own distinct following.<br>

I'd have to say that family snapshots fall into the arena of "Folk Art".</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=251643"><em>Gerry Siegel (Honolulu)</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 07, 2009; 02:06 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Not long ago I went to a college reunion event with some classmates. We spent a lot of time touring places in the Las Vegas area by bus. Retired doctors, lawyers, businessmen, some really high powered types of course.<br />Who did I talk to and connect with the most? The ones who had an interest in photography of the scenes or were willing to open up a bit. I think we knew it (photography, music, books) was a personal language beyond the superficial talk of people; We skim the surface of things, you know what I mean.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gerry, I know exactly what you mean. I am still best friends with many of my high school and rock 'n' roll band friends. That's our common thread, music and photography and the mayhem that ensued (and still does).</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em></em><br>

<em>Sexuality and picture taking has a component that is elusive but powerful I think. I have felt personally that photographing someone you care about, or admire,or fancy, is a form of love making and a kind of courtship surrogate. Hard to explain,but there it is.<br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That makes perfect sense to me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em></em><em></em><br>

<em>At times one sacrifices the artist or imaginative part of ourselves ( As in "Hey you should have been an actor..you do a great imitation of ....") to the business of a secure but less fulfilling livelihood. Clearly, photography, like acting, allow us to jump out of our personal social shell and express something more inside, a stretching exercise that feels good.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In our capitalist society in the U.S.A., we put a huge value on success as defined (or implied) by the dollar.<br>

I earn money to support my art and to keep from being hungry and cold.<br>

Most people who make their money in the arts are not doing the art they'd choose, but the art that pays the bills. They'll lie through their teeth about it, but that's what I've found to be true.<br>

I do the art that I choose, and take the time out to earn my living doing other things.<br>

The most important component for me is that I do the art I choose to do, not who knows about it. </p>

<p>That pretty much sums up my biography.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Bill has asked for thoughts on photographs that are obviously "artsy." I'll offer my thoughts on that as well as on thinking but I'm finding the question a bit loaded by the use of the term "artsy" and its being in quotes. Generally, "artsy" in quotes is already a put down so it feels like an invitation to dump on something. But I'll do my best to address and explore some stuff from my perspective.</p>

<p>I like heavy doses of thinking along with my photographing, my intuiting, and my feeling. It's what I feel like we're doing here. Don't knock it, especially while we're trying it.</p>

<p>My heavy thinking may take place with camera in hand, deliberating about what I want to say or about how certain things will read in a photograph. It may not. I shoot deliberatively sometimes and intuitively sometimes.</p>

<p>I'm not hesitant to pay homage to previous photographers and painters and I love being influenced by them. Is that "artsy"?</p>

<p>There's precedence for dialogue among artists spanning even centuries. Yes, there's a difference between mimicry and influence. I've used mimicry to practice technique and even help develop vision, much as I might practice using a flash, which also develops my vision. I'm influenced and inspired by museum shows and books. I saw a show at the Whitney on Picasso's influence on American painters. Pollock, Lichtenstein, Johns, et al were directly and indirectly influenced, some overtly "ripping off" content and/or style to express themselves, just for fun, or because any painter worth his salt probably can't avoid Picasso. They likely felt Picasso deeply and personally and responded to his works emotionally and as craftspeople, and put a lot of thought into all of that.</p>

<p>It's been pointed out that thinking comes after the fact (if at all). That may be true. But in doing that, it naturally comes before and affects the next fact. My thinking doesn't have to distract, even in the moment of shooting. I sometimes want to shoot thoughtfully or even shoot my thoughts. This very discussion will affect my photography.</p>

<p>Biography . . . Being a philosopher, it would be disingenuous of me not to do a lot of thinking and make thinking part of my photographing. Philosophy and photography fulfill some of the same and some different sides of me. I accomplish them differently, but I don't avoid the overlaps. My thinking doesn't have to come in the moment of shooting. But, whenever it comes, it often has influence, sometimes direct, sometimes loose. And sometimes thinking is totally out of place. Too many great artists are too thoughtful for me to make light of or dismiss thinking.</p>

<p>As for "typical" photographic subjects, I enjoy playing with them, discovering what there is to them, and dwelling on them in my own way or moving on from them. Similar to what was said earlier, there's a difference between photographing certain subjects and photographing in certain styles <em>just</em> for the sake of being "artsy" vs. doing it because of a genuine desire to experience what others have before me <em>for myself</em>.</p>

<p>There are few subjects or elements that haven't been photographed before, though I've found one or two to explore. Still, as a photographer I don't think I may be compelled by backlighting or heavy, expressionistic shadows or bright windows in dark rooms or geometric compositions or an Edward Hopper-like color palette and sense of urban theater now and then merely out of a desire to be "artsy." It's because I know and have absorbed my art and photographic history and want to explore my part in it and it's because I feel personally and visually compelled by many things that have compelled others before me, often likely due to a culturally-shared aesthetic. Also, quite frankly, it's simply because I like 'em and respond that way.</p>

<p>I don't shy away from approaching photographers, subjects, and styles that I consider artistic icons or even clichés . . . though I'm always developing my own vision and voice.</p>

<p> I think almost everyone has to shoot their way through the "artsy" part, though many There's absolutely <em>nothing</em> wrong with influences. What doesn't work well is the combination of passive slavishness to them coupled with subject matter that one is personally disconnected from.</p>

<p> Having said that, it's a stage most of us seem to have to shoot our way through in the photographer's life cycle. What Fred is describing is, IMO, something entirely different: A proactive dialog with those who preceded him and an exploration of their work.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not hesitant to pay homage to previous photographers and painters and I love being influenced by them. Is that "artsy"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think that's the same thing as the generically artsy shot. The person who explores another person's work through imitation or pastiche learns something about the work he or she can or can't do. The person who is mopping up all the tropes and making a stew out of them isn't thinking about anything in particular. I see this quite a lot with writing, where it's "science fiction" rather than even an imitation of Heinlein or Philip K. Dick. My last book was very much after Samuel R. Delany, hopefully not just a blind imitation.</p>

<p>My impression with the worst sort of artsy shot is that the photographer hasn't looked closely at anything, the earlier models or the thing photographed. The photographer just wants to evade snapshots.</p>

<p>Genre doesn't guarantee anything; not all primitive artists are Howard Finster.</p>

<p >Fred,</p>

<p >Oh dear, I posted a huge response to your post, and the site "ate" it.</p>

<p >Here's a condensed version, I have limited time right now. </p>

<blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079"><em>Fred Goldsmith</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 08, 2009; 08:48 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Bill has asked for thoughts on photographs that are obviously "artsy." I'll offer my thoughts on that as well as on thinking but I'm finding the question a bit loaded by the use of the term "artsy" and its being in quotes. Generally, "artsy" in quotes is already a put down so it feels like an invitation to dump on something. But I'll do my best to address and explore some stuff from my perspective.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I'm referring to the people who pander to art gallery critics, wear the fashionable getups of the day, etc. Those are the "artsy" people, that's not what I see going on here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I like heavy doses of thinking along with my photographing, my intuiting, and my feeling. It's what I feel like we're doing here. Don't knock it, especially while we're trying it.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not knocking it. I do totally instinctive shooting, quite different than your process, but I'm not knocking it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>My heavy thinking may take place with camera in hand, deliberating about what I want to say or about how certain things will read in a photograph. It may not. I shoot deliberatively sometimes and intuitively sometimes.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I put no thought into my work, I shoot strictly from an emotional base. If it looks good, I shoot it. Nothing more.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I'm not hesitant to pay homage to previous photographers and painters and I love being influenced by them. Is that "artsy"?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it's part of your process.<br>

I learned a lot from Andy Warhol, since I came of age in that environment.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Intuitively, "artsy" for me rings quite the bells that Bill indicate. Yes, it is denigrating, but I can totally live with that. Too much photos that are a kind of pre-fab template on a "anything-but-snapshot" picture,as Rebecca indicates (and on which I tend to agree).<br>

And frankly, a lot of photographs that get high prices while trading in auctions (and counted as art) for me fall straight in that category. The series 'The Beaches', of Rineke Dijkstra for example (sorry, my fellow Dutch), manage to appear completely empty to me. It's "too made", too posed, too flat light; it lacks something natural. To me, it's too explicit not a snapshot, made to look like a snapshot. At the same time not telling me a story either. In Dutch, we would say "no meat and no fish". But art critics find it worth 10s of thousands of dollars/euros. Too each his own, though, I'm sure I am missing something here, but I'm also pretty sure they're missing out on something.<br>

I'm not very clearheaded today, no idea what I'm trying to aim at, beyond the hyper-obvious that our taste in art, photography, food and what not more, is a direct result of who we are and what our experiences are. So maybe the "artsy" stuff can be completely authentic to some - it just depends where you come from.</p>

<p>Rebecca, I totally agree that using other people's work does not necessarily have to impact your own creativity, apart from possibly enhancing it. I don't think one has to be afraid a creative influence becomes too big, as long as one stays in touch with who he/she is.<br>

And the idea of having supersized newsphotos as a exhibition - wow. I can imagine that that such photos enlarged will really work, amplify the ability of good journalist-photographers to capture a story, rather than an image. Too bad I'm on the other side of the ocean :-)</p>

<p><em>Note: if I managed to insult fans of Rineke Dijkstra, her work, or maybe herself. Sorry. It's just an opinion, nothing personal.</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5189561"><em>Wouter Willemse</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 08, 2009; 03:21 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Intuitively, "artsy" for me rings quite the bells that Bill indicate. Yes, it is denigrating, but I can totally live with that. Too much photos that are a kind of pre-fab template on a "anything-but-snapshot" picture,as Rebecca indicates (and on which I tend to agree).<br />And frankly, a lot of photographs that get high prices while trading in auctions (and counted as art) for me fall straight in that category. The series 'The Beaches', of Rineke Dijkstra for example (sorry, my fellow Dutch), manage to appear completely empty to me.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree completely.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>But art critics find it worth 10s of thousands of dollars/euros.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In an interview with Bryant Gumbel, I think, the topic of fame came up, to which Miles Davis quipped "It's 98 per cent publicity, man...."</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>And the idea of having supersized newsphotos as a exhibition - wow. I can imagine that that such photos enlarged will really work, amplify the ability of good journalist-photographers to capture a story, rather than an image.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouter, Andy Warhol was doing that type of thing with car crashes decades ago, with devastating effect. You can google and see what I mean. for instance.....<br>

<a href="http://modernartobsession.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/03/warhol_car_crash.jpg">http://modernartobsession.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/03/warhol_car_crash.jpg</a></p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Wouter,<strong> </strong>I'm a fan of Dijkstra, but I take no offense at your not liking her. I love her light, soft color palette, which to me echoes her use of still, often hazy light and atmosphere, the general poses and perspective she employs, her moody ambiance, and the expression and grace in the demeanor of many of her subjects. I've been moved by many of her portraits and learned much from her use of color and light. I think of much of her stuff as a having a cool warmth. I feel, perhaps, emotional emptiness from her work which is different, for me, from the work being empty of emotion.</p>

<p>Taste matters aside (that is, even if I didn't like her work), I don't think I'd consider it "artsy" in terms of the lack of thought, blind acceptance of stereotype/subject matter/style, and superficiality and lack of imagination that many seem to have in mind when they use the term. Of course, I suppose what is and isn't "artsy" is likely a matter of taste as well. Though there is something traditional about her work, it seems also personal:</p>

<p>http://www.photoeye.com/bookstore/citation.cfm?catalog=DP129&i=&i2=&CFID=5668178&CFTOKEN=87424472 (click on the book tease when you get there)</p>

<p>_________________________________________________</p>

<p><br /> I'm a little unclear as to whether "artsy" is about the work itself or is about the "art world" which some find objectionable and even the character of some artists. Some of all of that seems to be in the mix.</p>

<p>Even in this thread's discussion of snapshots, I come away a little unclear about how much focus is on the work itself and how much we take into account the intent and motivation of the photographer.</p>

<p>Those last two points are probably something I'll consider starting a thread on at some point: the relationship and differences between intent, motivation, etc. and what one sees in the photograph itself.</p>

<p>Speaking of "artsy," cliché (perhaps a close cousin on some levels), stereotypes, and overdone styles and subjects, a friend of mine following this thread said something kind of cool to me today:</p>

<p><em>Thinking outside the box sometimes requires looking at and even using the box.</em></p>

<p> Methinks we're adrift from art/photography affecting biography.</p>

<p><strong>Luis--</strong></p>

<p>We are. I'm especially aware of that since I started the thread but it's gone to interesting places and I wasn't sure how or whether to reign it back in.</p>

<p>If I can think of a good segue from snapshots and "artsiness" back to biography, I will take a stab at getting back to it.</p>

<p>Anybody?</p>

<p>Or maybe it's just time for a new thread . . .</p>

<p>Nice quote on the proverbial box :-)<br>

New thread. Just my €0,02.</p>

<p>New thread about motivations and intent, formally conservative (cliches, stereotypes, where cliche is the pejorative and stereotype is a bit less moralistic) vs. formally innovative (where a number of people who aren't Jackson Pollack try to imitate him, the soft avant guard of no formal considerations, just lucky chances).</p>

<p>Or have you guys done that earlier?</p>

<p>We are what we remember. Photography is an aid to memory, among other things.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2361079"><em>Fred Goldsmith</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 08, 2009; 06:29 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>If I can think of a good segue from snapshots and "artsiness" back to biography, I will take a stab at getting back to it.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, snapshots played an important part in my biography, it's where I started. The lessons I learned early on still work for me today. What I saw through the viewfinder on my Cub Scout camera (no kidding) at ten years old had a profound effect on how I saw the world, along with Alan Freed, the Metropole Cafe and rock'n'roll.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p> Bill, it was how I started also. My father handed me one of his prized Leicas, with everything pre-set. Snapshots are more than mnemonic fetishes and family history. They're directly connected to our <em>identity.</em></p>

<p>__________________________</p>

<p>Ran across this while looking for a quote to use in another post this morning:</p>

<p><i>"The fact is, when they're talking about snapshots they're talking about the family album picture, which is one of the most precisely made photographs. Everybody's fifteen feet away and smiling. The sun is over the viewer's shoulder. That's when the picture is taken, always. It's one of the most carefully made photographs that ever happened." --- Garry Winogrand</i></p>

<p><i> <br /> </i></p>

 

<p>Luis's post, immediately above, is perceptive. Luis, I gather you work in a minilab? Or have done? If that's right it provides an important insight into photography. And your Garry Winogrand "always" is especially pungent.</p>

<p>When Kodak was about to introduce its wretched "Disc" format (downstream from 110) they announced details of an exhaustive study of snaps...wish I still had that announcement...I think they itemized 300 photos (mentioned that a typical roll of 35 covered 2 or 3 seasons). Folks shot their motorcycles and Camaros (with and without girlfriends), their bar mitzvas (an ethnic concession), standard Uncle-style wedding pics, Grand Canyon, baby, dog, trout, Hawaiian grass skirts, palm trees, sunsets, sunsets, sunsets....</p>

<p>Kodak concluded on the basis of that study that their ideal customers weren't very demanding...the business logic of the miserable Disc was that every shot would always be adequately (but very soft) focused and exposed...that would lead to bigger print orders (big print orders were Job One)...nobody cares much about "sharpness" or other subtleties at 4X6. I wonder if George Eastman hung himself anticipating the Disc?</p>

<p>I doubt Garry Winogrand took Disc into consideration.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570"><em>Luis G</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 09, 2009; 09:10 a.m.</em><br>

<em>Bill, it was how I started also. My father handed me one of his prized Leicas, with everything pre-set. Snapshots are more than mnemonic fetishes and family history. They're directly connected to our identity.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, I remember my first "lesson" in photography. We were at the Bronx zoo, I was handed Mom's Kodak camera (the one with the bellows that folded in on itself), and she said "Always make sure the sun is behind you."<br>

That was third grade, spring of 1956, I was 8 years old, two years before the Cubs Scouts.</p>

<p>To this day I use that lesson, (and a few others...............)</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p> <strong>John</strong> , yes, purely to investigate the nature of snapshots, I took an evening job at a large, local 1-hr lab for several months. I still look through snapshot collections on the web and in person for many reasons.</p>

<p>Nikon Matrix (and I imagine the other mfgs do too) metering has <em>those snapshot (and I suspect "Artsy") </em> compositions <em>encoded into its program, and serves up exposures to match. </em></p>

<p>"To develop the system, Nikon's engineers began with a library of thousands of different photographs, representing the most common types of images people might be interested in capturing. (What the reference images were, how they were originally selected and even the exact number of scene types themselves are closely-guarded Nikon secrets.) Taking this library of thousands of representative scenes, the engineers ran them past a metering sensor and looked at the numbers that came out the other end. With appropriate manipulation (more Secret Sauce), the arrays of numbers from the exposure sensors became an index into the database of scene types. That is, when a camera using Matrix Metering sees a light blob <em>here</em> and dark areas <em>there </em> and<em> there</em> , that information tells it that the scene is similar to Reference Scene #13,257, which might be a portrait shot against a dark background."</p>

<p> When one does this, of course, the exposure results will be generic, <em>unless you <strong>subvert</strong> the program, or do it in post-processing. </em> Of course, most technophiliacs buy the latest camera desiring the new, improved program. </p>

<p> And it should be said that Matrix-type programs make many a tyro look infinitely better than if they were left to their own devices, but the problem is <em>that their learning curve in some regards flattens </em> unless they go into another mode and use the big chip 'tween their shoulders.</p>

<p> Aeons ago, I would have my students go into manual mode, and set exposure solely using the little sheets that came with every roll of film. They complained loudly, but at the end of the first assignment, even they remarked their pictures had miraculously improved. The reason, of course, is that they were <em>forced</em> to pay attention to the light, its quality, direction, intensity, diffusion, etc and it showed.</p>

<p><em> </em> In 2-4 years, P&S cameras and low end DSLRs will have a smaller version of the existing program that rates images (according to Flickr popularity), so as you point the camera around, and zoom in and out, the camera will give you a read-out number that relates to how popular that composition is likely to be in Flickr (!). How long before there are slots to put in cards with "Wedding", "Nature", "Portrait", etc.? The wailing on Pnet will resonate through the canyons of mediocrity. Experts will be unaffected.</p>

<p><strong>Bill P. </strong> Curiously, I also was eight years old when I was handed that first Leica. Unfortunately, those first halcyon days ended when I was given my own shiny black-and-silver Kodak on my 9th birthday.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My dad was a pro photographer, and I had the opp to observe him sometimes. He never undertook to teach me anything about photography. I got into a different filed altogether, and I stuck with collecting cameras for years. But now as I am retired, I enjoy taking pix and making prints. and keep on doing that. My main problem is finding frames at affordable prices</p>

<p>Sorry, unfortunately I don't have time to read through the entire post, so my comments may duplicate those already made.<br>

I whole heartedly enorse your ideas, Fred. but I don't think photography is particularly relevant, insofar that any area of interest would have the same effect. I was a keen birdwatcher at one time, an angler before that, my relationships, my vacation time all reflected these interests - I suspect my work did too, in some gentle way.<br>

I do think that 'today' there has been a huge shift nearer to a 'biography through photographs' with the introduction of digital cameras, mobile phones that take photos etc. Youngsters snap away all the time, are less 'up themselves' about creating 'good' photographs, so are completely relaxed about 'rules of photography' and perfectly happy to have any old image capture an occaision as long as it's captured. My photography on the other hand tends to be 'prissy' art photography - less of a biography more of a record of struggle!</p>

<p>Skimming this thread (hostage to fortune offered up) I am reminded of Kurt Vonnegut's penetrating observation:<br>

"We are here on Earth to <em>fart about</em> , and don't let anybody tell you different."</p>