Youts Vs Geezers

<p>http://www.fractionmagazine.com/issue/issue-24/</p>

<p>That bunch is mostly youngish. They write unusually well for photographers. Hope for the future.</p>

<p>A Philosophy of Photography Forum's elders (boomers and older, just to pick an bracket) surely wants to comment that these Fraction Magazine youts are derivative. I'll simply note that "street" and "nature" and "architecture" (duck, rock etc) are inherently derivative, which may be the reason these younger, mostly non-street folks are instead pursuing essay form, overlooked matters, their own lives, staged/evocative situations...</p>

<p>Philosophy has always been the game of old folks. C'est moi.</p>

<p>Do the habits of your advanced age (boomer plus) make it hard to do fresh work?</p>

<p>Or is the fact that you're still doing what you did a few years ago a matter of laziness? Or are you doing vibrant things regularly? Me, I get stuck for extended periods, only occasionally recognize the stuckness...</p>

<p>Well I am an old fart myself. I am not lazy but I doubt I do anything vibrant. My life is boring mostly. Up in the morning and off to work on my bicycle. Back home in the afternoon and then the usual family guy stuff. I have 6 grown kids and they all come over most every day. I am not stuck in photography but I have never had any goals with it. I just snap off some pictures when I feel like it with my F100. It's my #3 hobby.</p>

<p>I checked out some of the photos from the magazine and I would not be interested in a titty magazine myself. My wife would just toss it in the recycle bin as soon as she saw it anyway.</p>

<p>They should progress well. Good traditional college stuff. Déjà vu in some cases, reasonably novel in others. Better sounding and more understandable prose than in most art galleries, if that is considered a merit. My affinity is with Ross' view, except mine is hobby number 2 (+part time profession that allows an occasional Starbuck's coffee). It will probably never be number 1, I wouldn't be able to support myself.</p>

<p>So, two votes for blah. Sounds like fear...I didn't anticipate that.</p>

<p>Me, I'm not that way...I'm turned on sometimes, dead in the water other times. Working with no salary (forty years of mostly eat what I kill) does burn tremendous energy, but it fuels as well. Photography's like jazz in that respect. I don't see photography as a "hobby." Maybe that's the issue. </p>

<p>Picasso got turned on near the end...ought to be easy for a photographer, right? Just point and shoot, like HCB.</p>

 

<p>There's some marvelous work there; I didn't go through them all, but I will. I found many of the people shots uninteresting and even depressing, but some of the Oklahoma shots were, while bleak, also very atmospheric. Some of the 'studio' shots bordered on the surreal. All in all, I'm impressed; I've never accomplished anything so nice. I studied photography largely because I wanted to take better vacation pics, and haven't progressed much beyond that stage in two decades.</p>

<p><em>"I don't see photography as a "hobby." Maybe that's the issue."</em></p>

<p>John, it seems that you often see both philosophy and photography as "youts versus geezers", or as "photography as a non-art" or as "video versus old-fashioned still photography." It would be interesting to see some of your non-hobby photography to support your thesis, or to eliminate what you term the "blah". Quite a few of us have not been too fearful in the past about posting our own photos in this forum in support of our ideas, ...sorry, I should have said "blah", not ideas.<br /> <em><br /></em></p>

<p>I'm a geezer who's open to new ideas and approaches, but I spend most of my time and energy trying to do better the kind of work I've done for decades. The old are most comfortable with what is familiar.</p>

<p> I have a career and family myself. It's not fear but hard work every day. I have 6 kids to educate. The way I pay college tuition is getting up early, working hard and bringing home the money. Blowing a bunch of money on camera's and photo trips is counter productive to my goals. However I manage to snag a nice snapshot once in a while anyway. I am more interested in music, guitar and riding my bicycle then taking photos. I am more interested in my wife then anything else in the world. Every beat of her beautiful heart is the most important thing in my world. She is everything. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Philosophy has always been the game of old folks</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Been interested in it since age 16 (thanks to having to translate Plato in school). And it's just 20 years later now.<br>

Oh wait, I am in the wrong thread!</p>

<p>I'm on the tail end of the boomer category, born 1961. Been taking photographs most of my life, since age 6) but took a break when my kids were born. Didn't even take many photos of my kids. Picked it up again 6 years ago. I've found mixing it up helps tremendously. Pinhole, street, urban landscape, rinse, and repeat... Open your mind and see how all of this can apply to even a geezers mind. See what's there and see how that can apply to your own vision of it.</p>

<p>As an official geezer, I've found that belonging to salon groups (not photo clubs) has kept me stimulated. I also collect photography books with an emphasis on 1890-1960 photographers. Getting acquainted with their approaches to photography is always an inspiration.</p>

<p>the work of many of us can be seen by clicking on our names. I assume that tells some kind of story, perhaps about directions.</p>

<p>In my own case I've shown images that were only a year or two old, at most, for the past couple of years...(exception for some very early 20th century things I've collected..family farm, Tsar Nicholas etc).</p>

<p>However, I'm starting to review (and maybe scan/print) film I may not have taken seriously decades ago... just posted one from 1975 (maybe) and from 1994. I actually like some of that guy's work. Maybe that means I'm trying to return to youth. But I know it means I'm getting to know him better than I did when I was his age.</p>

<p>1975 and 74, not 94. My stuff from the 90s seems unengaged. </p>

<p>I learned an important life lesson from my father-in-law, who still has his marbles at age 95. John, what you refer to as "geezer" is a choice. I cannot escape the fact that I am 63; nor do I wish to do so. In fact, I feel proud in a sense to have reached this point in my life. I have earned it. Whether I choose to act in way stereotyped as "geezer" is up to me, notwithstanding physical realities I must accept. To the extent possible, I choose to act as I did when I was younger. I listen to substantially the same music. I enjoy substantially the same recreational activities. I still do balls-to-the-wall workouts at the gym. </p>

<p>I thoroughly disagree with, and resent, your statement that "Philosophy has always been the game of old folks." If engaging in philosophy involves questioning and seeking answers, then children are the best philosphers, bar none. Of course, given what I have read in other threads, you hold philosophy in contempt. So, why would you care who plays the game?</p>

<p>One more musing about age. Toward the beginning of "Star Trek II," Captain KIrk bemoans the fact that he is getting older. At the end of the film, Dr. McCoy asked him, "Jim, how do you feel?" Kirk's response: "Young . . . I feel young."</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Agree, Michael, that age is not the best indicator of fresh attitude, inquisitiveness, energy and vision. Fixed attitudes and lack of curiosity are present in samples of teenagers as they are in samples of 80 year olds.</p>

<p>Michael, yes: philosophy asks questions. But philosophizing is attempted murder by boredom. </p>

<p>That you "resent" may be a good sign. You're alive. But you claim to be free of change, which is insanity. I'm reading Moby Dick with incredible excitement. You're quoting a nobody who wrote for a mercifully dead TV program.</p>

<p>I've always been a reader and photographer and guitar picker and worse. In other words, I can't relate to purported ideas read for TV by "Captain Kirk". I do regularly suggest video interviews, as http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11185. I also suggest browsing http://www.dailyhitchens.com/ I don't "agree" with either man about much, but admire both and do agree with burning the candle on both ends. I don't use "balls to the wall," but that's probably because I've never enjoyed heavy metal.</p>

<p>As to age, it'd be news to scientists and theologians that we "earn it" (your phrase). We arrive at it. You believe you're the same person you were years ago: I know I'm a different person.</p>

<p>Congratulations on working out. Me too, not enough.</p>

<p>That you "listen to substantially the same music" may be OK in your world but not in mine (I'm especially fond of

</p>

<p>I don't "choose to act" like I'm generations younger...I have a former brother-in-law who does. Different strokes.</p>

<p>I asked a photographic question at the beginning of this thread and you're crying resentment. </p>

<p>What about your photography? Same as it ever was? Mine is, in some ways.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p> </p>

 

<p> </p>

<p>The link you provided took me to issue #24. I have to admit, I felt some kinship with the first three photographers, Antone Dolezal, Bootsy Holler, and Kristen Fecker Peroni. They are doing stuff similar to what I'm doing. Am I doing better or worse work than they? I'd have to say, yeah, I pretty much am. But I do know I'm getting tired of pretty rocks, blurry moving water, spectacular sunsets, and pretty young women staring into the camera in a challenging manner.<br>

I don't think age has anything to do wth this sort of thing. It's partly nature and it's partly nurture. Age is just one factor.</p>

<p>John: You totally misinterpreted my comments. Nowhere did I claim to be the same person I was years ago, or even yesterday. In any case, I think it's best for me to end my participation in this thread by saying that we can agree to disagree.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Youts Vs Geezers</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's a "yout"? I'm familiar with the movie scene where Judge Haller asks, "Did you say 'yutes'?" </p>

<p>But, more to the point, relative age is a mental state. I find nothing in the photographs that would distinguish the age of the photographers - really don't care what they write, and make it a point to not read words that are purported to be related to visual work. The "Painted Word" made the seminal statement on written theory versus visual expression. I prefer to look at work without the attempted viewpoint manipulation. With my own work I never tell anyone why I took the photograph, as that should be irrelevant to the viewer's personal interpretation of the work.</p>

<p>Steve, I'd happily change the age concept to refer to stages or periods, recognizing (as I think I did) that those would simply be conversational conveniences.</p>

<p>Is your work essentially the same as it was when you were 25? Perhaps you have the same idealism...I have occasional hits of that, mostly because I occasionally commit to it. I was intentional then and I'm intentional now, but I think I'm more demanding of myself in some ways today. That's partially how I've convinced myself to reconsider a few 35 year old negatives.</p>

<p>"yout"... Brooklynese for "youth"</p>

<p>John:</p>

<p>I thought I could avoid any unnecessary angst in countering the post you directed to me by disappearing into the woodwork. Since this thread still is haunting me, I decided to reappear.</p>

<p>Let's start with what appears to be your distinction between philosophy and philosophizing. If I read your comment correctly, you are OK with philosophy but not OK with philosophizing. I really can't make any sense out of this distinction since the essence of philosophy is dialogue - i.e., an activity. Is all philosophy worthwhile and a good use of time? Absolutely not. Medieval scholastics and I have nothing in common, and that's by my choice. Moreover, the fact that you hold philosophy in such contempt seems based on a presupposition that philosophy is purely an intellectual endeavor. That may be true of the sort of philosophy to which you've been exposed, but it's not true of the sort of philosophy in which I've engaged. That has involved my intellect, my feelings, my preferences, my values - - in summary, my everything. </p>

<p>Next, you refer to my stating that I've earned my age, and criticize it based on what you take to be scientists' and theologians' views. Absolutely wrong . . . I did not state that I've earned my age. What I did state is that I've earned this point in my life. I've bloody well worked my ass off for it.</p>

<p>As for your disdain of "Star Trek", its creator, its writers, its characters, etc. - I feel sorry for you. There's much to be learned from it. I, for one, will not limit what's available for me to learn (even at 63) or what sources I can use.</p>

<p>Finally, in answer to your OP, I feel deep down that my photography has evolved as I have evolved. I confess that I really haven't thought about this befrore, so I can't spell out what this evolution may involve. At this stage in the game, all I can share is that I feel creative impulses more intensely than ever before. </p>

 

<p>Michael, thanks for returning. I apologize for the abruptness of my responses. I gave too much weight to your assertions of what seemed like pursuit of youth. I probably wasn't clear enough in my OT...I was looking for comments about change in our photography over time, or in different life stages... I think I indicated that I've both changed and not changed, which I may be learning from my decades-old film (excluding a period of mere snapshooting and a long period of professional work).</p>

<p>I am not alone in associating science fiction with extended male (rarely female) adolescence. I don't think Kirk's comments about feeling younger have much bearing on my experience, no matter how pleasant he sounded.</p>

<p>I sometimes recommend Roger Zelazney because he has a creditable understanding of the roots of Buddhism. Ursula Le Guin was a favorite science fiction writer because a) she was flat out smarter than most and a far better writer than anyone else I read in that genre and b) I studied with her brother, an anthropologist, and knew that her father was a (perhaps THE) dominant figure in anthropology (Theodore Kroeber) and her mother was instrumental in installing Ishi, purportedly the last of his tribe, in the San Francisco Museum of Natural History...where he taught obsidion-knapping and other native crafts. <a href="http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/leguin.htm">http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/leguin.htm</a></p>

<p>John: Thanks for your apology, which really was unnecessary. (I really wish you would reconsider your take on philosophy, but that's entirely your call.) I do agree that "Star Trek" may be considered "light sci fi", especially when held up to people like Zelazny. I did read "Lord of Light" a long time ago, and realize that maybe I should read it again.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That bunch is mostly youngish. They write unusually well for photographers. Hope for the future.<br>

A Philosophy of Photography Forum's elders (boomers and older, just to pick an bracket) surely wants to comment that these Fraction Magazine youts are derivative. I'll simply note that "street" and "nature" and "architecture" (duck, rock etc) are inherently derivative, which may be the reason these younger, mostly non-street folks are instead pursuing essay form, overlooked matters, their own lives, staged/evocative situations...<br>

Philosophy has always been the game of old folks. C'est moi.<br>

Do the habits of your advanced age (boomer plus) make it hard to do fresh work?<br>

Or is the fact that you're still doing what you did a few years ago a matter of laziness? Or are you doing vibrant things regularly? Me, I get stuck for extended periods, only occasionally recognize the stuckness...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm late to the party, but this thread struck a chord. </p>

<p>Boomer in age, "yout" in photographic development and knowledge. (Come to think of it, a college sophomore studying photographic arts likely knows more about technique and history than I do.) My photography blossomed roughly one year after I purchased my first digital camera and I started frequenting sites like flickr, jpeg mag, and Photo.net. Suddenly wanted to do more than take family snaps. "What's an f-stop?" "This is interesting with the face in focus and the background blurred...how is that done?" "Who's this Diane Arbus, this Gary Winogrand, this Yasuhiro Ishimoto, this Harry Callahan?" There are advantages and disadvantages to self-education and being relatively new at something. It's all new, it's all fresh, and if you do anything derivative, you're too ignorant to know it. Any creative endeavour encounters stale periods, slumps...I don't feel that mine are related to age.</p>

<p>I had no "history" in terms of having worked with film outside of brownies when I was a kid and disposable cameras later on. No preconceived notions of how things were to be, or used to be, or which photographer first did what or when they did it. Yet who knows where I'd be had I taken photography seriously at a younger age...if I'd learned to develop my own film...studied the history of photography...worked with an experienced photographer? But, it is what it is and to me there's still plenty of fresh things to discover in the work of others, and hopefully in my own work. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Steve, Your situation is enviable. It sounds like mine... I feel like a beginner.</p>

<p>Somebody recently used the term "auto didact" to describe himself, and I've seen it occasionally, but I finally looked into its meaning. It means "self-educated." I've been at photography forever (nearly 60 years, on and off) but I've taken only 4 week's summer schooling (from a Minor White student and an illustrative advertising photographer) nearly forty years ago. Everything else has been picked up from acquaintances and more substantial relationships, my own gallery observations, work with graphics pros, reading, trial and error etc. So I'm not a newcomer, but I think of myself much the way you do. In fact my current work may be coming full circle to where I was forty years ago.</p>

<p>THANK YOU for bravely addressing the OT so directly!</p>

<p> </p>