Fantasy

<p><strong>Rebecca Brown typed: "</strong> The drills for photographers <em>should</em> internalize what the equipment does, what situations call for this or that."</p>

<p> That's another formula and a hoop for <strong>you</strong> to jump through, but it's not for everybody. Joyce Tenneson began her now famous portraits (and, no, she's not a personal favorite) with what she had, an Olympus OM-1 and a 50mm (similar to Jane Bown's kit, btw). She didn't do drills, she did portraits.</p>

<p>http://www.tenneson.com/jt/jt_book_1.html</p>

<p>Weston bought the lens with which he made the majority of his best-known work at a Mexican flea market. He didn't drill, he went to work.</p>

<p>http://www.edward-weston.com/edward_weston_original_11.htm</p>

<p>Garry Winogrand carried two <em>identical</em> Leicas and 28mm lenses. He worked more often than almost anyone else.</p>

<p>http://www.morehousegallery.com/print/garry-winogrand/san-marcos-texxas/7845.aspx</p>

<p>The extra one was in case he didn't have time to reload.</p>

<p>Atget owned one lens.</p>

<p>http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/screen/atget/atget_tree_sceaux.jpg</p>

<p> Josef Koudelka used three identical Leicas, with identical lenses, each pinned to a particular focusing distance (with a toothpick!).</p>

<p>http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/josef-koudelka/en/</p>

<p>I can go on and on, but it has nothing to do with Philosophy.</p>

<p> When lens choices are made, they are not always dictated by the situation, but by theory, emotions (Exactly the way Hiro said he chose from his extensive collection of lenses), capriciousness, what's on hand, or vision.</p>

<p> Having said all that, I'll let you in on something: I personally drill with new cameras & lenses. I don't do lens tests. Instead, I use them and see how they interface with my own vision. My drills have to do with the feel and <em>controls </em> of the camera/lens. My goal is to become so intimate with the gear that it becomes like breathing -- and gets out of the way. I do that, but in no way preach or advocate it for others.</p>

<p> As to working with view cameras, I did thousands of portraits (and other work) with them, and unlike your rigid ideas, many of the exposures were made with the agility and speed of street work, once set up, taking advantage of a fleeting gesture. Many, many other view camera users have done the same thing (once films became sensitive enough to do this in daylight, and specially after electronic strobes).</p>

<p> I think Fred would do well with a view if he chose to use one, and doubt his pictures would look very different (aside from the technical aspects).</p>

<p> Interest art conspiracy theories, btw. Loved the Roach Motel one.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What's the "philosophic" difference between fascination with Leica lens subleties and fascination with Roach Motel snappers (Clark & Goldin)?</p>

<p>It's not like Clark, Goldin, or Leica buffs are important "photographers" more than the average Walmart minilab customer..is it?</p>

<p>It's not like either enthusiasm is related to photo "philosophy" any more than information about the prices of wedding photographers in Peoria, Iowa, is it?</p>

<p>I remember a brief, perverse kick from Clark and Goldin. They're Roach Motel versions of Bill Owens. Owens had the poetic gift to underline things most Americans saw, but didn't appreciate. All Clark and Goldin did was thrill sheltered aesthetes.. TV "reality shows"? Or soap operas? </p>

<p>Luis. The technical aspects <strong>are</strong> part of the art. And some people do use their cameras as recording devices rather than for the production of things geared to have emotional impact (and some people collect cameras). I've used my cameras for all sorts of things, including recording stuff and simply trying to frame it in non-bad ways. Those photos are about the thing I'm taking a picture of.</p>

<p>As for view cameras, my scanner doesn't do 4x5, so I can't show you what I did. I shot Tri-X. Unless you were using something radically different from what I was using (old battleship gray Calumet with a cheap Caltar lens), you weren't going to get in focus motion shots moving toward or away from the lens, so you're talking about catching fleeting expressions. For me, focusing on the ground glass, then putting in the holder, pulling the darkslide and standing around talking to the subject until I liked what I saw was how I did things. The focus at the time of committing to the shot was what it had been in the ground glass before I put the holder in, seconds or minutes earlier. I had one shot that I blew badly because I didn't nail the focus. If my subject moved out of the plane of focus, I didn't have an autofocus lens on. (Autofocus on a view camera would be lots of fun). If you were working with a Speed Graphic with a rangefinder or had one of those autofocus lenses, I'm sure you could catch action shots just fine. I didn't have that, so I had to shoot people who were basically still except for things like facial expressions.</p>

<p>The reason for box tests rather than merely shooting with the lens is that I don't get seduced by the subject matter (though I believe both my boxes are beautiful and useful). The boxes are either behind me or about five feet away. The cameras and lenses are in arms reach. The catch on the casket box is always going to look the same, the carvings on the Indian box, ditto. I don't do bricks and test patterns, but I am comparing catch to catch and carvings to carvings.</p>

<p>I have friends who are fairly serious about their photography who are poorly matched with their gear (they have good enough reasons to want to use the cameras they use, and one is learning to take the pictures that will work with his camera), so I do think about this because I'd rather like what they post to their LiveJournals than not like it.</p>

<p>The romantic position and teaching style, the Dionysians, are well represented in the Academy at this time. The Apollonians tend to be more toward the commercial end of photography than the art end. John Shaw probably represents the Apollonian in contemporary photography. He has been writing books on technique and shooting since the 1970s at least. I don't follow all his prescriptions -- they're a bit too Apollonian even for me.</p>

<p>Not that one can't have crap in either camp. Both are points on a continuum, too.</p>

<p>I see something in Fred's work that suggests that he might have a blast with a large format camera and a box of Pro Tri-X, but since I'm not in SF and not rich, I can't put one in his hands. Or this may be what I would shoot with Fred's subjects. Large format does textures very well.</p>

<p>Fantasy on my part, perhaps. </p>

<p>Goldin would not be so famous if she wasn't living the Romantic fantasy of the Self-Damaging Artist, from Whose Pain Great Art Comes. I realize, too, that without the art and the recognition, Goldin would have been just another crazy working at a desk job, or another house painter/artist like the people who lived in the warehouses in Philadelphia, or married to someone indulgent, so, maybe the art didn't do that to her. She might have been a worse fucked up mess without it, but I also know people who got away from dangerously fucked up scenes. With the arts, the questions is whether one is exorcising ones demons or exercising them.</p>

<p>Do we shape the fantasy or does the fantasy shape us, to bring it back to the original question.</p>

<p>I suppose I could name drop Pierre Bourdieu here, but I haven't read <em>Distinctions</em> yet. It's on my list of things to do.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Isn't it ever just about looking at the photograph?</p>

<p>I've been learning to <em>see</em> . . . despite even my own inclinations to judgment and taste.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Fred typed: "</strong> Isn't it ever just about looking at the photograph?"</p>

<p> For me, first and foremost. And I want to experience the gestalt of the image whole, not cut up into pieces.</p>

<p><strong>Rebecca typed: "</strong> Luis. The technical aspects <strong>are</strong> part of the art."</p>

<p> Thank you. <strong>Who knew? </strong></p>

<p>The hypotheticals demeaning Ms. Goldin do not merit comment.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Fred</strong>, I think the best of your posts (of anybody's) involves descriptions of your own experience and process....not abstract ideas. This distinctly has not entailed references to other photographers.</p>

<p>By far, IMO, the best of your best has been your interview. I think there's a lesson in that.</p>

<p>Expanding on what you meant, above, by <em>"learning to see,"</em> how you're approaching that learning, will be just as instructive and important. <strong>Please take that further.</strong> </p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>John--</strong></p>

<p>Thanks for the question and interest.</p>

<p>What I meant by the short post at 3:15 is that I've been able to experience more and more a kind of non-judgmental and taste-free way of seeing. Now, of course I am aware that nothing is 100% and I'm quite sure that my own built-in prejudices and proclivities influence what and how I see.</p>

<p>But I am able to look at photographs by Goldin, Steichen, Avedon, Warhol, my friends, myself, you, Leibovitz, and genuinely not dwell on whether I like them or not or how they compare for me to the photographs of others. So I feel like it has opened me up to a new way of seeing. I am trying to see things for what they are . . . if there is such a thing. I'm at a point where I have so much to gain by accepting (rather than judging) the way other photographers see the world and I am honestly more curious than I am critical. It's not that I'm never critical and certainly I'm not suggesting that I give up approaching photos with a critical eye, but it has its (limited) place and "critical thinking" (in its many senses) can be, certainly for me, a distraction.</p>

<p>As I'm writing, I kind of realize that it makes sense within my own approach to my photographs. Ten years ago, I likely would have thought that, given the opportunity, I would choose male subjects who I was physically attracted to in a rather superficial way. The hot guys. There's ample opportunity in San Francisco and I've done some of it. Instead, though, what's happened, is that I have become attracted to the people I shoot. I have come to see aging male bodies as expressive and as sensual. As a matter of fact, to a great extent, younger, firmer, smoother, less worn bodies have become somewhat uninteresting to me visually. They're a little vanilla and a lot of them seem alike. What is more stimulating photographically has become more stimulating period. I am seeing beyond (and also within) what I used to see. I am seeing more in the same things I used to see less. As importantly, I am feeling a stronger connection to what I see. It's less about attractiveness (or attraction) and more about willingness to be open and then to <em>do</em> something about it. To make something of it.</p>

<p>So it feels like my taste has become more and more influenced by my intrigue rather than either what I've always been comfortable with or what I've always <em>told</em> myself I liked.</p>

<p>And there's a nuts-and-bolts aspect to it also. I find it fascinating to dissect how Goldin works with colors and what causes me to be moved by her color use, how it interplays with her lighting and subjects, etc. Looking at her technique teaches me about some things I can do with these relatively new tools I have at my disposal. Her style intrigues me and I find that exploring by taking some of that in various directions advances my own vision. Looking at her work helps me learn about incorporating design and style into my own portraits, even if I wind up doing it differently.</p>

<p>_____________________________</p>

<p>I very much appreciate your starting the thread on "Equivalence." There's a lot to digest and discuss. I've read through a couple of times and am formulating some thoughts to add to the discussion over there. It's great stuff!</p>

<p>Fred, I don't think it's ever just about looking at the photograph. Arnheim's book on visual perception is interesting if you haven't already read it.</p>

<p>My thinking that the real trick isn't just to see other people's work without blinders; it's seeing our own work without blinders, and being able to see what's actually working in our own work, not just the faults, to see the traces of ways of doing the work that lead us to doing better work.</p>

<p>

<p>Romantics think classicists are rigid; classicists think romantics are self-indulgent. We're all just whistling against the dark, hoping that someone will remember us after we're gone. I suspect that for most of us, this is a fantasy.</p>

</p>

<p>If you have no interest in textures and playing with planes of focus, don't bother with a view camera.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Rebecca--</strong></p>

<p>I am interested in textures and planes of focus, and assume I will try a view camera at some point. Thanks for your thoughts along those lines. I don't have enough experience with a variety of lenses or cameras yet to know in what ways the differences will affect my seeing, shooting, or results, but I imagine it will be an eye-opening experience.</p>

<p>Fred, the key word in your recent post (thanks) seems to me to be " <strong>intrigue </strong>." Along that line, I like doubts, anxieties, mysteries, questions, even confusion...closely related to intrigue. Answers, solutions, labels, and certainty seem steps on a death trip.</p>

<p> Although you've made a point (labored IMO) of referring to another photographer, you seem to be freeing yourself from referential frameworks...certainly from theoretic boxes. </p>

<p>Theories tend to be boxes...sometimes we even label them so we don't forget to use them when something unusual floats by, that might otherwise stimulate pausing and reflecting.</p>

<p><strong>The White/Stieglitz notions of Equivalence are interesting enough to me that I respect them as questions.</strong> Treating Equivalence as theory might make it part of a box system: I might start force images into symbols-boxes the way some of Minor White's commentators have treated his images (as in one of the links I provided). I think the thing to do with theories is to laugh at them while we toy with them. </p>

<p><strong>Thoughts and two questions:</strong> I doubt you actually hold the two-sided (ambivalent) views you usually express. I don't think you're really as normative as many of your posts. I think you're more like the guy in the Fred interview. 1) Does that make sense? 2) How am I mistaken? :-)</p>

<p><strong>Fred --</strong><br>

This is a photo/not a photo of me smiling slightly.</p>

<p>View cameras with movements really aren't like other cameras. You might not find uses for the movements, but if you do, you can get effects that you can't get any other way this side of a focus stacker program that would let you tilt and selectively set the plane of sharp focus, if such a program exists.</p>

<p>I think what we shoot with is part of how we see ourselves as photographers -- that the equipment has a certain charisma. Shooting with classic cameras can be a way to connect imaginatively with people who used similar cameras in the past. I don't need the Hasselblads, certainly not for web work and certainly not two of them, but they have their charm. My brother's gift of an F3 and lenses connects me with my memories of the F3 I used to have, with the whole history of that camera, its longevity. I noodle more with the DSLR, though.</p>

<p>With a Speed Graphic, I would be one with the people who photographed WWII and the Hindenburg burning, the last of the photographers who used them in the 1960s, the new ones still for sale in the shop where I bought my first used SLR. The screwmount Leica has its own evocations. The Hasselblad and the F3 are <strong>Blowup</strong>, the fashion photographers of the 60s, the camera that went to the moon, going to war in Vietnam. My first F3 was a pro's beater and looked like it has been to war until Nikon had it in for a shutter repair and beat out the dents in the prism housing. One of my Zeiss lenses is from the sixties. The Leica lens I used to own was older than I am.</p>

<p>All kinds of fantasies in photography. I find the equipment an object of fantasy as much as the preconceptions about what I'm going to photograph. And when I owned the screwmount Leica, I took all sorts of macro shots of its bits.</p>

 

<p><strong>John--</strong></p>

<p>I think you can get a fair picture of me from reading the interview, looking at my pictures, and reading what I write both in critiques of others and in responses to comments on my own work. As for my posts in the Philosophy forum, they aren't about me to that same extent and they are more theoretical, often by design, because that's how I see Philosophy. I don't see "theoretical" negatively, and I think much Philosophy is by nature more theoretical than would be a personal interview or a discussion of my own photographs. Of course, there is overlap.</p>

<p>I'd want to know what you mean by "ambivalent" and "normative". I see them as two distinct matters. I am, in some cases, ambivalent. At the same time I recognize that one man's ambivalence is another's open-mindedness.</p>

<p>I won't answer the kind of generic and abstract question you ask about me. If there's a specific post, statement, or position of mine you want to question me about, I'll be happy to deal with that. I would find that more grounded.</p>

<p>I suspect that some of what you're reading as ambivalence is more naivete on my part (because I'm so new to being a photographer and really haven't formed opinions on some stuff yet). Also, I go through exactly what you mention . . . doubts, confusion, mysteries. As you say, answers and certainty can be dangerous.</p>

<p>As for referring to other photographers, it's not so much that I'm freeing myself from referential frameworks, it's that I don't even have some of the academic frameworks to begin with, to the extent others in these discussions do. I've always loved films and photographs. I've "studied" films more. I also "grew up" with an influential photographer friend. I've been exposed. I haven't done that much serious reading about photography or by photographers and I'm not nearly as fluent in references as you and many others in the forums. But, as I said above and you picked up on, I have <em>looked</em>.</p>

<p>I think it would be fair to say I know photographs much better than I know photography. </p>

<p> Theories only look like boxes to people that love to box things in, and/or fear being boxed in. Just like a map looks confining to those that can't simultaneously hold the idea of hundreds (or more) square miles of territory and map (let's not even get into projection in maps) they hold in their hand simultaneously. Or words, a GPS coordinate, nationality, gender, or anything else. Concepts exist because they are useful, and there's no denying that they often outlive their usefulness as well. When one thinks of them using cowboy logic (<em>fence it in) </em> they, and everything else, become corrals, (or boxes, traps, etc). This is also often used to attack others. Most children in 3rd grade really understand that a globe is not a perfect little model of the earth, that there aren't lines drawn across the world, and that countries do not come in colors, but it's a useful conceptual device.</p>

<p> I'm not saying John is <strong>wrong</strong> per se in his personal formula: theory=boxes, I'm only saying that his view is not a universal one. It's obviously true for <strong>him, and I respect that.</strong> For many other people, theories are extremely useful, even liberating, and in a context where their usefulness has little bearing, they can be put away. They do not possess everyone. It's like a pocket knife. You bring it out when you need it, then you fold it and put it back in your pocket. In John's boxy theory of theory, the pocket knife owns you.</p>

<p> By any measure, the <strong>Stieglitz/White Equivalence </strong> is a theory, one I and many others, including John himself, find liberating and useful.</p>

<p> For the record, as of 1962, White <em>was</em> talking about both <strong>visualization </strong> and <strong>previsualization.</strong> How do I know this? Because, I too, was a friend of, and mentored by, someone directly connected with MW. I was given a (yet unpublished, except in part in a magazine in 1983, and not on the web) bound set copy of notes from multiple MW workshops -- which were checked over, corrected and approved by MW. There are several copies of this floating around. I've found some in private libraries, and a few have made their way into universities' permanent collections.</p>

<p>There is a latter, <em>much</em> larger unfinished collection (written both by MW <em>and </em> his students) of extremely detailed notes, about 300 pages' worth, in two volumes (though I've heard reports they also come in one) that MW was reportedly working on when he died. I only got to hurriedly leaf through one copy for an all-too-brief afternoon, not allowed to take notes, & sworn to secrecy. It was then unexpectedly offered to me at a price that seemed outrageous then (more than the car I was driving was worth), a steal now. To my regret, I passed it up. A few copies exist, one with MW's archives at Princeton, I think.</p>

<p> MW came with all the advantages and liabilities of any charismatic leader.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> <strong>Rebecca: </strong> Don't get the wrong idea about me. I own more than three dozen lenses and 30 cameras, including a few on extended loan, and I don't collect. These accumulated over the years, and while others came and went, what's left is what I liked. I have tested with targets, and have a friend whose business at one time had an optical bench, and he delighted in testing lenses. Nowadays, I simply do situational subjective testing. Funny, how on the same forum, one can be labeled a gearhead and a gear-averse naif.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis, I don't think of Equivalence as "theory," I think of it as "possibility," "approach," "experience," "discipline." That, incidentally, seems to relate closely to zen practice, which is also "not theory".</p>

<p>Educators risk losing the hearts of their subjects through scholarly distractions. That happened with some of Minor White's teaching offspring: became heads of "art departments" etc. Photographers, on the other hand, seem to concern themselves more with their own work.</p>

<p>We can't all die at our photographic peaks. We may start as aspiring students (self-taught or otherwise...equally good), grow into photographers, perhaps come and go, possibly morphing into former photographers with all sorts of expertise and accumulated mental images. <em><strong>It's not a bad thing to be a former photographer: mental images are the only kind of images anyone has ever produced or experienced. </strong></em></p>

<p><strong>Fred Goldsmith</strong> seems to me to be Fred Interview, an acutely gifted photographer... Fred Forum seems someone else, nowhere near as close philosophically or in practice to photography as is Fred Interview. IMO this has secondarily to do with the relative writing approaches and personal confidence of the two Freds.<br />That is not intended as a negative criticism (some find as much substance in Fred Forum as in Fred Interview), but I do think we miss a lot when someone with richer capabilities defines philosophy narrowly, seemingly diminishing subjective experience, psychological, and perceptual ideas (and spiritual ideas, for those so-inclined).</p>

<p><strong>John--</strong></p>

<p>A lot of the difference in the way I come off in my interview vs. here has to do with the fact that the interview was pretty much a monologue guided by very open-ended questions.</p>

<p>These forums are a dialogue, very different in nature. The forums are driven by all kinds of personalities (and conflict), personality quirks, competition, obsessions, distracting crap, projections about others, selective quoting, misunderstanding due to writing quickly and not seeing facial expressions, etc. I'd say, for the most part, especially here in the Philosophy forum, we do a very good job of working through, around, or above all that stuff, and we get a lot accomplished. But the stuff is there, and I suspect it affects the way we all act and the way we are all perceived by others. Here, our own words and attitudes may very well be reflecting who we're talking to and what we're responding to as much as ourselves.</p>

<p>I'm OK with what I offer to this forum and what I take away from it. And I'm OK with how that relates to who I am, which is sometimes context-driven and not a static, set piece.</p>

<p>I don't want to continue this focus on <em>me</em> in this venue.</p>

<p>Luis, I shoot fantasy fighting cocks in my mind and print them as imaginary platinum prints and the photographs are just stunning. Want to buy one?</p>

<p>Fred, I'm allergic to certain commonplaces of the day, and tend to think that people who utter them without thinking about the person on the other end of the commonplace are living in a fantasy world. </p>

<p>My accomplishments in my other medium are neither clearly superior nor were they nothing, but I have had a lot of experience with people who at various stages in various art forms were sure I should listen to them and that they were or were going to be superior to me and that I should really care about their advice. </p>

<p>One of the wonders of Google was finding out twenty years later just how wrong they were. I wish I could have learned that earlier. I think for women and young gay men, there's a further issue of people playing with their ambitions for ulterior purposes that range from fairly innocent attention-getting to seduction (and this give a slightly different tone to Wilde's problems with the object of his flattery, Lord Alfred Douglas; Wilde was not utterly innocent in that game). At my age, I'm no one's fan or acolyte, and my successes and failures are mine.</p>

<p>Anyone who tries to impress others is presumed unaccomplished until proven otherwise. The proof is in the art, the practice, not in what they say about the practice. If a teacher, in what the students do.</p>

<p>The best advice people get is blunt and brief. My brother painted along side an old retired Pennsylvania Academy art instructor for two years of weekends, and what he got was the modeling that Luis talks about and the comments like "that's working" with a pointing to a section of the painting.</p>

<p>What I see in your work suggests working with large format and serious lights. I could say more, but it's one of those things that doing it will say more to you than any amount of my telling. May not work for you at all; may be the love of your life or bring you the loves of your life (one of the women I know who does fan slash fiction said she did quite well with it since it attracted a really great girl friend).</p>

<p>For me, photography is a vacation from words, a different way of thinking. At various times in my life when I was shifting gears in my writing, I did things that were non-verbal: bicycle time trialing, spinning and knitting (the blue sweater in a recent photograph is handspun and handknitted, which would have been more obvious in a larger format image, preferably one where the plane of focus caressed the knitting).</p>

<p>Ultimately, I think the practices, whether we call them arts or meditations or whatever, are about exploring our minds in different ways -- and any work can be that, too (going through a security investigation is a very curious thing that took me places that hanging out at St. Mark's Church Poetry Project didn't). Some of that exploration is is discovering how what we do resonates in other minds. I'm not sure we can ever escape seeing things through our own needs -- the vicarious winning experience, the hints of things that we'd like in our own work, the "there but for the grace of God" compassion, the human curiosity over someone else's emotional trainwreck, a need for beauty, sometimes the egotistical need to feel that our taste is superior to what's on television.</p>

<p>We start with an image of ourselves that we haven't achieved yet. Some people do the work and modify the self-image as needed to fit the accomplishments; others create amazing defenses of the self image when it failed to lead to the imaginary work; others learn that they're capable of more than they imagined (and that is really fun). </p>

<p>I think claiming to be an artist may be both useful and a defense, as well as a fantasy, to sort of tie both monster threads together. But being poor on artists grants is quite different from being poor as a baby photographer making $9 an hour. Most of the people who manage the first have what I understand Bourdieu called cultural capital -- they're from families with ties to academic resources, they've gone to school with people who end up on museum and grant boards, they've had teachers who recommended them to galleries. One of my teachers who'd been on grants committees described them as horse trading over giving money to one's colleagues and students and then having a grant left over to someone who was a stranger to the committee.</p>

<p>Yale has the highest success rate of art MFAs going on to have careers of any graduate art program in the country -- it would be tremendously demoralizing to attend Yale and fail to make it. Yale also has no financing for its fine arts MFA programs, so for the kids who don't come from monied families, it's a $60,000 plus debt. The next highest ranking art school comes in at about a third the success rate that Yale has. The kids who work at the baby picture places love what they're doing, love photography, but don't generally have the cultural and social capital to get into Yale, to even know about grants in the arts (one of my National Business College students was working part time at such a studio). I suspect that the passion and ability to shoot pictures is more evenly distributed than the ways to have the freedom to explore the medium fully. Going the art photographer route isn't a choice that my National Business College student would have fantasized about much because she was a realist and sane. She could work as a photographer, though.</p>

<p>I think that we fantasize about art being a way to keep our passion hot. Through art, we'll always be discovering new things about our passion. If we do this commercially, we'll be stuck in routines that are often not even what we'd chose to do.</p>

<p>One side of me says that I should stop being silly and just do the YA s.f. and fantasy without being precious about it, regardless of whether that matches my fantasy of who I am. The other side of me points out that people who were sure of themselves or appeared to have been sure of themselves were massively wrong about me in the past, so why should this assignment from outside be right now? But the <strong>only</strong> thing that gives me the luxury of not going with the first or office work or adjunct teaching again is that I have some money. I can decide to pay myself $20,000 for time to write the books I want to write. If I didn't have that, I'd be totally hat in hand, profusely apologizing to anyone I'd offended, writing things that other people thought would have an audience or were useful.</p>

<p>Likewise, if I had to make a living with a camera, I'd be shooting events in DC, working in a camera store, and shooting for Bella Pictures, and living in a share in Manassas. It probably doesn't make any sense now, but would have been the way to go if I'd begun in my early twenties.</p>

<p>And there's a point, based on one's cerebral vascular health and other aspects of neurobiology, where we've done is what we'll have ever done, and the regrets over the things we failed to do are often be both profound and silly. My mother was showing the effects of what looked like early stages of Alzheimers by her late 70s, and with dementia setting in, that's the line draw and the total of what her life was in our memories of her.</p>

<p>I think we have a fantasy that knowing in word translates into knowing in visual arts. I think that for the visual arts, the knowing is developing the seeing (I think we're in agreement on that one), but the seeing is shaped by the culture we're in, which includes words.</p>

<p>The more I hang out here, the more I think about writing more fiction. Maybe in fifteen years my brain turns to mush. Maybe it's turning to mush now. It may be that the visual mind outlives the verbal one -- more painters continue on into old age than do writers. Maybe in old age, one comes back to what one loved as a child.</p>

<p>Maybe it's all a fantasy.</p>

 

<p> John, how very kind, or as you say about yourself, <strong>generous,</strong> of you to worry about what educators may or may not be losing. Hardly Zen, btw. Don't disparage others, pigeonhole or stereotype them, as you are blatantly doing to Fred above. This path does not lead to the engagement you claim to want.</p>

<p>As you are always telling the rest of us, tell us how and what <strong>you </strong> think. That's the interesting part. We all have much to learn from you, but it is a lot more pleasant if laid out as a banquet before us than crammed down our throats, forcibly washed down in greasy faux authority by using it to disparage opposing ideas or ways of being, or attack others. You're a bright and interesting guy with a broad range of unorthodox ideas. Please share that with us.</p>

<p>____________________________</p>

<p> Equivalence <strong>is theory</strong> . Where you fall short in your arguments is that they're often fantasy-driven, in the destructive sense of the word, not reality-based. For example, when you tell me Equivalence is <strong>not </strong> a theory, you do so because <em>you do not wish it to be. </em> Unfortunately for you, <strong><em>Minor White himself referred to it as a theory in the very article you gave the URL for. </em> </strong> Here:</p>

<p>1) "I will treat here of a tradition, a concept and a discipline, namely the concept or <strong><em>THEORY</em> </strong> called "Equivalence," by which any style, fashion or trend may be worked through to something beyond the conformism of competition."</p>

<p>and, if that wasn't enough...</p>

<p>2) "As a consequence <em><strong>THE THEORY </strong> </em> is in practice now by an ever increasing number of devoted and serious photographers, both amateurs and professionals"</p>

<p>and....</p>

<p>3) "To outline this <em><strong>THEORY</strong> </em> (we hardly have space to discuss it), we will refer to "levels" of Equivalence."</p>

<p>and...</p>

<p>4) "To be concrete, and leave off <em><strong>THEORY</strong> </em> for a moment, we can return to the photograph of a cloud mentioned above."</p>

<p>and...</p>

<p>5) " The <em><strong>THEORY</strong> </em> of Equivalence is a way for the photographer to deal with human suggestibility in a conscious and responsible way."</p>

<p>last...</p>

<p>6) "With the <strong><em>THEORY</em> </strong> of Equivalence, photographers everywhere are given a way of learning to use the camera in relation to the mind, heart, viscera and spirit of human beings."</p>

<p> <strong>Had you actually read it, instead of blindly and rabidly launching yet another attack at anything I have to say & trying to blow smoke rings up our collective skirts, you would not be experiencing this embarrassing moment. </strong></p>

<p>Now, can you tell us how Minor White boxed himself in with this theory? And if he didn't, why not? Because you said: "Theories tend to be boxes..."</p>

<p><strong>JK- "</strong> Educators risk losing the hearts of their subjects through scholarly distractions."</p>

<p> John... does the bullflux ever stop? I hate to break it to you, but Minor <em>was nothing if not an educator. Do I really need to list the places he taught? </em> Did he lose the hearts of <strong><em>his </em> </strong> subjects?</p>

<p>_____________________________________</p>

<p>If we don't assume you're being transparently snide here, we can only assume you are speaking from your <strong>own</strong> life experience when you write:</p>

<p>"We can't all die at our photographic peaks. We may start as aspiring students (self-taught or otherwise...equally good), grow into photographers, perhaps come and go, possibly morphing into former photographers with all sorts of expertise and accumulated mental images. <em><strong>It's not a bad thing to be a former photographer: mental images"</strong> </em></p>

<p> That's a deep personal revelation, John.Thanks for sharing it with us.<strong> Mental Image.<br /> </strong><br>

<em><strong><br /> </strong> </em><br>

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

<p><strong>Rebecca typed: "</strong> Luis, I shoot fantasy fighting cocks in my mind and print them as imaginary platinum prints and the photographs are just stunning. Want to buy one?"</p>

<p> I'll do a fantasy money transfer today. :-)</p>

<p> On the rest, what the Stones said:</p>

<p>"You can't always get what you want<br>

but if you try you just might find<br>

you get what you need"</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis, I use "theory" in the way scientists use it. A workable idea or a place-holder for something we think we may come to "know." I don't think Minor White used the term well, nor was he consistent. But that's just me: I'm not a "Bible is literal word of God" type of reader: I read for my own understanding. That's why I rarely quote "famous photographers."</p>

<p>I'm sorry you have are not happy with my ideas. I think you've mist that I am ALWAYS and ONLY expressing my own ideas. I don't always try to make everybody comfortable by apologizing ("IMO") for every thought. And I'm not surprised that my perspective is at odds with other perspectives: Hopefully we're all our own individuals.</p>

<p>I'm also sorry you took my references to academic interests to mean that I think them inferior to photographic interests. I think "academic" is vastly different from "photographic," even when the subject is nominally photography. Why should that be disturbing? It's like comparing auto mechanics to house carpentry.</p>

<p>Elsewhere you said you found Minor White's photos more appealing than his teaching methods. By contrast, I think his various photo experiments, successful and not, and especially his teaching methods, were his greatest legacy. For better or worse, I had one deeply influential Minor White-taught teacher and friendships with dozens over a ten year period. I never studied photography in an institution...maybe that's at issue?</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>Luis, a bit more... You quoted me, but evidently missed the point:</em><br>

<em>_______________________________</em><br>

<strong>JK- "</strong> Educators risk losing the hearts of their subjects through scholarly distractions."<br>

John... does the bullflux ever stop? I hate to break it to you, but Minor <em>was nothing if not an educator. Do I really need to list the places he taught? </em>Did he lose the hearts of <strong><em>his </em></strong>subjects? - Luis G<br>

<strong>__________________</strong><br>

<strong></strong> <br>

<strong></strong><br>

<strong>Luis,</strong> please re-read. I specifically said "scholarly distractions." I didn't say anything negative about you or scholarship generally. Apples, oranges. <strong> Careless misreading is the root of some of our differences.</strong> </p>

<p>Seems to me that Minor White's greatest legacy was his teaching of teachers, along with introduction of certain serious ideas, that his scholarship was a vaguely interesting distraction (though his attention to Thomas Eakins might appeal particularly to Fred), and that only a percent of his photographs (I've seen many) were as notable as those of many of his students. </p>

<p>That you didn't find White's teaching techniques fully satisfactory is not surprising, whether or not he directly taught you. He himself didn't find them fully satisfactory, they remained a work in progress, like his life.</p>

<p>From the little I've seen first-hand his teaching techniques may have wanted face-to-face passing-of-wisdom, much the way gypsies teach guitar :-) Some things may be too evanescent to be passed any other way: <br>

<a href="

<p>Like I said, Luis, common places of the day. No work to show for it. </p>

<p> <strong>John</strong> ...we have very real differences. I've already stated my feelings about you: "You're a bright and interesting guy with a broad range of unorthodox ideas. Please share that with us." I will clarify the rest in the Equivalence thread.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Fred. there are some interesting takes here. I did not read all. I apologize for any redundancy.<br /> My photographs are in a significant way, a fantasy fulfilled, a 2 dimensional world I imagine. Without fantasy my creative world would be homogenized. Part of my self awareness/evaluation is attributable to my fantasy. It is in part how i differ from others and they from me. I think fantasy can lead to inventiveness, originality.</p>

<p>"It's a fairly descriptive suggestion to the player of the piece. "<br /> I like picking up on suggestions from photos. And to use them. Not only the creation of a photograph but the viewers experience of a photograph is influenced by my own fantasy. As a photographer and as viewer I think this can be tapped. <br /> I often choose to imagine in order to create a photograph. The image in my mind and lens most often requires that use imagination and fantasy to create my photo. To take from the 'real' world in front of my camera and process it to an alternative viewing medium requires fantasy for me. The process works best for me when I recognize or simply allow my fantasy to engage. Sometimes very subtle sometimes fantastical. The more I allow for my fantasy to run free, the more effectively I can distance or use the norm that resides in me. A choice, one more dimension that I can use.</p>