Re: The Intellectualization of Craft

<p>The (unfortunate?) nature of philosophy is to intellectualize. I've been happily at it for years. I can go all sensual over well-considered ideas and elegantly-constructed arguments. I also allow my philosophical approach to the great questions to influence my photographing. </p>

<p>I have and many others have used intellectualizing as a way of avoiding the craft of making photographs. It seems easier to talk abstractly about emotional and conceptual aspects of work and much easier to talk about them in general than it is to talk specifically about photographic elements and how we use them. It's easier to talk about what and how we know than about what and how we see.</p>

<p>We talk about our insides, our thoughts, our mental and emotional processes. Rarely do we talk about how we make and what we put into photographs. Sure, we debate whether we live in the moment, whether we intend to do something or simply allow it to happen, whether we think more or feel more. That does not a good photograph make. Much more rarely do we talk about why we might use blur here or there or when a certain perspective might add dimension to a scene.</p>

<p>I've come to recognize the wisdom in some of John Kelly's consternation at the abuse of the word "art." Don't get me wrong. I don't mind aspiring to art and I don't mind others who do. I don't belittle the concept. As a matter of fact, I want to take back the word as much as I've been happy to take back the word "queer" in recent years. But it's hard.</p>

<p>You've got forums and pages full of people here on PN and elsewhere using art as an excuse. In the name of art, they get away with a lack of craft. Our intellectualizing often outshines our photographs. The photographs talked about in artistic terms often don't measure up to the glow of the words about feelings, emotions, thinking outside the box, etc. We wax on about the deep inner recesses of the creative spirit but does any of that actually show up in our work? If it does, can we describe it in photographic rather than poetic terms . . . do we bother to describe it? What does it look like? Or do we just take for granted that if we talk about it enough it will be there in the photographs? Not even close!</p>

<p>For months now, I've been wanting to stop talking abstractly about the concepts we think make us artists or make us artistically inclined and talk about the nuts and bolts ways that we make, construct, present,<em> </em>display, <em>craft</em> photographs . . . with an eye toward those nuts and bolts, the means of construction, yielding something of value, something worth philosophizing about. It usually meanders back to the same old intellectualizing crap. Very little specificity, very little reference to one's own work except in distanced and generic terms. I'm as guilty as the next one. It's an easy out.</p>

<p>Last night I spent a couple of hours writing something very specific about the photographic elements and aspects I think go toward expression in two of my photos. It got virtually no response in a thread that purported to be about expression in photos. Though I gained a lot by doing it for myself, I felt like some sort of foreigner in a room that suddenly languished. Yes, yes, I understand that forums are not here for me to guide and that a lack of interest in what I say may have more to do with me than with the rest of the room or maybe nothing should be read into it. Perhaps some read it with interest and simply didn't respond. Why avoid the dialogue? Why avoid doing something similar yourself? (I noticed Arthur being as frustrated as me.) So I do find it telling. And, I find it alarmingly evasive of the meat and potatoes of the issue. </p>

<p>We're not going to become photographers (or better photographers) by osmosis of thought, by philosophizing about abstract concepts and by framing everything we do in the form of a debate, this vs. that, or in the form of an abstract intellectual endeavor? We often talk AROUND rather than ABOUT photographs. It will take some digesting of our own photographs . . . what we're doing wrong and what we're doing right . . . what this element or quality accomplishes BOTH visually and philosophically in a photo . . . how the parts yield some sort of whole, and on and on.</p>

<p>Can we combine philosophy and craft? </p>

<p>I'm not sure I agree. I've read plenty of books and listened to many lectures on specific techniques to create a particular "look" or evoke an emotion. That seems to be the core of much (most?) of the academic discussion about composition. A simple example is the "golden ratio", but there are almost countless other "rules" that one can use. It's common to talk about these rules as the "vocabulary" of composition.</p>

<p>"Can we combine philosophy and craft?"</p>

<p>Fred, I read your preamble above that is in relation to this important question, and also your very insightful discussion of your images in a former OT. It inspired me to leave a comment on another very very good image in your portfolio. I think the short answer to your last sentence is "no" at worst and "with great difficultly" at best.</p>

<p>Why so? For the reasons you have stated, I think. I hate to turn the clock back, but several months ago, possibly more than a year ago, I too faced this question and suggested then that the philosophy of photography forum be kept, but would also be given a practical bedfellow with a name something akin to "(Personal) approaches to the craft and art of photography", wherein the discussion you desire might be better "housed" and catalysed or promoted.</p>

<p>The responses were quite negative to my initiative and mainly of the type "If it ain't broken, why fix it". I agree that we need an enlarging of the discussion and in the same direction that you suggest. Whereas intellectualisation of the discussion does not defeat the discussion of approaches in our craft, per se, it does seem to promote the talking "around" rather than "about" that you mention.</p>

<p>I think always that what you would like to see would be best achieved if our moderators decide that the two subjects might be best treated separately, and thus create a new forum or sub-forum, similar to the type I once (naively?) suggested and complementary to the P of P forum.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Arthur, though I respect and appreciate your desire for a separate forum, I think it's more a matter of the approach taken by we who regularly and irregularly contribute to this one. There are not so many threads started here that a more hands-on approach can't be accepted in this very forum for those who so desire it. I managed to do it last night in Lannie's thread, so it can be done right here. It just takes the doing, not the moderating. In any case, we were told a separate forum is not going to happen, so I don't think it would be terribly practical to discuss that further. I worry that that would distract us from brainstorming on how to talk philosophically, photographically, and specifically about our craft.</p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>I have and many others have used intellectualizing as a way of avoiding the craft of making photographs."</p>

<p> But not all who post here. I don't talk here about the death of my mother, for example but it is not an act of avoidance. I simply do not wish to, though I do in other places and with other people. For you, maybe it is avoidance, but it is wrong to assume it is for everyone. There are things in this universe that you and I do not, and may never, understand.</p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>It seems easier to talk abstractly about emotional and conceptual aspects of work and much easier to talk about them in general than it is to talk specifically about photographic elements and how we use them. It's easier to talk about what and how we know than about what and how we see."</p>

<p> For you, and many others, perhaps, but again, these are not universal motivations. A lot of us, contrary to what you may think, are not taking the road of least resistance here.</p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>We talk about our insides, our thoughts, our mental and emotional processes. Rarely do we talk about how we make and what we put into photographs."</p>

<p> There's nothing stopping you and anyone else from doing this. PN has devoted a huge majority of the site to precisely this kind of thing.</p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>I've come to recognize the wisdom in some of John Kelly's consternation at the abuse of the word "art."</p>

<p> I am so sorry. :-)</p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>You've got forums and pages full of people here on PN and elsewhere using art as an excuse. In the name of art, they get away with a lack of craft."</p>

<p>....and if we're to be honest, we also have to say that this is a commutative thought:</p>

<p> <em>We've got pages full of people here on PN (specially the galleries) using craft as an excuse. In the name of craft, they get away with a lack of art. We wax eloquently about process, print quality, Zeiss lenses, meghapixels, FF vs Dx, noise, etc. and remain clueless about the creative spirit that often, if not consistently, eludes the work. <br /></em></p>

<p>And thanks to Phil G. and the present crew, we are free to describe it in photographic, poetic, or any other terms we choose.</p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>Our intellectualizing often outshines our photographs."</p>

<p> Artists have been notorious for this for a very long time. Nothing new there. Those who intellectualize about their work the most, have the hardest acts to follow. :-)</p>

<p><strong>FG - ""</strong>For months now, I've been wanting to stop talking abstractly about the concepts we think make us artists or make us artistically inclined and talk about the nuts and bolts ways that we make, construct, present,<em> </em>display, <em>craft</em> photographs . . . with an eye toward those nuts and bolts, the means of construction, yielding something of value, something worth philosophizing about."</p>

<p> What's stopping you? Do it. Those who think it a good idea and feel like following your lead will follow. Whether it belongs to the PoP forum is up to the Mods. There's certainly no shortage of forums on the site for doing that, if not here.</p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>It usually meanders back to the same old intellectualizing crap. Very little specificity, very little reference to one's own work except in distanced and generic terms. I'm as guilty as the next one. It's an easy out."</p>

<p> Maybe for you. There's no need whatsoever to denigrate what normally goes on here in order to push the craft angle. <em><strong>It's all legitimate and to the good -- including your craft idea. </strong></em> You don't need a cattle prod, remember, your frustration is not our furstration. If it has legs, it will walk on its own. </p>

<p>It's normally not good to shit in your own backyard, and certainly not in ours, thank you. SOme of us don't need a crisis or drama of any kind in order to expand the discourse.</p>

<p><strong>FG -</strong> "It got virtually no response in a thread that purported to be about expression in photos."</p>

<p> It eventually happens to all of us, Fred, even to you, and yes, I also feel conceptually like a foreigner (and I do know what a foreigner, not a tourist, feels like) in this forum. Normally, when it happens to me, I assume my idea wasn't interesting enough to evoke responses from others, not that there is something wrong with <em>the forum and everyone in it except for me.</em></p>

<p><em> Where do you get the persistent idea of avoidance? That there is a kind of pathology when people do not see things your way? </em>Why? <em>I certainly don't think of my ideas/opinions/etc as a benchmark for mental health.<br /></em><br>

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

<strong>FG - "</strong>We're not going to become photographers (or better photographers) by osmosis of thought, by philosophizing about abstract concepts and by framing everything we do in the form of a debate, this vs. that, or in the form of an abstract intellectual endeavor? We often talk AROUND rather than ABOUT photographs. It will take some digesting of our own photographs . . . what we're doing wrong and what we're doing right . . . what this element or quality accomplishes BOTH visually and philosophically in a photo . . . how the parts yield some sort of whole, and on and on."</p>

<p> You're attempting, like John, to direct the course of this forum. Please don't tell us what to do, or think, or how. All of us are on our own path, and for some, it's not your path (or mine). Maybe instead of telling us what we should be doing, or how wrong we are, you can take your idea, and lead by example, and see what happens?<br>

<strong>FG - "</strong>Can we combine philosophy and craft?"</p>

<p> Show us, go for it, bring it on! At the very least, as always, I will be reading your every word.</p>

 

<p>Luis, I obviously do have the need to denigrate the way this forum is often being approached, and I acted on that need by speaking up. I acknowledge that you think I'm wrong for doing that. Despite your protestations, I will always challenge what I think is worth challenging, even if it ruffles a bunch of feathers and especially if I think it can substantially improve a forum I care so much about. I stand by everything I said and the way I said it. </p>

<p>"In any case, we were told a separate forum is not going to happen"</p>

<p>Fred, who told us that? In my three or four years here, I have not seen such a pronouncement.</p>

<p>That Photo.Net exists is because its members contribute. It could hardly exist without that in mind and if it ignores certain basic aspects of photography it may well lose those interested in personal craft and personal artistic approaches (art need not unequivocably be high art, but can seek a lesser degree of creation). On a more nuts and bolts question, if some group of the adherents of Photo.Net or its subscribing members (those that pay a subscription) wish to add a Sony or a Voigtlander-Cosina forum to complement that of Leica, Nikon and Canon, I believe that the owners of photo.Net would need to take heed.</p>

<p>The divergence of opinions and needs on philosophy of photography and on what constitutes personal approaches to photography is here, and continues to create some dissatisfaction. I see that one clear and easy way to accomodate both gracefully and honestly is to allow two forums or two sub-forums to treat the two activity descriptions - philosophising - and - personal approaches (which can include the philosophy as well as the practice of the craft). Many of us would remain fully active in the philosophy sub-forum or forum. But to say that the P of P forum is capable of handling both well is to fly in the face of the challenges to that and to the difficulties already experienced several times in recent years.</p>

<p>One starts a personal approach discussion and it quickly changes into a philosophical discussion, often competely removed from the original intent. If it worked well, we wouldn't again be having the discussion as you have created in your OT.</p>

<p>By trying to accomplisjh both under the same umbrella, neither will end up with sufficient space and focus to accomplish its mission. It's been tried, but has seldom produced sustained results.</p>

<p>What is more inherent in photography than the personal approach of the practitioners. It seems bizarre that a forum dealing with personal approaches to art and photography are not discussed in a forum to that end. It is a missed opportunity for the edification of, the sharing of ideas, and the expansion of thought processes of the practitioners of our craft. </p>

<p><em>"We wax on about the deep inner recesses of the creative spirit but does any of that actually show up in our work?" </em><br /><em></em><br />We owe each other (honor among thieves) emphasis on the visual work itself.</p>

<p>I print. I photograph with my own printing in mind. I have little use for unprinted files, just as I did with film. I'm a mediocre digital technician. I'm not anxious about that mediocrity, almost never call attention to it in others (did re a cropped image on another thread).</p>

<p>I think we should expect reasonably good technical work from each other just as we should expect reasonably well-thought out, reasonably concise Internet-appropriate writing (with some slack cut for marginal English-speakers).</p>

<p>Here's where my head's at: Matt Lauer and Fred Goldsmith are examples of photographers whose work clearly transcends verbal expression. And they're the most honest photographic writers here, by far. They demonstrate photographic values. And they share their work, which is their measure here...click on their names.</p>

<p>John, I know the print aspect of things is important to you and am beginning to experience its subtleties and differences for myself. I am still a newbie at printing, the stuff I'm working on has already been shot and worked up to my satisfaction for the screen. I am finding with most of them that I will have to start back at the RAW file to process for a good print. I am discovering the differences between getting a file ready for the screen and getting one that will <em>print</em> with substantial expressive power. They are two different mediums and require different preparatory techniques.</p>

<p>The strictly philosophical question would be something like: Does (or How does) presentation medium (screen or print, etc.) impact expression? We could talk about the differences between how a print and how a screen image each makes us feel. The more specific Philosophy of Photography question from the standpoint of craft is: What are the photographic considerations we give to print making and screen image making? How do we execute expressive impact differently for the screen and the monitor?</p>

<p>Another philosophically relevant factor about making a print is that you've opened my eyes to a sequential matter. I have tended to think of the print as the final step. A good philosophical question about craft might be: For those of us digital-era folks who haven't had much experience beyond the monitor, what does it mean to shoot for the print and how would that differ, in photographic terms, from shooting an "image"?</p>

<p>Good stuff, John, at a good time. Thanks.</p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong> Despite your protestations, I will always challenge what I think is worth challenging, even if it ruffles a bunch of feathers and especially if I think it can substantially improve a forum I care so much about. I stand by everything I said and the way I said it."</p>

<p>Geez....very lofty/eloquent/noble/melodramatic sounding, Fred...reminds me of Scarlett talking to herself in Gone With the Wind, or Mr. Smith admonishing the US Senate.</p>

<p> I don't think you're wrong per se, nor was I censoring you. I was simply responding to your post, including my observations. Please keep in mind that unlike a <em>lot</em> of posters here, I do not think myself infallible.</p>

<p>And I think we all care about this forum, not just you.</p>

<p> I ended up encouraging your idea, even if I disagree with some aspects of your way of challenging the forum.</p>

<p> Just in case I did not make myself clear, I'm all for your craft-o-sophy idea, and am looking forward to seeing where it goes.</p>

<p>______________________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Interesting</strong>.</p>

<p>The post reflects some thoughts of my own.<br>

Intellectualize to avoid the craft of photographing.</p>

<p>Honestly, the posts are often going astray here. It happens that I loose the thread, also due to my language capabilities. For me the main impact of reasoning here is to know people, to gain insight into their minds, ways of reasoning, approaches to the construction of visual communication.</p>

<p>But I got to know Fred, Josh, Arthur, John Kelly, Lanny Kelly, Julie, Don, Phylo and all the others a bit better. Reasoning gives an insight into what they think and what they are. Combining this with their portfolios helps me knowing them a bit better photographically.</p>

<p>Recently I was thinking that I needed a break from photographic websites, both from their visual and conceptual content. Simply because I found myself straying around without a real reason, maybe wasting my time.<br>

This post gives me a motive to think about it. I believe that in the end the effect is positive, because dwelling here is about creating and developing human relationships - even if mediated through a PC screen - on an activity we all love, which is photography.</p>

<p>Despite a thread by Lannie K some time ago, photography is <em><strong>not only a solitary</strong></em> activity.<br>

I personally need others to understand the casual and non intentional elements of my photography. I need their points of view to better understand and I need to know the background from which these points of view stem. I need others to have a detached opinion on what I photograph.<br>

It might sound complex, but the intellectualisation which happens here is extremely necessary for this indirect purpose. And therefore it helps my photography.</p>

<p>This is the combination of <strong>philosophy </strong>(reasoning in a broad sense) and <strong>craft</strong>, and at least for me the relationship is extremely clear.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have and many others have used intellectualizing as a way of avoiding the craft of making photographs. It seems easier to talk abstractly about emotional and conceptual aspects of work and much easier to talk about them in general than it is to talk specifically about photographic elements and how we use them. It's easier to talk about what and how we know than about what and how we see. (Fred, OP).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photographing is not easy. Once you have stepped ahead the <em><strong>merely toying aspect</strong></em> of photography (reasoning about cameras, lenses, etc.), I believe it's a very tough activity. Creating is tough, seeing is tough, innovating ones visual messages is tough, producing work which communicates without repeating the same boring stuff again and again is tough.</p>

<p>I believe one cannot be always at the top of creativity.</p>

<p>Reasoning here helps, and it helps to create relationships with other people who can help me considering photography better and so making better photographs.</p>

<p>I am more or less on vacation now. A good time to dedicate - also - to photography. But the surroundings, though marvellous (a valley in the Dolomite mountains), don't speak to me photographically. To do what I plan to do I ought to be somewhere else. So I stay here, carry around my camera, look around and decide <strong>not </strong>to press the shutter most of the times.<br>

To return to Fred's post: philosophizing is useful to (my) photography. It is important to learn to balance the effort between <em><strong>reasoning</strong></em> and <em><strong>photographing</strong></em>.</p>

<p>Photographing is much to complex conceptually to avoid reasoning about it.</p>

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, beautifully, amazingly well said responses. And <strong>Luca</strong>, too. I agree with you both very much.</p>

<p>I wish we could all focus on the positive/creative rather than the negative/destructive; rather than pissing and moaning about what <em>other</em> people don't or aren't or won't do to our satisfaction. In a perfect world (or forum) we could talk about the <em>ideas</em> (which include craft) and leave out the personal vendettas.</p>

 

<p>My photographs are crafted on the subliminal level and I don't want to consciously discuss and analyze its every little step as a whole or as individual pictures. Don't need and don't want to, "test-chart" it, for the same reason I don't like test-charts, I guess. <br /> I mostly photograph about my photographs, less talk about it. I can appreciate when other's talk about theirs. But the species <em>photographer </em>( or <em>philosopher</em> for that matter ) is not one generic type, there's a human attached to it, which comes in <a href="http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/">many types</a>.</p>

<p>"Creating is tough, seeing is tough, innovating ones visual messages is tough, producing work which communicates without repeating the same boring stuff again and again is tough."<br>

"Reasoning here helps, and it helps to create relationships with other people who can help me considering photography better and so making better photographs."<br>

(Luca)<br>

Anyone who has read Luca's bio comments will recognize his passion for photography. What he, Fred, myself and others need is an active site of discussion of those elements and aspects of craft and approach that will help us to evolve. This may well be within the current forum, which in regard to its philosophical objectves is most valuable, or elsewhere, where the intent is perhaps better focussed, but it should certainly find a place that not only welcomes such discussion, but which encourages and enhances it. </p>

<p> Arthur, just as PN seems to compartmentalize to not to allow the gallery/critique system to be diluted by allowing critiques in other forums, I can see where forums like the two B&W, the Digital Darkroom etc could be diluted by craftosophical discussions in this forum.</p>

<p> I understand the difference between what Fred proposed and the other forums, but there would be plenty of overlap -- and it could be discussed in those forums and partially folded into critiques, perhaps much better than here. It seems a lot easier dragging a little philosophy into an existing forum already dedicated to craft than creating a brand new forum with a tightly controlled, specialized discourse -- and the deliberate exclusion of members in concordance with PN's TOUs. It seems like a lot, if not all of this can be addressed in existing forums.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Can we combine philosophy and craft?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I sure hope so, Fred. If not, this is being defined as a general philosophy forum that is more or less restricted to aesthetic theory. While a number of persons are capable of addressing such theoretical concerns (yourself included, of course), my own vision for this thread is summed up in the Greek concept of <em>praxis</em>, which implies a combination of both theory and practice.</p>

<p>The downside of such a combination is that it might involve a lot of tangents into general photographic skills that might require constant moderation and even frequent excisions, deletions, and other editorial actions by moderators.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if we do not allow discussions of craft here, I think that we will continue to be considered irrelevant by the larger part of the Photo.net community.</p>

<p>I don't know a better place on Photo.net to discuss craft than right here, where such discussions can be integrated into discussions of aesthetics and other theoretical concerns in a positive and constructive way.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis,</p>

<p>Not every photographer wants to use the ratings/gallery/critique system, for various reasons. I do read and use the two B&W and digital darkroom forums, but they are mainly in regard to downstream approaches and techniques. What I have in mind, and possibly Fred too, is to have a "place" where the approach prior to and at the time of capture is discussed, and the questions, problems and mental aspects of that are addressed on a personal level. This is quite different I believe from what is generally discussed in the forums you mention. </p>

<p>Lannie, it's not for us to allow or disallow craftosophy here. It hasn't been up to now, so if your if-then was true, the PoP would be considered irrelevant <em>already. </em>Since you began posting more new threads, the traffic and number of new or rarely seen posters and posts in general has escalated noticeably.</p>

<p> Can philosophy and craft be combined? Of course. Should it happen in the Philosophy forum or the Digital Darkroom forum? That's a different, nuts and bolts question. Maybe we should invite some of the folks there over, or go over there and ask/ see what they think?</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"I sure hope so, Fred. If not, this is being defined as a general philosophy forum that is more or less restricted to aesthetic theory. While a number of persons are capable of addressing such theoretical concerns (yourself included, of course), my own vision for this thread is summed up in the Greek concept of </em>praxis<em>, which implies a combination of both theory and practice." </em>--Lannie</p>

<p>I appreciate that, Lannie, but I'm going to challenge you directly here. When I was "crafting" the opening post to this thread, among other recent threads I had your last one in mind, the one about Expression. Part of my observation was that you began by combining the theoretical idea of expression with a practical question about how to achieve it. Now, a few responses came in first, whereby your very question was challenged. You were told several ways in which you <em>couldn't</em> accomplish what you wanted to or shouldn't want to accomplish what you wanted to in a photograph. OK, that's one approach to someone's inquiry about how to craft photographs. But then there were some more hands-on discussions about specific photographic ways to accomplish expression. I will tell you that, up front, you didn't help yourself any by responding to yourself (your first post under your OP) by immediately going into "Why did I ask this question?" That sets a much more theoretical tone than practical one. Not a bad question in a Philosophy class, and even here, but not a great way to establish a more practical path whereby we talk about actual photographs instead of questions themselves. Now, I'm not telling you that you can't do such a thing in this forum. But I'm happy to give you my opinion on why it may have sabotaged your desire to get practical and specific photographic advice.</p>

<p>It was later on in the thread that you really disappointed. After you had suggested, and Arthur and I picked up on your suggestions, to take specific photos and discuss expressive elements in them, you completely bailed, on that particular front. Your next post went off on a major swing about meaning, intended meaning, and other matters. To be honest, I was thinking of you as one culprit who became evasive when the nuts and bolts started to fly. You gave a simple nod to my long post about a specific photo and the expressive elements without getting into it at all, and simply moved on. Perhaps you absorbed a lot from that post, but you certainly didn't show it. Now, I'm not here to play teacher. I, too, am a student. So I wasn't just looking to give you a lesson. I was hoping that maybe you'd address some of the issues and see things a different way from the way I described them and tell me so. I have my own troubles sometimes wondering whether I've expressed what I intend to express.</p>

<p>Lannie, I do appreciate your sympathetic ear here and hope you'll continue to ask the kinds of questions you asked in that thread, which could have, but didn't, lead to the kind of discussion you're seeming to want. We can all be our own worst enemies at times. I hope I'm picking up on your own stated desires and challenging you to stay focused on them, not only for your own sake, but so I can learn something with you as well. I also trust you know this is not about personality but about method.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong>What I have in mind, and possibly Fred too, is to have a "place" where the approach prior to and at the time of capture is discussed, and the questions, problems and mental aspects of that are addressed on a personal level. This is quite different I believe from what is generally discussed in the forums you mention."</p>

<p> I understand what you have in mind, and it seems a little different from what Fred has in mind, as far as I can see. Can it be discussed here? I think so as long as Josh & The Mods allow it. Personally, I don't understand why either you or Fred haven't started yet.</p>

<p>Should it get its own forum? Not for me to say, though if it did, with a specialized charter and Fred and you moderating, you can control the discourse as you wish.</p>

<p>I'm with Julie on this: "I wish we could all focus on the positive/creative rather than the negative/destructive; rather than pissing and moaning about what <em>other</em> people don't or aren't or won't do to our satisfaction. In a perfect world (or forum) we could talk about the <em>ideas</em> (which include craft) and leave out the personal vendettas."</p>

<p><a name="00Wzcg"></a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lannie, as these threads are fluid and ongoing, I want to acknowledge that I see you've been doing some posting of images and discussing them on the one I mentioned, so I'll have a close look now at what's transpired.</p>

<blockquote><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=934135">Phylo Dayrin</a>, Aug 03, 2010; 06:05 a.m.

 

<p>My photographs are crafted on the subliminal level and I don't want to consciously discuss and analyze its every little step as a whole or as individual pictures. Don't need and don't want to, "test-chart" it, for the same reason I don't like test-charts, I guess. <br /> I mostly photograph about my photographs, less talk about it. I can appreciate when other's talk about theirs. But the species <em>photographer </em>( or <em>philosopher</em> for that matter ) is not one generic type, there's a human attached to it, which comes in <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/" target="_blank">many types</a>.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>I don't think my (our) issue is about <em><strong>dissecting </strong></em>a photo. It's not a linear process, it's not a scientific-analytical method. I would rather say that it's a way to learn to talk about the visual message of a photo, starting from subjective perceptions and working out collective perception - if possible.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>To be honest, I was thinking of you as one culprit who became evasive when the nuts and bolts started to fly. You gave a simple nod to my long post about a specific photo and the expressive elements without getting into it at all, and simply moved on.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It's nothing personal, Fred. I never<em> try</em> to be evasive--and I mean <em>never</em>. I try to slip in a few comments when I can, along with everything else I have to do--just like everyone else does. These threads get very, very long, and I cannot try to optimize in terms of even my own contributions in every case. I simply do the best that I can. In addition, sometimes I come up dry and have nothing in particular to say about what someone else is talking about. I see these threads as really several parallel threads that converge and diverge as they evolve. We are not sitting around a seminar table, after all. We come to the site as we can, and, if a comment resonates, then we also respond. All of that presumes that we have the time to give every post what it deserves, and I almost never do that, consistent with my own publishing agenda in other venues.</p>

<p>I am sorry that you also feel that my opening remarks took the discussion off in too theoretical a direction. That is my tendency. I am a theorist. I had a professor in grad school in the seventies tell my wife in the library, "I am sorry your husband is a theorist." Well, it is not easy being a theorist, but I keep trying. It is sometimes a thankless calling. (I was a theoretical inorganic chemist when studying chemistry as well.) That is just the way I am--most of the time. Sometimes I retire from that to a chatty mood. Psychological survival is my goal in trying to allocate my time between so many tasks. I was hoping that you could relate to that and be a bit more tolerant. I do not try to create a work of art when I start a thread. I try to stoke it at first, and, after it is going pretty well, I leave but get back to it as I can.</p>

<p>In a more practical vein, I did return to <em>that</em> thread this morning in an attempt to do what you are discussing here, but you can decide if I succeeded:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00WymP?start=70</p>

<p>I think that we do well to let persons respond in their own way. They know better what they have to offer, and what they do not.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie, my experience of learning is different. Several of my friends, academic peers, teachers, mentors, and the local photographers I shoot with and talk to often challenge not only my responses but the way in which I respond. It's not always easy to hear, but it's helped me enormously and helped my photography a lot. I put a lot of my personality into my photographs and so, when personal things I do (like the way I respond) get challenged, it affects and usually helps my photography. I may at first tighten up but that's often followed by a loosening up. I also put the energy I might otherwise put into stewing about a personal comment someone may have made right into my next shoot. It's why I don't mind getting personal here, though I understand that others do. It is personal for me. I want it to be. I wouldn't have risked starting this thread if I didn't want it to be personal and wasn't willing to hear the things I've heard.</p>

<p>You obsess, Fred. Let others be who they are. They are going to be anyway.</p>

<p>Not everyone finds the same issues interesting, in any case. No slight is intended if I ignore or briefly comment on your comments.</p>

<p>Let it flow, Fred. Let it flow. Don't try to dictate. Take what is offered freely as a gift. No one is obligated to respond at all. That is their call. Let them make it.</p>

<p>Above all, try not to make a conversation with you into an endurance contest.</p>

<p>One last point is that, if someone is particularly contentious, I just move on. This is Photo.net, not an on-line journal. I don't need the constant intensity. I reserve that for my serious writing. This is supposed to be fun, a break from my real work.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>