HCB Exhibit

[jasper1]

Eugene can you get me a burger and coke and one of those floral tea shirt tops and shorts? how do you do the big red angry face thing?

 

Want to be called Eugene and be clever like you.Please help me Eugene to rise from my sorry state.

 

Love you Eugene.

[eugene_scherba]

I don't drink soda. And you again didn't answer my question.

[thomas_sullivan]

"..I understand Sally don't get your knickers in a twist.."...there goes that pompous arse attitude again. And the name is Tom....understand that. You really have a holier than thou attitude, dont you? You should learn to curb that...maybe some of us might actually take you seriously.

[maqsym]

Shut your yaps children, I'm trying to sleep for Fsake!

[yeffe]

Y'know, for a minority devoted to a tiny, and soon to be anachronistic, pursuit, (I'm using,

for now, with what I assume is Jeff S's defintion of street photography) you are an awfully

contentious lot. That's all on that subject except for the following: We may have proven

one thing so far in the thread: we're all full of some kind of crap or other. Let's have a poll

on that one.

 

"You are writing as if you believed that there is some inherent value the subject possesses,

and the photographer is literally sucking it out."

 

The inherent value is that of humanity, a romantic notion in chronological sync with the

development of the technology. The wish to fix and tame 'nature's pencil' ties in to the

wishes and fears we entertain about our own natures.

 

The photographer does not suck it out but exploits it, manipulates it.

 

" Obviously this had a serious conjectual understanding of his subjects mentality at the

time of exposure.We can only presume his victums were type casted into a resonate

compelling cast upon them due to lateral actions of this type. As Harden a little known

friend of HCB used to conjure the soul movements were part of the aura of the missing

parts of the total conjecture of the victims."

 

That's all I sayin, folks. We live in Plato's cave, melding data we get through our senses

with our assumptions about what we're experiencing. Those assumptions are heavily

influenced by environment (as understood by the observer). Michael's use of the verbs

'conjecture and 'conjure,' seem all of a piece with the age of phrenology, morphology, (to

which photography contributed mightily) and even eugenics. The first two in fashion back

in 1839.

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>The inherent value is that of humanity, a romantic notion in

chronological sync with the development of the technology.</i></p>

 

<p>You do not understand artistic process. You presume (a) that

humanity presents a clearly definable value, and (b) that artistic

process, at least some forms of it, can reduce it. Both of these

presumptions are wrong. And how is technology in a chronological

sync with humanity as a romantic notion? This is plain BS, tell it

to anyone who's taken a few years of philosophy/art history, and

he/she will squirm his/her eyes and say "Yea, go on..."</p>

 

<p><i>The wish to fix and tame 'nature's pencil' ties in to the

wishes and fears we entertain about our own natures.</i></p>

 

<p>Perhaps, but what does this have to do with the subject we are

discussing?</p>

 

<p><i>The photographer does not suck it out but exploits it,

manipulates it.</i></p>

 

<p>You did not understand me, so you are only repeating yourself.

You cannot exploit or manipulate something without taking something

away, which is what I referred to by "sucking." You are talking of

humanity as if it were an intangible asset. It is not an asset. It

has no monetary equivalent. Humanity cannot be granted or taken

away, it can only be affirmed or denied. The verbs "exploited" and

"manipulated" are emotionally charged but meaningless in this

context, because the actions they refer to do not operate on

humanity. I repeat: you cannot exploit or manipulate humanity,

because humanity is not an asset, you can only grant or deny

humanity by directly treating the subject. If treatment is absent,

nothing is done with respect to humanity; the action is taking place

at a different plane.</p>

[Brad_]

<I>...you are an awfully contentious lot.</I><P>

 

No, I don't think so. But when someone broadbrushes with an abosulute statement like:

<I>Street photographers prefer the homeless, old, and unfashionable: they're predators.

</I>, those that regularly do SP will of course react to that ignorance.<P>

 

It only got better (and pretty funny) when Ron Galella, who shot people like Jackie-O, was

offered as an example of the above statement. <P>

 

I know maybe a dozen photographers who shoot regularly on the street. And I suspect

none of them, including myself, would have any respect for someone who regularly shoots

the homeless, old, and unfashionable simply because those people are more reachable.

<P>

 

Do you now understand what all of the above was about?

[eugene_scherba]

I find it funny that he put "the unfashionable" into the list. I

guess, only one who exclusively prefers to shoot "the fashionable"

would do that. Talk about hypocrisy.

[yeffe]

No, humanity is not an asset, but a term of art used commonly in social intercourse and

understood in profoundly varying ways. Those who agree on one definition or another

form concensus. I never said otherwise. The fact that the voting and consuming masses

are willing to read whatever makes them feel comfortable into value-freighted concepts

like 'humanity,' or, "decency,' demonstrates that these terms catalyze immediate,

compelling and often, catastrophic behaviors. But I guess there's no value inherent in that.

 

Gene and Brad: I never wrote the line about the homeless...etc. Nor do I only photograph

the fashionable. You're both out of line if you were talking about me.

[barefoot]

<i>

You did not understand me, so you are only repeating yourself. You cannot exploit or

manipulate something without taking something away, which is what I referred to by

"sucking." You are talking of humanity as if it were an intangible asset. It is not an asset. It

has no monetary equivalent. Humanity cannot be granted or taken away, it can only be

affirmed or denied. The verbs "exploited" and "manipulated" are emotionally charged but

meaningless in this context, because the actions they refer to do not operate on humanity.

I repeat: you cannot exploit or manipulate humanity, because humanity is not an asset,

you can only grant or deny humanity by directly treating the subject. If treatment is

absent, nothing is done with respect to humanity; the action is taking place at a different

plane.</i>

<p>

Eugene,

<p>

Was it necessary to learn English to talk that much twaddle or does your native Ukranian

support such nonsense. I ask merely as a scholar of linguistics.

[Brad_]

Hardly out of line, JeffC. You offered up the notion that we're an <B>"awfully contentious

lot,"</B> and, <B>Ron Galella</B> as an example of a predator street photographer, in

response to the "Street photographers prefer the homeless, old, and unfashionable: they're

predators." comment from John.<P>

 

Do you now understand where that <I>contentiousness</I> comes from?

[eugene_scherba]

Okay, Stuart, what is your take on it? I would like to hear what you

have to say on this subject, especially in what particular ways my

response is nonsensical. Please elaborate, I am all ears. I ask this

honestly, no offense intended.

[barefoot]

Eugene, I have no take on it whatsoever. I doubt I've ever used the words 'asset' and

'humanity' in the same day let alone in the same sentence. You had a go at Jeff C, I had a go

at you - what goes around, comes around.

[eugene_scherba]

So does that make you feel better now, Stuart?

[yeffe]

Contentious? I woke up this morning to a smorgasbord of playground nah-nah, and so's

your old man. I guess some of the posters around here have been at it for a while. Or

please tell me that that was goofing around. Even with M. Bridge's contribution, I had to

consider that he was pulling my leg (the bad syntax might have been intentional).

 

Obviously, some avoided ad-hominim attacks. I don't mean to apply my famed broad

brush.

 

On missing your point, Brad, The Gallelas perform a purely mechanical function: to feed

the fantasy lives of the masses. Now, as for the linkage between hardware and software in

image making, for what demand did Barnack seek to develop a miniature camera? How

'bout improve photo-reportage? Miniaturized press photography made the whole street

aesthetic possible. Maybe I'd be thinking about hand-held, low light shooting if I were in

the Speed Graphic era, but I doubt it.

 

Finally, you seem outraged at my smear of honest, decent people who shoot in the certain

genre of SP. Forgetting that such notions as respect, etc. are, as you've pointed out, airy

myths like money, (an agreed-upon measure of value and backed by the full faith and

credit...blah, blah.) It's no smear to simply point out that some see wider or

different considerations involved in the evolution of art, if art is what we're talking about.

 

Did you see that site I referenced?

 

http://www.in-public.com/site/index.php

 

Some of his stuff shows subjects at their unconscious worst. Other shots are a shot at

portraying icons of quiet or heroic humanity. I'm not saying this guy and what he does are

rotten. Maybe I'm saying he's got a bit more to work on.

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>Some of his stuff shows subjects at their unconscious

worst.</i></p>

 

<p>Depends on one's definition of worst, but, yes, I would agree

that some street shots are not very flattering. But, wait. Are

Picasso's portraits of women flattering? Did he instill Humanity

with a capital H in each and every one of them? Does art have to be

flattering or respectful? Can I have bad art, please? While we are

on this, what do you think of <a

href="http://www.disfarmer.com/">Disfarmer's work</a>? Does it

matter what was his stance on humanity?</p>

 

<p>I guess, your problem with SP is that, unlike in cubism, in SP

<i>faces are recognizable</i>, so that <i>individuals</i> are not

always flattered. You see SP as an attack on individuality, not as

an

attack on humanity in general (but you don't know how to express

this more precisely, so you use the charged word "humanity"). Yes, I

would agree to that, but that would be then a completely different

discussion.</p>

[Brad_]

<I>Finally, you seem <B>outraged</B> at my smear of honest, decent people...</I><P>

 

Outraged? Yes, I'm seething and foaming at the mouth as I type. And that artery on my

forehead is going to burst any second.<P>

 

Just having some yucks at the keyboard when Ron Galella is served up as a street

phtographer shooting the homeless, old, and unfashionable. Like Jackie-O, Andy Warhol,

Cher, Henry Kissinger, and Twiggy - right?

[eugene_scherba]

Stuart, I am quite surprised that you call yourself a linguistics

scholar. Based on your persistent <i>ad hominem</i> attacks against

some of the members of these forums, one would rather conclude that

you are a sociopath.

[Brad_]

Watch it Eugene. You used the words <I>persistent</I> and <I>sociopath</I> in the same

sentence...

[barefoot]

Eugene,

 

I am quite surprised that you can't get your head around the fact that a linguistics scholar

can also be a sociopath. What kind of mental disorder do you imagine linguistic scholars

suffer from? Delusions of grandeur?

 

I am also amazed how quickly you lose your cool once removed from a 'debating-society'

environment. To complain of an ad hominem attacck whilst accusing your attacker of

being a sociopath is decidedly bad form - at least in a civilised society.

 

But fear not. You, at least, have El Brad on your side.

 

Respectively yours

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>What kind of mental disorder do you imagine linguistic

scholars suffer from? Delusions of grandeur?</i></p>

 

<p>Who are you talking about here?</p>

 

<p><i>I am also amazed how quickly you lose your cool once removed

from a 'debating-society' environment.</i></p>

 

<p>Well, I gave you a chance to support your address to me. Since

you explicitly said that you don't have a stance, and that your

address <i>was indeed</i> an eye for an eye in support of Jeff C (I

don't bother to cite you here, but you can just scroll up to see

what you said), I concluded only that what anyone else would

have

concluded, and stopped treating you as a dutiful participant of the

debate.</p>

 

<p><i>To complain of an ad hominem attacck whilst accusing your

attacker of being a sociopath is decidedly bad form - at least in a

civilised society.</i></p>

 

<p>Hehe, I did not accuse you of ad hominem attacks, I accused you

of <i>persistent</i> ad hominem attacks. I, too, insult somebody

from time to time on this site. I just don't bother to do it on a

persistent basis against the same people. And I can support my

statement with names if you'd like.</p>

[barefoot]

yawn

[yeffe]

"Just having some yucks at the keyboard when Ron Galella is served up as a street

phtographer shooting the homeless, old, and unfashionable. Like Jackie-O, Andy Warhol,

Cher, Henry Kissinger, and Twiggy - right?"

 

Does the tabloid rack at the supermarket not fascinate you even a little? Not pruriently, but

in terms of what use can be put to trees and ink. And what about the heartbreak of celebs

in or past their prime who're portrayed as fat, badly dressed, all the way to sneak shots of

the sick and old ones being ushered from ambulance to ER, etc. Just try to marry an

ordinary Joe, like Elizabeth Taylor. Not only didn't it work, but it played out in public.

Where's your sympathy for group of professionals who compete against bad odds to

scrape together a career. And when they do...

 

Where's your pity, man?

[eugene_scherba]

Jeff, once again, you are deeply confusing something. Ron Galella

has nothing to do with SP. Get yourself a cool drink, man.

[barefoot]

<i> Ron Galella has nothing to do with SP.</i>

<p>

Prove it.