Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by davidrosen, Apr 30, 2019.
the voice ...
But sometimes the eyes can see.
Your not Phil, like anyone else. Why would you want to be?
Just to go off topic, but with a slight relevant to the post...It was interesting to read the comments of a war correspondence who landed on the Omega Beach during the D day landings.
He reported among the dying and severely wounded, they either called to their mothers, or God, in equal ratio.
Unconditional love is the thought which comes to mind. Is that something to do with finding yourself photographically or otherwise?
Then that would mean the government’s God
I feel like they’ve been brainwashin' us with a lot
Sure you will not be brainwashed, Phil.
Unless of course you already have.
I listen, Phil. I always try to work my two ears. Particularly listen to words of the crying of lost souls.
"Just to go off topic, but with a slight relevant to the post...It was interesting to read the comments of a war correspondence who landed on the Omega Beach during the D day landings"
And let us not forget, these folk sacrificed their lives for humanity. They died to defend humanity from a racialist regime, who believed that all humanity was not equal.
And to put it nicely should be removed.
Ill Mind Of Hopsin 7
The crying. Or, I'm lost up my own arse. Can anyone stick their arms up there to pull me out?
Jeeze, it smells.
Anyway, I have found my voice.
It goes like this.
Goodnight, and God bless.,
Hmm... and another thread
spirals out of control down
into the abyss...
Interesting - y'all can't speak for yourselves - just links, AKA mute.
Where are your own words? Just others speak for you?
Well at least the first page of comments were interesting
The Dicionary says to find one's voice is to find one's distinctive style or vision of artistic expression. So I have been shootin' in the same style since 1998, so I guess, I have found my voice.
I disagree on the point that having a voice may came without understanding of it. Eech person who really could do real photography, (NOT FOOLING AROUND WITH A CAMERA) who was competent among those who I met during last 20+ years did understand what he/she did.
Ella had a voice. Judy had a voice. Sinatra had a voice. Pavarotti had a voice. Lennon, Dylan, Janis.
A voice is something distinctive enough to be immediately recognized. I don’t understand Judy’s or Sinatra's voice. I just hear it, it’s visceral and organic. It’s part of them.
Voice, when used in relation to non-singing artists, is more metaphoric. Thus used, voice is more basic, more elemental, more individual, more personality- and character-driven than style, which is likely what one is thinking of when talking about understanding.
A photographer’s understanding of what he or she “did” is different from understanding a voice. My guess is that many of the greatest photographers would tell you that in addition to what they understand, there’s a whole lot that’s beyond their understanding of what they do.
Sandy, what sort of writing do you do? I occasionally write poetry.
Phil, I've found several of my voices by listening to Pink Floyd songs. Of course, I was under the influence of . . . (guess).
I don't compare distinctive style or vision of artistic expression and understanding because they are different things, you're right here. But every serious photographer (let alone great - Koudelka, Saudek, Avedon, Sutkus, Syomin, Leibovitz, Rodchenko, Horst P Horst, Demarchelier, Doisneau) - everyone understood what he or she did.
AND here is the difference from an illiterate, stupid shutterbug - the latter is just clicking without even understanding why, what for, so he/she is the farthest from having a voice like a voiceless (and out of tune) visitor of karaoke of drunken gig.
I get that great photographers understand what they do. You can stop repeating it. And I’m not about to engage you on so-called “illiterate, stupid shutterbugs.” That’s not a voice I care to adopt. In any case, there are plenty of fine, self aware photographers with a depth of understanding who don’t have a voice. All I’m saying, and you seem to have agreed, is that voice is different from style and is not as much about understanding as other aspects of being a photographer.
Here we step on unknown and slippery path. The dictionary defines voice as distinctive style or vision.
Did Karsh have a voice? We would say yes but at that time many people used to use his technique. He was just most prominent and famous with his famous clientele. He was very technically proficient too and had the best gear. Leibovts? We say yes, she is iconic. But buying glossy magazines I would not certainly distinguish her every work out of the many others.
I have this magazine - a lot of people take alike portraits (like that of Amy Adams). And I take them also (though not againt a backdrop) and work with professional models and dancers but never posted them here.
Let's take Rodney Smith - he was prominent too, but the same story. Moreover, some people criticize his general style as imitation of Rene Magritte (a painter). But still he had a voice. So I am still agree with the dictionary. When speaking about landscapes, product photography, macro.... the voice definition becomes more unobvious.
Separate names with a comma.