Jump to content

Martyr Philosophy


Recommended Posts

<p>my philosophy is that all photography should be dedicated to thorough expression of the moment. this means not interrupting the moment in order to record it and not altering the documentation of the moment after it is over. </p>

<p>explanation for practical application of this philosophy:</p>

<p>--no flash, only natural available lighting. events should be continuous lit for photography if they are to be photographed in a manner requiring fine grain and clarity. the idea is that my subjects are not distracted by my presence or removed from their natural context (lighting) for the purposes of forcing a clean looking photograph in an environment that's not conducive to it. if the environment in which they are involved is conducive to clean grainless clear photography then so be it. the idea is to express the nature of the actual situation even if the actual situation is set up to be photographed. harsh shadows or even lighting</p>

<p>--no shots of subjects posing or looking at the camera unless the subject is reacting to the presence of the camera as oppose to simply ruling out the possibility of being captured during an honest moment.</p>

<p>--no zoom lenses, their performance often is not as good as primes, they often are not fast enough to shoot sans flash and they stop the shooter from interacting in the same space as the subject. lenses longer than 200mm are also barred as they are too slow and too distant from the subject. there is a certain disconnect between shooter and subject and this will become evident to the point of ruining the photos if the shooter stops interacting with the subject in their own space/tyme</p>

<p>--small quiet cameras are preferred in situations where the presence of the camera will interrupt the behavior of the subject. larger louder cameras are okay once the subject has adapted to ignore the camera or when documenting reactions to the presence of the camera.</p>

<p>--no editing beyond levels adjustment. cropping is okay unless cropping out information that alters the message of the shot completely. colours and levels can be adjusted because these things are relative to the processing/printing/viewing method. erasing information or altering information in the shot is no different than lying and is equally unethical. if the appearance of blemishes etc are to be reduced these undesirable elements must be reduced or excluded somehow in shooting as this expresses a photographic reality, not an edited falsehood. </p>

<p>--any element of a photo that expresses its source and its mechanical bias such as grain, natural vingetting, flaring etc is not only acceptable but should be emphasized where relevant. photography will arrive closer to full disclosure by revealing its own bias, keeping the viewer reminded of its two-dimensional, compressed and filtered nature.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

<p>You want a reaction, I got one for you,Marty. 1) photos are essentially illusions. Like recorded sound waves are illusions of the original. 2) Purists will try to be pure and purer, but purity is a personal decision, not a philosophy that is workable in the real world. Too "monastic" for day to day shooting. 3) I happen to follow <strong>much less " tight sphinctered</strong> " code about art/ creative expression forms and so do most folks,--even as we have personal standards to which we adhere. 4) that puts your philosophy in a <strong>box.</strong> ) It gets lonely in a box, Martyr. But give it a a shot.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>i can only hope this "philosophy" is in reality the "Johny Martyr attempt at satire". if this isn't the case...all i can say is...geez. (i fear this is for real)</p>

<p>If it's not too much trouble...could we see a few examples of those "Martyr philosophy" photographs, please?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'd add no film, no camera, no lenses, since they are all interfering with the "expression of the moment". Frankly even your perception of the moment with your eyes is creating an observer effect, at least in a quantum sense.</p>

<p>Enjoy yourself in your black box camera obscura, that might work. Perhaps you could walk around with such a box over your head, but wait, that would interfere too.</p>

<p>I mean, if you can't afford zoom lenses, you don't need to rationalize it <em>here</em> .</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> I love these fundie manifestos. This one is <em>so </em> Sixties and nostalgic. Hey, if it helps Johnny M. or anyone else to produce great pictures, it's worth it (for <em>them</em> ).</p>

<p>It reminds me more than a little of this in cinema....</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogme_95</p>

<p>...and lots of good movies have come from it. My main kvetch with the <em>Martyr </em> <em>Manifesto </em> is that is's numbingly dull and devoid of passion. Where's the rage at the establishment? What are you leaving behind, and for what? Who are you? Why should anyone adopt the <em>Martyrfesto?</em></p>

<p>That bland honey-do list is blah. <em>This </em> is a manifesto:</p>

<p>"We have been up all night, my friends and I, beneath mosque lamps whose brass cupolas are bright as our souls, because like them they were illuminated by the internal glow of electric hearts. And trampling underfoot our native sloth on opulent Persian carpets, we have been discussing right up to the limits of logic and scrawling the paper with demented writing.<br>

Our hearts were filled with an immense pride at feeling ourselves standing quite alone, like lighthouses or like the sentinels in an outpost, facing the army of enemy stars encamped in their celestial bivouacs. Alone with the engineers in the infernal stokeholes of great ships, alone with the black spirits which rage in the belly of rogue locomotives, alone with the drunkards beating their wings against the walls." --- Marinetti, <em>The Futurist's Manifesto, 1909</em></p>

<p>Or...</p>

<p>http://www.ralphmag.org/AR/dada.html</p>

<p>http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T340/F98/SurrealistManifesto.htm</p>

<p>http://www.mta.ca/about_canada/study_guide/artists/refus_global.html</p>

<p>Here's how to write one...</p>

<p>http://www.londonconsortium.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/scrivneripmessay.pdf</p>

<p><em><br /> </em></p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with Bob. I violated all the dogmatic restrictions in the original post for this one except the first, I was traveling and didn't bring a flash. Otherwise, I could have violated them all.</p><center>

<p><img src="http://www.spirer.com/pridenyc2009/slides/_MG_0373-Edit.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /> <br /> <em>Pride New York, Copyright 2009 Jeff Spirer</em></p></center>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>a--this was originally posted in the philosophy forum then sent by the moderator, not me, here. so my post is completely out of context.</p>

<p>b--those of you who left short trite negative responses, at least i am trying to define my work and support what i have to say and don't just let the politics of my tools define how and what i'm communicating with my imagery. i doubt most of you have much ethical, philosophical reason to what you do which is exactly the same mentality as 'all is good, nothing is bad, do whatever you want' which is the downfall of civilization and the creator of unchallenging art aka, superficial entertainment.</p>

<p>c--thanks to those of you who didn't blow up at someone for offering a method. it would be lovely if we could have a REAL adult conversation instead of a lot of childish crying.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>left short trite negative responses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>b-as opposed to those who left long, trite original posts?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i doubt most of you have much ethical, philosophical reason to what you do which is exactly the same mentality as 'all is good, nothing is bad, do whatever you want' which is the downfall of civilization and the creator of unchallenging art aka, superficial entertainment</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now we're getting a little passion, but kind of a strong assumption about the rest of us, ain't it though? Who made you the great "decider"?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it would be lovely if we could have a REAL adult conversation instead of a lot of childish crying.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You said it brother.</p>

<p>I will agree with you about one thing, though, this would fit in better as a philosophy forum post, which is one reason that many people don't often stop there....</p>

<p>And thanks, Luis G. --very nice links. We simply don't hear enough these days about the Futurists!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ahah, Johnny!. Now that explains <strong>a lot</strong> . Philosophy forum is not unlike the creepy room at the top of the creaking stairway in a movie like for instance "Psycho." Oops.. Sorry I blurted that out.... Nah.Not <em>really</em> <em><strong>that</strong> </em> sorry:-) Be well. One can be civil and still express a firm POV...aloha.gs</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Illia, thanks. i agree, not alot of adherents. doesn't make me wrong. </p>

<p>Ben Bangerter--your useless response is one of the silliest things i've read today. why bother posting things without supporting what your opinion is? </p>

<p>Gerry Siegel--did i ask you for a reaction? and the name is MARTYR. i'm not interested in trying to invalidate your response because i think you're quite right in concept. however, i don't see any reason why i can't have my way of seeing and doing things without being mocked. what exactly did you find soo offensive about what i had to say? did i mock you in some way? did i say your photography was poor? </p>

<p>John Galyon--what specifically is your problem with what i've said? i'd be happy to provide work in a less hostile and immature environment where you don't post over and over with unsolicited insults.</p>

<p>jdm--after our discussions in the classic cameras forum it's pretty frustrating that would join in the collective mudslinging. thanks. as others here you've presented a sound alternative followed by childish mockery that doesn't really support your otherwise intelligent commentary.</p>

<p>steven moseley--thank you but i could use some more help about why you think this!</p>

<p>glen rasmussen--i would love to share my work with someone who came off as actually wanting to see it. 'verbage' is a pretty 'highfalutin' word--i guess accurate communication is kinda necessary on a text-based internet forum, huh?</p>

<p>jeff spirer--i think you pinpoint peoples' problem with my post. i shouldn't have implied that everyone needs to follow my ideas. i don't feel as though my entire post carries this character but rather uses a popular methodology and describes why it does not fit into my viewpoint. i have not mocked or insulted anyone yet this is all i've gotten in response apparently just for having a different viewpoint. or maybe because of my wording. it's a shame nobody has actually articulated exactly what their problem with me is. also, i don't care how much of my ideals you violated with your photo. what does that have to do with anything? did you just want to find a way to flick me off without getting thrown out of the forum? why exactly have i offended you soo personally? </p>

<p>Luis G--yes, i left out the rage at the establishment hoping to make my ideas less whiny and against other peoples' work. if i'd gone all out as you suggest can you imagine the angry lynch mob that would have been offended? which was not my purpose at all, merely to express my ideas and why. thanks for the links. i'm very moved by the work of dziga vertov as well.</p>

<p>bob atkins--if you don't have a philosophy, what are you trying to communicate with your pictures? why do you take them? not trying to start a fight, just asking.</p>

<p>walt flanagan--thanks for that bit of unfriendly insight. i am quite sure i don't agree with or care about your post much either.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>jdm--instead of being on the defensive how about you explain what is causing your malace towards me? that would be the first step to developing an adult conversation.</p>

<p>why are you thanking luis for bringing these topics to light and complaining about me for doing so?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>no malice toward you, just your extreme...down right weird perception of what photography should "be". i insulted your philosophy...it was your choice to take it personally...not mine. so extreme, that i honestly waivered on whether it was "real" ...or a satirical slant directed at the threads started by others with such narrow perceptions of the craft. guess you're the real deal.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"this means <strong>not interrupting </strong> the moment in order to record it"<br>

"larger louder cameras are okay once the subject has adapted to ignore the camera or when <strong>documenting reactions</strong> to the presence of the camera."</p>

<p>Your "philosophy" has a conflict.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...