"Photographs, Ideas, and Meaning" (?)‏

<p>Not being a regular in this forum, I may have no standing to suggest a change. </p>

<p>Nonetheless...for four years now, reading through PoP threads as a casual visitor, I have been deeply impressed by the extent of misunderstandings that can occur here. </p>

<p>A few days ago, in the context of Arthur Plumpton's "Dephilosophizing" thread, the thought occurred to me, that just changing the name of this forum might have a broadly salutary effect. Late in the thread, I raised it as a possibility. Soon after, however, the whole thread went down like a torpedoed ship, taking everything with it. </p>

<p>The idea stuck in my mind, though, so I raise it now in this separate thread. If this is a presumptuous action on my part, please just think of this post as a politely-offered volleyball: if it has appeal, it can be batted around; if not, it can be kicked out of the court or simply ignored. If there's any follow-on discussion, I leave it entirely to others.</p>

<p>...............................</p>

<p>Because the word "philosophy" can be defined in a variety of ways, it has ambiguous implications. When used to refer to an academic field, philosophy ("a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology") implies the mastery of arcane jargon, the use of strict formal categories, and familiarity with the historical development of specific systems of thought and their implications. The percentage of Photo.net users with a sufficient background of formal study in the field of philosophy to sustain a rigorous dialogue, in this sense of the word, is probably very small. (There are some, of course.)</p>

<p>The same word can be used less rigorously to convey a variety of other intended meanings: "pursuit of wisdom" or " a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative, rather than observational means" or <strong>"</strong> an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs."</p>

<p>Or, the same word can be used completely without rigor, even condescendingly: e.g., "cracker-barrel philosophy". </p>

<p>In fact, few of the discussions in this forum have much in common with rigorous, academically-defined philosophy. Many could be described (generously) as being more in the category of "pursuit of wisdom" or "search for general understanding by chiefly speculative means". However, specialized allusions and patches of academic formalism do show up on occasion, unpredictably, and can contribute to confusion and verbal dustups. </p>

<p>The fact that there seems to be no shared understanding of what "philosophy of photography" actually means in the context of Photo.net, or what it includes and excludes, may be one of the problems afflicting the forum. The current name may be limiting its appeal as well as its substance.</p>

<p>In writing about PoP, more than one poster has candidly acknowledged a sense of intimidation--in effect, apprehension about not having an academic background that would give him "sea legs" to stay upright, if the waves of heavy jargon should begin to roll underfoot. That concern may be not be warranted, but if it's felt, it's real; nobody wants to be embarrassed.</p>

<p>So, might a name change be helpful?</p>

<p>After a couple of days' further consideration, the best I could come up with is</p>

<p><em>"Photographs, Ideas, and Meaning"</em></p>

<p>Such a name (or anything similar) might offer the following benefits:</p>

<p>1. It actually subsumes "philosophy" (the broad definition)--and philosophy subsumes it--so the name change would not "dumb down" anything, nor would it exclude any topic or treatment currently appropriate in PoP.</p>

<p>2. By removing overtones of academic formalism from the name of the forum, the new title could present a more inviting gateway for thoughtful Photo.net members who (for whatever reason) have tended to keep their distance.</p>

<p>3. By stating in clear, broad, vernacular terms the intended focus of the forum, it might foster the use of simpler and less pretentious communication (i.e., by making appeals-to-authority or unexplained namedropping seem out of place, it would render them less useful as a debating tactic). This, too, might tend to increase the clarity and appeal of the forum.<br /> <br /> --------------------------<br /> <br /> Just a thought, offered for consideration.</p>

<p>Perfect.</p>

<p>A very thoughtful and useful post, Ernest − along with the best, and a pleasure to read.<br>

I really don't know whether the change of name would satisfy the (excellent) aims you propose ... but it sounds more likely tan anything I can come up with myself.<br>

In the same spirit of discussion as your own, I offer the following thoughts which occurred to me as I read your post. I'm not nailing any colours to the mast; just throwing them up as more friendly volleyballs :-)<br>

1) If I had come into PN and seen "Photographs, ideas, and meaning", it would have attracted me into the forum for very different reasons from those which actually brought me into "Philosophy of photography". It would still have drawn me in, but by hooking into a different part of my mind. Would it, therefore, lose some who want something different from what the new title suggests? I'm not at all sure, more generally, that the new title subsumes all interpretations of the word philosophy. Perhaps what is needed is not a renamed forum but a split between forums which deal with different side os what this one now does? "Photographs, ideas, and meaning" <em><strong>and</strong> </em> "Philosophy of photography" (or some new name emphasising a more formal approach)?<br>

2) If I had come into PN and seen "Photographs, ideas, and meaning", it would (because of my own background and interests) have suggested to me semiotics and semiology ... so I would still have blundered in under a misapprehension. Perhaps no title, on its own, can properly define a forum's intent and purpose; perhaps a short (fifty words?) "prospectus" at the head of each would help? Or perhaps not.<br>

3) Maybe we could adopt a habit of specifying the register we intend at the beginning of a new thread ("I am thinking in terms of philosophy as pursuit of wisdom here" or "My concern here is the personal outlook of the photographer")<br>

To be honest, as I type each sentence and suggestion above I see that it wouldn't achieve anything ... either it would be often ignored or it would simply formalise the obvious. But, I'll leave them in place just in case they trigger more useful ideas and/or discussion by somebody else.</p>

<p><em>Perhaps what is needed is not a renamed forum but a split between forums which deal with different side os what this one now does?</em></p>

<p>I'm not trying to stamp out the discussion in this thread, but I should note that the probability of splitting this forum into two separate but closely-related forums is extremely close to zero. Splitting a forum is usually helpful only if there's a very clear divide between the new forums and there is enough traffic to support two forums (for example, there are separate Canon EOS and Canon FD forums). Dividing a relatively narrow forum with limited traffic into two separate forums generally results in two, almost-dead forums.</p>

<p>I'd agree with Mike that the split would be counterproductive, and unlikely. But I'd agree with Ernest that it's possible to make discussion about meaning, purpose, semantics, history, and all of the other entrees served up in this forum more approachable. That doesn't mean dumbing it down. Excellent proposal, Ernest. Well observed and thoughtfully conveyed.</p>

<p>This is, like most of my posts, an entirely personal view:</p>

<p>This Forum is famous for carelessly-unfocused writing that tries to pass for something deeper than it actually is. </p>

<p>Original Topics are often not even minimally thought-out in advance: lots of verbal backing-and-filling is done before the contributor figures out what he/she has in mind. </p>

<p>Rather than stating and expanding on central ideas, the writing is scattered and unfocused...a coherent question or Topic idea may or may not ever be expressed.</p>

<p>Some of us affect "stream-of-consciousness" writing style: the value of that kind of writing depends upon the writer's skill and the tolerance of readers. </p>

<p>On a good day of shooting photographs, I may come back with 200 shots on my CF card and 1 or 2 keepers. That's because I still experiment each time I go out. I take risks and chances.</p>

<p>I look at posts to this forum in a similar way. Some are grappling with tough questions to the point that they are, indeed, hard or nearly impossible to articulate clearly. The person who is willing to post a muddled, unsure, uncertain, even unclear OP earns my respect and attention. I enjoy participating in the working out of murky ideas. Sometimes, it's not pretty and that's a good thing.</p>

<p>In two welcome threads now, I hear complaints about the name of the forum, about regular participants of the forum, about esoteric references, and about uninteresting or too-obscure topics. All these complaints have merit.</p>

<p>I have this image of a dozen or more of you sitting back reading or skimming these threads making judgments and complaining to yourselves for months on end. Arthur has broken the ice with his very helpful thread and the floodgates have opened for more public, rather than private, complaining. A good thing . . . to an extent. I blame those who've been silently complaining as much as you blame me and the other regulars. Because you've sat back and done nothing about it. You haven't started less esoteric threads, you haven't asked questions about or googled references, and you haven't gotten into the spirit of murkiness to help those confused instead of just chastising them.</p>

<p>Many who are unhappy with the forum are looking to others or somewhere outside themselves for a change. Sartre* said, "Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you" and "Man is condemned to be free . . . is responsible for everything he does." Freedom is there, we can't escape it, but it's also not so easy. We look for ways out of exercising our freedom and acting with effectiveness. Exercising our freedom, for Sartre, makes us men . . . and women.</p>

<p>Most of the posts in these two forums have talked about what others are doing to get in our way. Name change is a focus. The name change is up to someone else, a site administrator. If only someone else would approve a new name, then I can participate or then others won't be so intimidated. Or other contributors are the problem. If only they would write differently or start more interesting and accessible threads. (<strong>S</strong><strong>teve Gubin</strong>, thanks, you're the only person in the last week who started a thread.) If only they wouldn't make references I don't understand. All the freedom in the world I have to make this forum better by participating, by helping to move the discussions in a more meaningful direction, by taking a couple of minutes to ask questions or go to google when something's unclear, that's all too much bother. Freedom requires a little something of me, and I'd rather someone or something else change.</p>

<p>As I said in the other thread, I am who I am and I relish the fact that each one of you is in some ways different. I come to this site to express myself photographically in my own unique way and to view very different types of photographers' work. And I come to this forum expecting and hoping for the same. In my critiquing, I elicit what the photographer is after rather than substituting my own vision for hers. If I don't like a photo I try not to change it to be like one of mine but to help the photographer figure out if she can better achieve <em>her</em> vision. I'm not seeking to change much about this forum's title, structure, or the people who already participate. I'm seeking new, energetic, and challenging blood, people who will assert themselves, who will choose to act on the freedom this forum affords. It's the most loosely-moderated forum on PN, where tons of latitude is given for all approaches. Sartre would suggest that it's precisely that expectation of freedom and of each of us taking personal responsibility for what it can be that makes it so difficult.</p>

<p>_______________________<br /> *20th-Century French philosopher who many consider the father of Existentialism, a branch of philosophy focusing on the freedom of the individual to make his own choices despite often being told he has none by political and religious institutions, and despite sometimes his own unwillingness, presumed incapacity, or laziness to act. </p>

<p><strong>John Kelly</strong>,</p>

<p>Good writing takes many forms. This, for example:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Earnest B.,</strong></p>

<p>Thank you for a thoughtful post. I can't come up with any good title suggestions (the best I can do is "Guiding Principles" which sounds like a soap opera). However, I will be interested to hear what others have to say. Perhaps an expanded "forum description" on the sidebar would help?</p>

<p>Ernest-</p>

<p>Your thoughtful proposal of a new title may well make access to the forum easier for some.</p>

<p>It may be helpful at this point to simply refer to a dictionary for a definition of what "philosophy" of photography might infer. The following definition is revelatory in some ways and does not strike me as being particularly academic, or even opaque:</p>

<p>(From the Oxford Concise Dictionary): "Philosophy: Love of wisdom or knowledge, especially that which deals with ultimate reality, or with the general causes and principles of things."</p>

<p>There are companion definitions of "natural philosophy" and "moral philosophy" in the OCD that are also interesting to read, but perhaps less relevant to photography as such. Perhaps the above definition of dealing with "ultimate reality and the general causes and principles of things" can be considered similar to your "ideas and meaning."</p>

<p>You suggest the word <strong>photographs</strong> and not <strong>photography</strong>. Photographs are products, whereas photography implies process. In the present PoP forum both are presently treated under the umbrella of philosophy, which I think is good. Philosophy is a rather broad focus and it is all too easy to discuss things outside of the limits of photography as such, but sometimes those discussions or analogies to photography or photographic process are useful.</p>

<p>"Ideas and meaning of photography", which I adapt from your idea, might be too restrictive. I don't know, it is only, as you aptly and wisely say, a volleyball return shot.</p>

<p>What you are suggesting as a title is interesting, but I think is also a clarification of <strong>a part</strong>, <strong>and only a part</strong>, of what the PoP forum is. To keep its broad sweep and yet to make it more "accessible" it woud be nice to have a synonym for the word philosophy. I checked my two (Roget and Mirriam-Webster pocket editions) and they do not help in that regard, so I guess we might continue with the term of Greek heritage.</p>

<p>There is another aspect to all of this. I have suggested a few times recently to maintain the PoP forum as such, but to provide a <strong>new companion forum</strong> that would address specifically those <em>ideas, thoughts and actions that make up our photographic approach</em>, maybe to fall under a title such as:</p>

<p>"Artistic approaches in photograhy" or "Approaches in art photography"</p>

<p>For those that might dislike the word artistic or art, I would simply counter-propose:</p>

<p>"Approaches in photography"</p>

<p>I avoid the term "Personal approaches..." as the hypothetical forum would consider those that are both personal and the approaches of other workers. The idea is not related to technical or equipment related approaches but to the ideas, thoughts and actions.</p>

<p>In sum, although your proposal aptly deals with a part of the subject (ideas and meanings, or photographs), I think I would prefer to stay with the PoP title of the forum, but would seriously propose adding to the PNet forums one which has not been previously highlighted, namely the "ideas, thoughts and actions that relate to personal photographic approaches." After all, we have two Canon forums.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This forum has become too damn self conscious with all these types of reflections on it. Self consciousness can be a real bitch, besides that I don't see what the "problem" is. The big difficulty here may be precisely that there isn't one.</p>

<p>Phylo-</p>

<p>I don't often disagree with your insights, but Alexander Meiklejohn has said: "Democracy is the art of thinking independently together" <br /> Or, as Alfred North Whitehead suggested (and which is obviously a bit of overkill to state here): “It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious.”</p>

<p>What better for a Philosophy forum, than reflections on the nature of its existence?</p>

<p>Yes true Arthur, but we're talking about <em>talking</em> here, which can only go so far until it's stuck in a kinda infinite video feedback loop. And for those insisting on writing more clearly ( which I cannot not agree with ) :</p>

<p><em>Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think - </em>Niels Bohr</p>

<p>That's one to think about.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Phylo,<br>

<em>"Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think - </em>Niels Bohr<br>

That's one to think about."<br>

<strong>What are you trying to say?</strong> </p>

<p>Arthur: <em>"What better for a Philosophy forum, than reflections on the nature of its existence?"</em><br>

A discussion related to Photography would be more appropriate than a discussion about the Forum...<strong>which by the rules of Photo.net you are attempting in the WRONG FORUM.</strong></p>

<p>Accept my shorthand, and read ..."Philosophy of Photography forum, than...", John. Thank you.</p>

<p>You <strong>may</strong> have noticed (although I am not sure after reading your comment) that I addressed, as carefully as I could, all my photography related points just above Phylo's comment.</p>

<p>Ernest B's OT suggestions seem perfect.<br>

In the past many of the posts here were only vaguely related to photography, if at all... focusing instead on personal definitions of terms such as Philosophy (often attempting to remove values from the concept and inventing new personally defined terms)). <br>

I think that in the interest of good communication the term "philosophy" should be ash-canned and replaced with something more closely related to the ideas, values, and goals of photographers. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, might a name change be helpful?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Personally, I don't think it would be helpful if the content remain the same. If there is a problem (and that's an "if" already), then the title is the least of it. I would not mind a changed forumtitle, though, I just don't expect miracles of it. However, it is genuinely good to hear more opinions here, mine isn't all that relevant being rather new on the scene. </p>

<p>The one thing, though, I do not quite get: rather than suggesting change, why not just try to change it? Participate, let yourself be heard, don't be intimidated but trust your own originality of thought. Nobody here deals in absolute truths or dogmas. Nobody is right or wrong. What Fred states as <em>taking risk and chances here</em>, in my view, is true. You do not need explicit intellectual, artistic or technical merits to participate. An inquisitive mind, an interest in somewhat more abstract things, the urge to ask questions - that's (in my humble opinion) enough. Just think along with the rest of us and develop more insights. That's at least it for me.</p>

<p>I'd say, just give it a try.</p>

<p>Wouter, When you and I disagree, with is fairly often but perhaps not importantly, the heat makes light because you express your ideas concisely, and in personal terms. <br>

Your contributions are easily as valuable as those of many who have posted here for years. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'd vote yes for "Photographs, Ideas, and Meaning"</p>

<h1><br /></h1>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Phylo,<br /></em><em>"Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think -</em><em>Niels Bohr<br />That's one to think about."<br /></em><strong><em>What are you trying to say?</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly what the quote says, though to crack, one to think about. But I guess also that writing more clearly on PoP matters ( which of course can't be bad ) does not necessarily correlate to a consensus or flow of clear thinking and/or communication on the things that matter, or *should* matter, in the context of the PoP forum : the <em>why</em> rather than the <em>how</em>. But here we are, talking about the way to talk.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think that in the interest of good communication the term "philosophy" should be ash-canned and replaced with <strong>something more closely related to the ideas, values, and goals of photographers</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And which may or may not be philosophical in nature, not ?</p>

<p>While in general agreement with Ernest I think we are getting too bogged down in definitions. Rather than trying to make it an <em>inclusive</em> title how about making it <em>exclusive</em> intsead, naming it to fit in with the rest of PN, and calling it :</p>

<p><strong>'Less Casual Photographic Conversations'</strong></p>

<p>or something along those lines. (OK I am sure that name could be imroved on but you get the idea). This would then be able to include any discussion about photography by their tone and the intention behind them without attempting to define what is and is not included. You may well then get some posts which would previously have got the 'Wrong Forum' post applied sternly to them. But may I suggest that a wider remit would both add interest for a broader readership and and also provide a home for these more serious discussions which otherwise just get branded as 'casual'. </p>

<p><strong>The Photographic Mind</strong> sounds like a good title to me. I confess that I'm not sure what the original intent was for something like the "Philosophy of Photography," but I bet it had something to do with providing people an opportunity to explore the mental aspects of photography. This would seem to run from the study of the history and development of photographic schools of thought, through the ideas expressed in the work of influential photographers, to what's gone on in a person's head when he finally says, "I've got a new photo you just have to see for yourself!"</p>

<p>As I see it, the word Philosophy has turned out to be something of a red herring. It seems to have been interpreted as an invitation for various respondents to attempt to make themselves in philosophers, with a notable lack of success. Of course there really are a few academically qualified philosophers here, but actual philosophical discourse is misplaced in PoP. This is the Internet. The guy who commented on a conversation in a bar wasn't far off the mark. It's like talking to a stranger in an airport terminal. Hundreds of people are milling around for reasons of their own. Qualifications don't matter, and there are no formalized guidelines for anything. A brief conversation spread over time, perhaps wi</p>

 

<b>Moderator's note: There was some kind of problem that locked up this thread in the middle of Albert's post. This should restore the thread to working order, but the end of Albert's post was eaten by the system.</b>

<p>Philo, IMO it would be better if you more carefully expressed your ideas.</p>

<p>Re-read your last post and you may see why it's hard to follow your thinking.</p>

<p>Bohr isn't a thought authority. I could make my own points similarly uselessly by quoting James Crick (genetics), whose work was more scientifically significant (though Bohr was historically important in physics, of course) .. Crick was a wonderfully clear and amusing thinker and everybody with an introductory college course in biology knows his work. </p>

<p>Reliance on quotes by by "famous" people (eg Bohr or Crick), when they're not notable in photography obstructs conversations on this Forum. That causes part of the problem that concerns Arthur Plumpton. </p>

<p> (Crick's genetic research depended substantially on photography...might make him marginally more relevant here than Bohr :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"This Forum is famous for carelessly-unfocused writing that tries to pass for something deeper than it actually is. " John, since we are not around a table at a bar sippping on our favorite beverages while having some great conversations, we must rely on this Forum as our medium for dialogue. In conversation, I may initially say something that is not very well developed or thought out. A thoughtful participant in that conversation won't just dismiss it out of hand, but rather will, through his/her own contributions, encourage me (one way or the other) to develop my thoughts more effectively, to modify my point of view, to retract my statements as rubbish, etc. Why in the bloody blazes can't we do that in this Forum, notwithstanding that it can't be as freewheeling as conversation? </p>

<p>I really don't care what it is called. Those of us who want to get something meaningful out of it already know that we should post contributions that are relevant to the original post. That establishes the context of discussion. If someone posts a question in the "Off-Topic Forum" asking for opinions on the best beer in the world, we would not expect to find a post that addresses the requirements for a beer and wine license.</p>

<p>Bottom line -- What we need in this, and any, PN Forum is civility, open-mindedness, tolerance, and honest exchanges of ideas. Everything else will take care of itself.</p>

<p>Brilliant comment, Michael.</p>

<p>Michael I think "we" can and do post any way "we" want. May I post in <em>my</em> own way?</p>

<p>For some reason you need to attack me for commenting on careless posts and bad writing. Seems odd, since you could instead express ideas of your own in response to the OT, but it's your privelege. </p>

<p>YOU DO make a point of good writing (ie you are coherent, your thoughts are organized)...</p>

<p>You write that way because you want to share your thoughts with photographers, not just with your navel. The same desire to communicate honestly can be seen in occasional concise, focused, even beautiful posts by their navel's best friends. </p>

<p>Good post Michael, irrespective our agreements or disagreements.</p>

<p> </p>