History of Photography

Nothing that you said, Sandy, is a fact.

No, Dude, it is what I believe, based on my life experience and education. I don't need to understand why you believe the way you do - it would only be valuable to me if you were a family member or friend. We all learn differently and evaluate life experiences subjectively. As to questioning authority, sorry, you haven't a clue.

You take a likeable photo fairly frequently. As Spock said " Live long and Prosper."

I gave new information that wasn't taken as valuable or useful because it goes against established authority of what most think is factual information when it is just what someone writes in a book.

I didn't take it as valuable because I think it's not valuable. I think it's isolationist, like an ostrich putting its head in the sand. I think not realizing the importance of history means a loss of context and texture and a willful desire to be ignorant. I have for many years considered the value or non-value of history and photographic history. The importance of history, I agree, is an established kind of authority, and it's always worth questioning established authority, but only sometimes is it worth rejecting established authority. I understand your reasons for rejecting books and history to the extent you do. I think they're myopic and of little value. That doesn't mean I'm right and it doesn't mean what I say is fact. But it also doesn't mean I think little of your position because it goes against established authority. I think little of your position on its merits and lack thereof.

I don't need to understand why you believe the way you do - it would only be valuable to me if you were a family member or friend.

Well then you must not get much out of this place, Sandy. Why are you here? Or maybe you just don't want to be taught. Lot a dudes yours and my age just don't want that any longer. I have life experience and education as well so where did I come up with my premise that seems to rub folks into responding to the contrary?

I didn't take it as valuable because I think it's not valuable. I think it's isolationist, like an ostrich putting its head in the sand. I think not realizing the importance of history means a loss of context and texture and a willful desire to be ignorant. I have for many years considered the value or non-value of history and photographic history. The importance of history, I agree, is an established kind of authority, and it's always worth questioning established authority, but only sometimes is it worth rejecting established authority. I understand your reasons for rejecting books and history to the extent you do. I think they're myopic and of little value. That doesn't mean I'm right and it doesn't mean what I say is fact. But it also doesn't mean I think little of your position because it goes against established authority. I think little of your position on its merits and lack thereof.

Actually in this case methinks it is a bitter response to having failed......

I have life experience and education as well so where did I come up with my premise that seems to rub folks into responding to the contrary?

It comes from bitterness in failure.

The importance of history, I agree, is an established kind of authority, and it's always worth questioning established authority, but only sometimes is it worth rejecting established authority. I understand your reasons for rejecting books and history to the extent you do. I think they're myopic and of little value. That doesn't mean I'm right and it doesn't mean what I say is fact. But it also doesn't mean I think little of your position because it goes against established authority. I think little of your position on its merits and lack thereof.

And you think that your opinion is new information and is helpful how? You offer nothing except arguments because every one of your sentences is coined to address every point I made on what is factual information vs stuff read in a history of photography book.

You've established you have no new and useful information for making better photographs.

Good time to stop - bereft of value and turning toxic. Since I have participated, I will not delete, just report for the next moderator who comes on line.

The dude that's going to make this thread toxic, Sandy is Moving On. And I have him permanently on ignore for good reason.

Insight.

Direct quote.

“Thanks for the comment on my Cinematic Selfies, Patrick.   The inspiration came from my love of the old technicolor movies I'm now seeing for the first time restored on Turner Classic Movies (TCM) channel. “

The dude that's going to make this thread toxic, Sandy is Moving On. And I have him permanently on ignore for good reason.

Because it seems you can’t.....

You have a history of personal nastiness here Tim.

That is a matter of record and fact.

Moderator Note:

That's enough of the personal attacks, everyone.

This thread will continue with civility and within the guidelines set out below or not at all.

There will be:

no further personal attacks and

no commentary on previous personal attacks and

no comment on this note

William

How many of you rely on your knowledge of photographic history when evaluating your work or the work of others?

Instead of specifically acknowledging that I "rely" on photo history when "evaluating" work, and you said you were intentionally vague so probably assumed there would be many takes on these ideas, I'd also want to talk about not relying solely on history but incorporating history into many other means of relating to photos and not necessarily relying on it but simply incorporating it into my making and viewing of photos. Also, evaluating is just one way to respond to photos and I'm thinking we might not limit the discussion to evaluation either. Evaluation suggests to me value and judgment. Another aspect of viewing and responding is simply taking a photo in and accepting it with as little judgment as possible and more or less letting it wash over me, just trying to understand or appreciate it without placing a relative value on it. In this case, I might or might not consider history consciously but my knowledge of history will obviously influence me whether I'm focused on history or not.

History, like so many other things in life and relative to photography, becomes part of the hum of the background, part of the whole within which I view every photo, whether I'm thinking about history overtly or not. That's the beauty of the history of photography for me. It becomes part of the fabric of photography and doesn't necessarily have its headlights on all the time.

I expect everything we see and hear influences us on both conscious and subconscious levels.

Even smells and tastes.

Not sure it is even possible to divorce the human brain from the influence of that history, short of external influence or actual physical alteration.

I have always enjoyed looking at old photos.

They give excellent context to the present. They remind me of what was, what is, and what may yet be.

As far as the actual history of photography itself, I enjoy shooting film because that is what I grew up with.

Seeing what others pulled off with less technology gives me a standard to work to in composition, which is not very dependent on tech anyway, and lens, light, film speed, and now for me, developing the negative.

The photos of others remind and inform me of what is possible.

I don't rely on any history at all. I photograph while I'm in the moment. I don't want another person's preconceived ideas and pictures in my head when I seek scenes to photograph. I want me and only me interpreting and being inspired by the scene.

 

I don't read books anymore because books tell me that another person's life and creative approach has convinced a cadre of like minded publishers I don't know a thing about that they are more interesting than myself.

 

I am more interesting than what I see published in a book or any one else in history and that's because I have all the facts about me and nothing about the person being written about and/or featured in a showing of their work that went through careful selective editing process.

 

It's my life and I get only one chance, so I don't want to waste it living and admiring someone else's life. History books are made by folks for other folks who live their life as spectators blindly sizing each other up without really having all the facts about the other person being written about and comparing them self to.

 

Life is short so I really have no desire to read about or look at another person's creative life. I'm never sure I know all the facts about them and their creative process that created works that were culled and curated so the public sees what they want them to see. It's not a true history about the creative person even when one looks at a finished work they admire and think they can learn from it. One would have to know everything on how their work was created and that's impossible to know.

 

History is for those that want something to read about and contemplate over. It's not going to make them creative and they're never going to see the way the artists sees because they will never know all the facts on how it was done. Even the artist doesn't know all the facts on how it was done.

Well . . . You didn't really address the question . . . I asked about evaluating your work, not about imitating or attempting to imitate the work of another. You very well may be more interesting, to yourself, than what you see published in a book. But, art isn't only about being interesting to yourself. The reputations of those who's work you will find in books are built on their being interesting to many others. Not just themselves.

Yes . . . Life is short . . . There's no need to invent the wheel yourself when you can stand on the shoulders of giants.

I'm not exactly arguing your point . . . If it works for you, it works for you. I just think that you may be missing something . . .

The etymology persuades me to agree strongly: “imitate” has its roots in the Latin ‘imitare’ to later become 'imitat' (‘to copy’ / 'copied') and is related to the Latin ‘imago’ (image).

 

The Shorter Oxford references ‘imitate’ was formed in the 16th Century and as their current short definition: ‘to copy’.

 

Merriam Webster is less definitive in their current short definition: ‘to follow as a pattern’.

 

In either case, it is obvious that ‘observation’ and 'cognitive action' are intrinsically involved; so the dictionary definitions also persuade me to agree.

 

A quick three telephone calls to friends who work in English Faculties, (to establish an anecdotal case for ‘common usage’ – acknowledging that meaning in Language is a moving entity), found that ‘to copy’ is the predominate current usage meaning, ergo observation and cognitive action are involved.

 

It’s only a small point, but, the discussion relies somewhat upon using key words, accurately, and in this case, important enough to make comment, even if only to highlight the fact that another is using this particular word to mean something which is out of kilter with its mainstream meaning.

 

WW

William, dictionary definitions don't always tell the entire story.

It appears we must.....

I'm not twisting your arm. It's up to you.

I think I always liked the science of photography more than the art.

I don't look at other's photographs as examples to imitate.

Reminds me that years ago, when I was first getting interested in photography,

and would visit some popular tourist attractions for photography, I thought that

they should have permanently mounted posts with tripod screws on top.

(That is, permanent tripods, though they may only need one leg.)

For artistic reasons, people will want to move the vantage point around,

but I was just thinking about the convenience.

Reminds me also, of the places that used to sell slides of popular sites,

such as national parks. At some point they stopped doing that, though

you might find a DVD, or maybe a CD with JPGs on it.