I love doing Street Photography but......

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by reallife, Oct 19, 2018.

  1. Yes but see how here you used words to fully illustrate your intent, which I agree, was obvious, I would add to the point of tedium ;).
    Additionally, your words described what, in my mind, is probably a more compelling photo in its own context.
    Post it if you please.
    Ironically one of the most interesting aspects, in some cases, of the No Words forum is words as pictures.
    That’s why it’s enjoyable to see the different takes on the thread titles.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2018 at 6:17 PM
  2. Didn't need the words to illustrate my intent. That's why it worked so well in the No Words forum. Used words to respond to what you said in our conversation and to clarify that it wasn't a backhanded slap but a full frontal one and give you some backstory that wasn't necessary to understand the photo but simply explained how it came to be.
    Sweet.
     
  3. Then at least we agree there is a correlation between art and conversation when it comes to clarity or lack thereof.
     
  4. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Moderator Staff Member

    There are 13 floors of offices and 39 floors of residential condos in the building - does a clear insult to all of those renters and residents seem appropriate weighed against a political shot? Where is the wonderful kindness and inclusiveness that the Left constantly proclaims? At face value, without Your weighting your image was off topic.
     
  5. I sense that most understood it as an insult to the eponymous owner of the building. As I said, though, all reactions are welcome and I completely understand why you want to read it as an insult to all the residents. I find that my own and others' reactions to photos, whether honest or manipulated to try and attribute something to the photographer that isn't necessarily there, says as much about each viewer as it does about the photographer or photo. Personally, I think you'd be much better off being offended by it because it takes a slap at a political ally of yours rather than fabricating that it somehow says something about the residents of the building but, as I said, I appreciate reactions and welcome them in the spirit in which they're given.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2018 at 6:44 PM
  6. That might be true from the perspective of a non-resident, which is how I viewed it.
    But if I lived in that building or it was my place of employment I would surely interpret the picture as a slight directed at me, intended or otherwise.
    So Sandy’s point illustrates very well what we’ve been talking about.
    It isn’t really what Sandy wants that is relevant.
    It is an articulation of a different reading of the meaning of a photograph in the identical context from a different point of view.
    But it took his conversation to point that out.
    It’s why people discuss art......
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2018 at 6:58 PM
  7. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Moderator Staff Member

    Actually, the President of the United States, President Donald Trump, lives in the White House, AKA, the People's House, not Trump Tower.
     
  8. I think most people know that. I certainly realize it, though I don't think of the White House as the People's House no matter who the occupant is.

    Anyway, I don't think whether or not Trump lives at the White House changes the common interpretation of the cropped photo I posted in that thread. As Moving On has been saying, it helps to think a little metaphorically when thinking about photos. That Trump literally doesn't live in Trump Tower really isn't relative to understanding the photo as posted. It's about his name being on the building. Sandy, it's really not that complicated nor, to be honest, is it an earth-shattering photographic political statement on my part. It was just a quick gut response to the theme "asylum."

    In any case, I hope you got my point and sense your homage to the "People's House" was just a deflection as a way not to respond to my pointing out your fabrication of the residents of Trump Tower as the supposed subjects of the slap of the photo.

    To me, the photo below is a more worthy politically charged photo that's also personal for me. It was part of a series I did on the first day gay marriages became legal as couples rushed down to City Hall to get their licenses and take their vows. It's probably more documentary than street, but this forum covers both.

    wen-tara-01-ww.jpg
     
  9. Sounds like there's a little snowflake in all of us ... On the other hand, I think many residents and employers would have a sense of humor about it, might well understand it the same way non-residents do, and a lot would probably agree with the political sentiments behind it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2018 at 7:54 PM
  10. The marked difference being in how we let it govern our lives....
    I accept insult as the inextricable baggage of the free exchange of ideas and willingly manage accordingly.
    I do not require a safe place or legislated tyranny to protect me.

    How ‘bout posting the unedited photo?
     
  11. Absolutely. There can certainly be different readings of the meaning of a photo in the identical context from different points of view. And, just as a photographer can very intentionally imbue a photo with a political message or even manipulate a photo into making such a statement by placing it in a particular context or other means, a viewer can very intentionally read something into a photo in order to make it seem to say something the viewer very well knows it does not, as a way for the viewer to make a political statement. Nothing wrong with either of those things, as long as there's self awareness and even some acknowledgment on both photographer and viewer's part that this is what they're doing. I've already been quite up front about the intentional political statement I created.
     
  12. Yes but in the context of so many former identities that might seem a bit hollow.....
    More so to some than others.
    Honesty being the heart of it.....
     
  13. “That particular photo, which as it stands is all statement and not a very compelling photo, is originally a much more interesting photo and goes well in this thread, which is about fear of taking pics on the street. The foreground I cropped out is of a sidewalk vendor across the street who I'd struck up a conversation with and who was happy to have his picture taken. I debated leaving the vendor in for my PN posting, since it's a better picture with him in it, but didn't want to imply that there was any association between the vendor, who was actually the subject of the photo, and "asylum." I felt it was a more blatant and in-your-face statement when cropped just to the building entrance”

    I guess after asking 3 times, that unedited version ain’t forthcoming.......
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2018 at 9:23 PM
  14. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Moderator Staff Member

    Doesn't bother me, their life, their business, none of mine - mostly I am entirely disinterested in what is important to you, and why. There is the key - your content is largely about you, your life, your perceptions - you may truly be as "evolved" ," advanced" and "superior" as you present yourself to be in your posts - if so simple courtesy would suggest that you "shutter the brilliant light that you shine" on all of us poor bitter clingers, deplorables, virtual dregs - only a few of the bon mot applied to us from your side of the great divide.
     
  15. Since I assume you know very well who I am, at least as far as anyone knows anyone on the Internet, I don't know why this would seem a bit hollow at all. I've never gone out of my way to hide my identity. I don't consider a particular pseudonym I might choose, or a stage name for that matter, a change of identity. I know you're the same person you were before changing your PN name to Moving On and it doesn't make me think you had a former identity or that any of your words seem hollow because of it. To each her own, I guess.
     
  16. The reason I find that hard to believe is that you chose to enter the conversation because the conversation had veered to a photo I had posted in another thread. I think "disinterested" is a very bad choice of words here.
    This is a perfect example of something that, if I had written it, you likely would have edited or deleted it. I'm perfectly fine with your saying it, ad hominem as it is. But you have a very obvious prejudice in what you tolerate in posts and what you don't.
     
  17. Yes. You'll find none of us are at your beck and call to respond to the many requests you make. I post what I want when I want. I felt the marriage photo illustrated my point about political street/doc photos and didn't feel the unedited Trump Tower photo would add much. I've posted many a street photo along with my commentary over the years. You?
     
  18. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Moderator Staff Member

    Report.
     
  19. That statement clearly indicates you thought it perfectly suited, unedited, to be posted here, yet now you do a 180.
    Why?
    My request was not an undue imposition upon you in light of what you clearly put forth representing it.
    Your reactions in such cases tends to add to the hollow ring.....
     
  20. I don't report people. I didn't like when the school monitors reported people back in elementary school and I don't much care for it now. I simply respond directly to the people who say things to me. I don't need to find some authority figure to report it to.
     

Share This Page