The Negative Space of CMC

The use of large areas of large areas of "empty" or "negative space" in art work precedes by centuries the birth of Karl

Marx and therefore both Marxism, Marxist-Leninism, and neo-Marxism, and therefore has no rational connection with

the Frankfort School of Philosophy. More to the point Marxism in all it's forms is dead and even the graybeards in

academia know it. Yet you persist in throwing up red herrings.

 

As to why you are insisting on pushing a political agenda, a political agenda which can only thrive in a climate of fear

and ignorance and so strives to keep people both ignorant and fearful, is a question only you can answer.

 

But I can say with certainty that you are profoundly ignorant of the history of art.

 

If you want some real intellectually challenging bones to gnaw on, go read "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking.

<p>First, my comments on the argument raging in this thread:</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Then, a photo which I happen to dislike for no particular reason.</p><div></div>

<p>Dave Lee- My personal attack on Cliff? Hmmm, thats an interesting take.</p>

<p><strong>What I asked for in this thread</strong>- Beautiful photos taken by old cameras that feature a type of photography I hold very dear.</p>

<p><strong>What Cliff provided</strong>- A rambling diatribe bordering on a sermon informing me that the photos I had requested were meaningless, of no value, not to be considered art and the completely unsolicited, over-stated opinion that if anyone did like this kind of stuff then they are to be considered mindless machinations of some great artistic conspiricy and are basicly proof positive of everything that is wrong in the world today.</p>

<p>Can you see the disconnect there Dave, and how I might be a little put out?</p>

<p>This is on top of another post where Cliff actually berated me somewhat for not considering how well a camera can survive the upcoming EMP stirke as a major factor in a purchasing decision when buying a new (old) classic camera.</p>

<p>For reals?</p>

<p>You will have to forgive me if my comical responses to this were cached in irony and sarcasm, as I took his repeated criticisms of an art form that I hold dear as a personal attack on me and my art. I was not the only one who felt this way, go back and read it all again. <strong>I</strong> did take it personally because it was <strong>MY</strong> request he was hammering.</p>

<p>And as for you threat to send a complaint on me...maybe you could have sent me a personal message letting me know how you feel and we would have discussed this offstage, possibly coming to some type of reconciliation? Because to be quite honest I was hoping a more experianced member of photo.net might let me know how to correctly deal with what I see as a 'not quite here in reality' response to a perfectly valid request of mine. This thread is on page 8...you have had plenty of time to contact me if you thought my behaviour was out of line instead of getting "sick and tired" of it.</p>

<p>What I can say is that this thread has more responses in it then anything posted recently in CMC. That cant be such a bad thing. Having a forum where you can talk about old equipment and their specifications is great and I am glad I found CMC. But lets not forget that these old cameras are tools to create art. And sometimes is good to debate the styles and merit of that art that these old machines can provide.</p>

<p><strong>Jody S</strong>- I happen to really like that one. Its absolutely beautiful.</p>

<p>David Smith: keep your personal attacks private. Doing so in public is crass. You don't "own" this thread. Anyone can come on and state their opinion. Cliff has a right to his opinion, even though it is opposite of yours. Your choice to publicly berate him was a very poor one.</p>

<p>This comment thread is attracting negativity, making other threads more positive.</p>

<p>Well, it is entitled The <strong>Negative</strong> Space of CMC. :)</p>

<p>Dave Lee:<br /> Cliff Manley came on this thread and attacked the very premise of it. That is, if nothing else, boorish. It's one thing to state an opinion on an image or to counter the opinion of someone else. It's another thing to dismiss a <em>type</em> of image, mis-characterizing it and mocking it. His tone was condescending; his attitude was arrogant. I was glad to see David Smith get in Cliff's face about his attitude, and his nerve in trampling all over the thread David had started. Yes, he doesn't own it, but he was justified in defending its premise, and the style of composition which represents that premise.</p>

<p>Gostei imenso deste grupo de fotografias e da ideia que as une. Anseio em breve estar entre fotos tão belas. Muitos parabéns!</p>

<p>Jeff, nothing can justify the way David Smith's multiple attempts to publicly berate and humiliate Cliff Manley, who merely came on to this thread disagreeing with the idea that a photo with very little content can be a good photo. I thought it was an interesting observation, and instead of engaging Cliff in an intelligent conversation (even if Cliff's choice of words wasn't the greatest), David Smith chose to instead belittle him and not allow his opinion to be explored.</p>

<p>Anyone has the right to say whatever comments they wish as long as they remain respectful of other forum members. I didn't see Cliff attacking David Smith at all, but David Smith repeatedly went after Cliff merely because he disagreed with David Smith. I've been on Photo.net for 10 years, and David Smith's conduct was embarrassing and disgusting to me and I was offended by it. And if I see any similar posts from David Smith in the future I will report them to Josh Root.</p>

<p>I think this thread's about done.</p>

<p>Donnie- This thing <strong>has</strong> gone off in a whacky direction. :)</p>

<p>barbara- I have enjoyed the photos as well. Very much actually. If you have any of this type I would love to see them.</p>

 

<p>Dave Lee-<br /> David Smith posted a thread asking for examples of a particular type of photograph. He did not asked to debate the merits of that type of image- he asked people to post examples.</p>

<p>Cliff, in the thread's very first response, proceeded to attack and trash that type of image, therefore the thread itself. By so doing he showed a basic lack of respect to David. He could have ignored the thread, but instead chose to inject his ego into it. That is why I called it boorish. Sure, anyone has the right to express an opinion, but Cliff immediately usurped the thread and took it in a direction the poster did not intend before it even got under way. He attempted to invalidate the thread itself by invalidating the image type it was based on. He then proceeded to link the type of image David asked to see, to damn near the decline of modern civilization!</p>

<p>David was upset, and rightly so. Cliff was being an egocentric jerk, dismissing a type of image which did not fit his narrow, and to him superior, point of view.</p>

<p>I understand that you think David crossed a line in what appear to be ad hominem attacks. Given Cliff's behavior here, and in David's experience, elsewhere, I think his sarcasm and direct confrontation was warranted. I say go ahead and tell Josh; it's hardly the worst he's seen, I'm sure.</p>

<p>Cliff's opinion doesn't bother me, though I don't agree with it. His behavior, on the other hand, I consider to be rude, boorish and unwarranted.</p>