What difference does it make if you really know your subject?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Julie H, Feb 19, 2017.


  1. Nah. Not me. Quite the opposite: I keep hoping people will be a little more imaginative, a little more willing to think about what's not there yet, about what they're not doing but might do or thought they did but didn't do. To think.

    Why isn't realistic before it's what, and what has multiple possible whys even after it is 'realistic.'
     
  2. Norman 202

    Norman 202 i am the light

    but u r not b-ing imaginative by quoting every MFOTS. u r coming across as a dull, well trained librarian.
     
  3. See previous post about NOT READING MY POSTS IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM.

    I know you can do it.

    Thanks.
     
  4. Julie, love you to bits. You are among my favorite playthings on P/N.

    With respect playing with dead leaves/buds and putting them in some of Art which you only undestand...is a million light years from a true artist like Brad....
     
  5. Sorry to have to be the light bringer.
     
  6. The photographs tell all....they don't need a thousand words.
     
  7. cut through the word BS and look at the photos,

    there, an honesty.....
     

  8. So true. 7 billion people make them every day. They're called snapshots.
     
  9. "So true. 7 billion people make them every day. They're called snapshots"lJulie

    Again, look at he photograph.


    Ask the question ...what is communicating. Snapshot or of someone else....a wordsmith is a wordsmith and has little intrust in the language of photography. They have a different Art.
     
  10. They have the Art of Prose,....they have little understand of the language of photography.

    Look at their work.
     
  11. Sort of a sad thought really.

    So true. 7 billion people make them every day. They're called snapshots. Julie.

    obviously for Julie they are the unwashed with little to offer humanity or photography.

    Why am hearing the voice of history repeating itself...hmmm scary.
     
  12. You have to ask the question if 7million folk take crap photos what else are they doing what else is crap?

    Perhaps we ned to send them to a special place where no longer they w9oould not be a bother.

    Just a thought.
     
  13. Sorry about the grammar....but hey ho.
     
  14. Fred,
    Thank you for your clarification and comment. Let me conclude by saying that a photo has two layers, the surface that is formed by the technical aspects, and the inner depths that are made up of the content, the story, the projected empathy. Feeling discomfort at the surface vs while inside the picture are two different things. The former causes the viewer to turn back at the door and the art fails at that point. I understand what Julie was referring to was the discomfort at the inner depths. It surrounds you and embraces you instead of repelling like the surface discomfort does. There is some sort of resonance and addiction here that makes you keep coming back. I understand that you can be bothered by the poor execution of a photo (the surface), and still comment on it. That doesn't make the photo good.
     
  15. <brrr> it's when you pat the philosophical pussycat on it's head, that's the purr it produces.

    Is it always the case, the inner personality shapes the outer personality? Our social environment can modulate our outer personality, our gestures, reactions to social stimuli and I believe, those things over time can affect our inner personality. I somehow would be more comfortable in thinking, a rudimentary inner core shapes the outer personality, which in turn reshapes and transforms the inner core.
     
  16. Allen Herbert, while I disagree with everything you've written that is relevant to the topic under discussion, "What difference does it make if you really know your subject?" (and am ignoring everything that is not relevant to that topic), it is good that you feel free and comfortable using whatever and however many words you choose to post your responses to the topic "What difference does it make if you really know your subject?"

    We should all feel just as free and comfortable to post our own responses, whatever they may be and in whatever way we choose, to the topic under discussion, "What difference does it make if you really know your subject?" here in the Philosophy forum.

    Thank you for contributing.
     

  17. Supriyo, what Bakhtin is doing is considering the authorial point of view: how I (from/with my inner stance) can never be outer to myself. This has profound consequences for point of view.
     
  18. The following is Sarah M. Miller in conversation with photographer and filmmaker Katy Grannan:

    Sarah Miller: It occurred to me that the apt comparison [to your work] perhaps isn't Lange, but Walker Evans and James Agee's Let Us Now Praise Famous Men (1941). I kept thinking about Agee's sense of anguish and curiosity and guilt about what it means to embed yourself with your subjects, to both invade the lives of others and feel the weight of the responsibility of representing them, knowing that there is actually no good way. There's only the way you find, through your reactions.

    Katy Grannan: For sure, there is no perfect way, or at least no tidy way to do this. I'm always battling those demons, those unresolvable questions. I think it's a cop-out to avoid what's uncomfortable. Life is messy; that's the deal. But I'm clear about my intentions, and I believe in the work. What's the alternative? If I ruffle some feathers, so what? Maybe they needed a little ruffling. I think there's a lot of liberal white guilt, frankly. We're so worried about offending, about always doing and saying the correct thing. We convince ourselves that we don't have permission to go outside our own little bubbles. But we're more than the circumstances of our daily lives, and ignoring this fact just creates more distance.

    I never pretended to be from the Nine [title of her work] or to have lived on the street. I earned their trust over time, and got to know people long before we started making the film. They didn't understand why anyone would care — some people were suspicious, and a few were convinced I must have been with the FBI.

    SM: The work does something else that Let Us Now Praise Famous Men did. You sense Walker Evans's desire to concentrate hard enough with the camera to lift people out of a kind of generalized sociological explanation, the taint of pathology, and to provide just one second of transcendent connection. He would refuse the romanticism of that description, but that's the effect those portraits have always had. And they, too, have made people uncomfortable for the same reason.

    KG: I think you're right about the source of discomfort. For some reason, people want that distance, maybe because they don't want to look closely at themselves. I don't know, maybe it's a fear of being vulnerable, because once you acknowledge that fact, there you go, down the existential rabbit hole.

    SM: We're all stuck between our feeling that it makes fun of somebody to photograph them, and the way we prioritize visibility in this culture; to be visible is to be recognized as a person. We're caught in our own conflicts about the value of looking.

    KG: We're asking a lot from photography — we want it both ways.
     
  19. Norman 202

    Norman 202 i am the light

    I never pretended to be from the Nine [title of her work] or to have lived on the street. I earned their trust over time, and got to know people long before we started making the film. They didn't understand why anyone would care — some people were suspicious, and a few were convinced I must have been with the FBI So, presumably, she got to know some of her subjects more than others. Did this make a difference in the end result?
     
  20. Norman 202

    Norman 202 i am the light

    well, the only the photos that looked really out of place were the ones of nekkid kids which, presumably, were mann's immediate family. ignoring those i can't see a difference.
     

Share This Page