Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by invisibleflash, May 12, 2019.
button pushing ... pedestrian.
button wearing ... cafe dweller.
+ one for the peace button photo
Old Men Like Peace.......
The button is a byproduct, not the catalyst.
? don't know you'd have to ask sam why he took the photo. But part of the catalyst for posting it in this discussion re buttons seems apparent.
....for the peace, not the photo....
I would guess an Old Peacenik, but recognize that most Old Men prefer peace anyway, even if they fought like hell in their youth.
My bad. I didn't think that it was so obvious as to be meant that a peace button is a byproduct and not a catalyst for peace. although...
The catalyst for taking it was the backlight. The catalyst for processing it was a No Words thread whose theme was buttons. The catalyst for posting it here ... too multifaceted to go into, though the proximate cause was to riff off Inoneeye’s dexterous pushbutton street encounter.
Jim’s been a peacenik since his youth, though he also served. He still goes to demonstrations and rallies, hobnobs with code pinkers, and reads his poetry at cafés and bookstores.
I consider it a very ethical photo. No animal or vegan was harmed in the course of its creation.
wow just between you and me i am going to frame that one with the heading
Are you an ethical photographer?
I expect people who go to war probably appreciate Peace more than the rest of us.
It is, anything else beside, still a great photo, and I really like it. I expect you had to do a bit to the eyes in post...?
I think he, inoeeye, was ambivalent about the encounter.
I suppose it was ambidextrous......
Inoneeye’s dexterous pushbutton street encounter......
I expect you were ambivalent about the encounter, as well as dexterous,
It was supposed to be a lighthearted play on words....dry humor.
I see ambiguity when I view the photo now, that is part of my reason for posting it in this thread.
The humor went by me undetected. but what I questioned was the highlighted statement because I felt no ambivalence about the encounter then or now. So i was curious what the visual cues were for your 'ambivalent' interpretation. It may be an insight that i would find valuable. The ambiguity I refer to presents an ethical challenge to the viewer/myself. ambivalence not so much.
Ambivalence & ethics resonates like a slippery partnership.
I would expect to have mixed feelings about someone waving me off as I snapped their photograph.
The wave off elicits reservation but at the same time makes the photo what it is.....Common human reaction that candidly plays into the journalistic nature of the photo.
the subject then. thanks MO. Not that it is at all apparent but I wasn't shooting him when he came abruptly from the side, out of view.
Reminds me of the cliche.....
Funny how the old camera dodge from this, around 1:14, and repeated several times, came to mind after all these years.
I had assumed from the photo he was the subject......assuming you pushed his button....
of course, and he certainly is part of the 'ethics' subject now. I had pushed his button unwitting-ly, not for photographing him tho. I was photographing the building & posters. He didn't want me to photograph them.
So, in a sense, the guy trespasses himself right into your photo. He intrudes, imposing a vague drama into the fixed reality of the wrecked building’s moment with you. An agile steal. What’s his ethical burden?
At the time, I was less experienced and remember being proud for nailing a tough exposure. Still did some tweaking in post, though, yes.
Separate names with a comma.