Barest Luxury as Necessity

[owen w.]

Barest Luxury as Necessity

<p>

Gee! I'm actually sorry to see the prior post with this title

deleted. Certainly, I understand. The OT thread was only coming

around to a better leica-link, and it had dipped rather low enroute.

So, can we pick up the more light-hearted side of it?

<p>

The deleted thread had small bits that left me leisurely thinking

about my cameras for a while. The NYTimes article that began the

thread is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/fashion/20poss.html?oref=login.

<p>

This article is none too deep, but a quick take on minimalist cool.

Severe, ultra-high quality, anonymous cool. Five leather bags,

modeled on a plastic bag, are offered up as such items that are

definitive. The individual's clothing match. No labels, no

discernable branding of any kind, yet touches beyond simple "bespoke".

While the article concludes that more than the original 5 (will/have

been) made, the unstated cool suggests that only the true cognoscenti

will know the difference.

<p>

And why cool hates poseurs.

<p>

I suggested, as a better set of primers, William Gibson, running from

Neuromancer, through Idoru and All Tomorrow's Parties, to Pattern

Recognition, which revolves around a hyper-sensitivity to ultimately

elusive totems of cool.

<p>

Ah, but what's the Leica link? The knowing that the old beater, even

taped and scraped, hanging around your neck speaks to an elusive

community of those who would know. [Or, if you wish, the ala-carte

black-paint MP w/o any engraving/marks at all, matched with a severe

dark attire.] It's about tribal marks that only trained eyes (or

native eyes) can see.

<p>

For twenty+ years, I carried a pair of CLEs and beater Leica lenses.

One camera was taped up (making it easy to know which camera was

which), but I confess I always favored the taped body simply because

it was so obscure / invisible. Living in S.E. Asia, traveling through

rural areas as much as schmoozing for NGO money at Bangkok cocktail

parties, no one ever (okay, extremely rarely) noticed my cameras.

Yet, I had my private smug satisfaction that my pictures would always

surprise people (as the camera would always be better than my

photographic skills -- or any other snap box I saw).

<p>

While definitely falling into the "fondler" talk category, it is part

of the appeal of the older cameras, particularly the range-finders.

We all love it when someone comments on our cheap/old

fashion/quaint/etc. cameras. Some of us purposely disguise our stuff,

partially to (supposedly) elude thieves, but, I suspect, more to

achieve that anonymous satisfaction of unmarked cool. We love that

feeling that comes from knowing our cameras are machines, finely

tooled and tuned, with tiny superb optics, yet look plain enough to

pass unnoticed. Cool, but only to those tuned to see it. Tribal, yet

ultimately discrete.

<p>

So, is not a Leica M (or comparative quality RF) a form of "the barest

luxury as necessity"?

<p>

Not so off-topic, is it? Just light-hearted chat.

[al_kaplan1]

Huh?

[jan_brittenson]

Don't you think this concern of yours with appearance isn't a bit obsessive?

[el_fang]

Time to get the meds adjusted...

[owen w.]

Oh, come on, guys. First, it assumes you like to read. Second, a certain curiousity for reading SF writers, such as Gibson, Sterling, Stephenson and the like. Third, it was a thread that had quite a number of entries about a curious cultural take on design that was (mis) identified as Teutonic. Thus, a battle about whether only the German uber-engineering mind could only have created the Leica.. yadda, yadda.

<p>

Please note, it is twice identified as light-hearted chat. Frankly, I would have thought Al, as our understated guru of cool, would have been among the first amused, not annoyed. OH, well.

<p>

greetings from scenic Bangkok.

<p>

owen

[richard s.]

Gentlemen gentlemen, don't you think that you are being a tad harsh on Owen here. He is, I believe, making a valid anthropological comment on why certain people like certain Leicas. Are you so threatened by this?

 

The link with Gibson's fiction is apt. A beaten up black paint Leica is indeed a Gibsonian elusive totem of cool. A mythical item, but only to those in the know. And in this ever shrinking mass manufactured world of ours there is a certain tribalism. Whether it's being a Mac user, listening to Buddha Bar or whatever, people want to feel different. And there is a certain smug self satisfaction from the I'm one of the crowd, but to those in the know I'm a member of such and such tribe. I know people back in London who spend $$$ on T-shirts of average quality with no obvious recognisable branding. Why? Because other members of the same tribe will know. What's wrong with this? And what's wrong with Owen's (very correct) observations?

 

I wish I had time to offer a more intelligent response to Owen's comments. Perhaps when I get home this evening.

[Karim Ghantous]

Hey, Owen, I hear you and know what you're getting at. You're not trying to push anything, you're just expressing a strongly felt POV. And I like most of it.

 

Now, you can be like Brassai and get the subject involved; or like Cartier-Bresson and make yourself as inconspicuous as possible. If you prefer the latter (as I do) then you may like your camera to match your methods. It doesn't have to be a Leica of course, but Leicas are by no means excluded in this case.

 

By taping up your camera you don't necessarily elude thieves. However, you don't attract as much attention from passers-by, who may end up being your subjects. Or something like that.

 

I am quietly annoyed that Canon has a "DIGITAL" badge on their cameras. Just one more, loud declaration of superficialities over substance. Not to mention the matte silver finish of the 300D. Now Canon make great cameras don't get me wrong. It's just distasteful.

 

But what about the Red Dot? Obvious: yes; distasteful: no. Not IMO, even though I'd rather not have it. Besides, it's no more obvious than the "Canon" or "Nikon" labels atop their respective cameras' prisms.

 

But I'm going off the track, here. I agree that one element of good taste is reservedness. Having the essentials perfectly beautiful, but holding back on anything further. The restraint is such that you *ache* to hold the object. It's like quality is ready to burst forth.

[ilan_g]

Less is sometimes more, although this doesn't seem to be the prevailing voice around here.

 

Glad that some do understand... We'll recognize each other ;-)

[mike dixon]

<i>By taping up your camera you don't necessarily elude thieves. However, you don't attract as much attention from passers-by, who may end up being your subjects. Or something like that.</i><P>

I don't seem to draw any more attention photographing with a 645 or Digital Rebel than I do photographing with an M3 (the exception being in very dim conditions where the M3 focuses quickly and easily and the SLRs are slow to focus and not particularly accurate). I think whatever difference you're seeing in how much attention you attract is based on your own behavior--if the tape fools you into thinking your invisible, maybe you act less conspicuously. People aren't blind; if they're paying attention to you, they can see a camera whether it's black or silver.<P>

<i>Cool, but only to those tuned to see it.</i><P>

Ah yes. The ultimate cool is being so unbelievably cool that no one even realizes how utterly cool you are.

[aizan_sasayama]

<i>The ultimate cool is being so unbelievably cool that no one even realizes how

utterly cool you are.</i>

 

<p>this must be a diagnosable neurosis or whatever!

 

<p>i bet the removal of the leica dot is partly why the mp has been a sales success.

[frank granovski]

Every summer I see the local Leica guys walking around with a Leica or 2 slung around their necks but I never see them take any pictures except for Tom and Denis. Then there are the gals, who usually don't have Leicas slung around their necks, but seem to be snapping everything in sight. 2 thumbs up for the fearless, 2 thumbs down who carry their cameras like a suit.

[owen w.]

Sigh. It really was just an anthropological musing based on an earlier post. (And Thank You to Richard Small for seeing it as such.) I didn't initiate it, but did re-t(h)read it. It's just for fun. There is no need to go personal, either at me or in its application.

<p>

The article, and the comments on it, are cultural observations, making a linkage between items that circulate in an economy of signs and symbols of status and identity. It was also, supposedly, about the role of design in our lives and our relations to it. The leather bag made me grin. (Ya gotta admit, it IS amusing.) The link to Gibson's Pattern Recognition was obvious to anyone familiar with that genre. So was the photo of the guy, although the article's writer actually mis-read it. Both text and photo give it away. The link to our cameras is merely the totem role they play. This may have NOTHING to do with how you use your cameras, or even what you think about it, per se. I don't think it has any direct affect on my way of life, with or without a camera, either. It doesn't matter.

<p>

The vast array of totems (of membership and status) exist and are in play throughout complex public and private economics of signification. That is, they can "mean" many things to many people, regardless of what you think. But, you remain complicit through your consumption. Economics of identity exist as much as economies of money, regardless of your view or place within either. And, on certain levels, you know it. This entire forum is about a parade of those totems by which (inner) membership is either granted or withheld. If only for example, some people are granted hero status (or reviled) because of the posture they adopt, others by the volume of fantastic photos. This is an ontology workshop, where the house epistemology is Leica.

<p>

If you have never read Neuromancer, make it your one SF novel this year. Pattern Recognition is the novel that makes the link to this discussion, but not the Hugo / Nebula / Philip K. Dick Award winner that Neuromancer was/is. They are fun to read, if nothing else.

<p>

Sorry if anyone takes this to heart the wrong way. Just light-hearted musings. Frankly, I love all the lens talk, particularly comparing old glass, old bodies and sharing images. I've learned tons from this forum, and it's the only "free time" site I haunt. I'm in awe of Mike Dixon's work (and should you visit Bangkok, I happily spring a dinner for you). Al has been personally helpful to me in the past. Please don't read too much into some fun romp through curious literature / cultural linkages that someone ported from the NYTimes. All for fun when we aren't talking hardware and waiting for Al to post more of those great 60's photos and for more samples of Mike's relationships with women and light.

<p>

owen

[huw_finney]

Wine!

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Good one Huw!

 

I take exception to the statement "cool hates poseurs". A 100% non-poseur would not have the idea of cool anywhere on his person.

[peter_evans4]

<p><a

href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/fashion/20poss.html?oref=login">www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/fashion/20poss.html</a>

is quite an article. The author appears to have his head up his, er,

fundament. Who needs <cite>The Onion</cite> when the original's this

ludicrous?</p><p><em>the house epistemology is Leica</em></p><p>I

haven't a clue what this means. But as for coolth, try <a href="http://lyrics.duble.com/lyrics/K/kevin-ayers-lyrics/kevin-ayers-mr-cool-lyrics.htm" title="a truly cool singer">this</a>.</p>

[vic_.]

Wow, what happened? I posted the NY Times article around dinner time last night and this morning it's gone. What did I miss? Something profound no doubt! I just found it amusing that people would talk seriously about overengineered everyday objects, and elevate them to totem like positions. I should reread "Man and His Symbols" by Jung. Somehow, in the US today, anything German is considered super cool.

[dan_brown4]

<i>Time to get the meds adjusted...</i>

<p>

<b>ROFLMAO</b>

[jtk]

It's a fine ramble. However "cool hate's poseurs" is an absurdity.

Cool IS poseur.

[will_perlis]

"Huh?"

 

That's it! Al is so cool he doesn't even know he's cool.

 

IMO, if the thought of being cool crosses your mind then you're not. For sure, LA is the place to see people working up a sweat trying very hard to be cool.

[wmwhee]

Another hobby of mine, besides taking pictures, is reading; I read just about anything. Consequently, I read Owen's post and found it interesting enough. I had read about people disguising Leica cameras, so disguised my M7 camera after buying it. Disguising the camera, however, seemed to call more attention to it--or to my wish to disguise it (i.e. my wish to be cool)--than just letting the red dot all hang out. So, for me, it's back to plain old camera.

[h._p.]

Reading this brings back warm memories of Phil Kneen who would have used the one word which sums it up so well......

[dan flanders]

Somehow it occurs to me that the ultimate "cool" would be not to squander bandwidth that could be put to more productive use.

[agardner58]

Peter Evans...

 

Kevin Ayers may not be popular, but he has always been cool!

[fjords]

all this cool is fogging my lens.

[frank granovski]

Cool is being an active member of the polar bear club north of 60.