Martyr Philosophy

[mrraz]

<p>Johnny, I would like to see your work. When I can see your philosophy in practice, I can offer my thoughts on what I'm seeing. Even if I don't personally care for an image, I do recognize good work, when I see it and can provide a well thought out critique.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p><strong><em>Gerry Siegel--did i ask you for a reaction?</em></strong><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br />YES...you did. in fact, you asked a worldwide community of photographers for a reaction by posting your philosophy here...unless you were just talking aloud to yourself.</p>

<p>no need to play the part of the martyr.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>I thought you were yankin'our chain here, Mr. Martyr, but maybe not.<br /> <br /> If you're talking photojournalism, I agree with a lot of it. But many photojournalists will disagree with you on zooms and flash, saying they will help produce a shot they might not get otherwise. There have been many purists in the field, who preferred fast primes and natural light. But I doubt many would say artificial light and zooms invalidate all content.<br>

<br /> I think "do what you want" is acceptable in art. Remember that the old BW "masters of truth" like Adams and Weston, to name a couple, manipulated their work to fit their vision. Adams produced different looking prints from the same negative, "Dogwood Blossoms" was not a found shot, and I've never seen like the sun look like the one in his "The Black Sun". That's no eclipse!<br /> <br /> I've always liked a purist philosophy for my stuff, but don't consider it absolute. If there's a Coke can in the foreground, and I don't want it there, I'm picking it up and throwing it away. I do believe excluding unwanted elements in the image through improved composition is best. Removing an unwanted element before the shot is better than just cloning afterwards, but if a picture's good otherwise, no sense wasting it.<br /> <br /> I find it liberating and fun to do things opposite to my normal way. I shoot transparency film, but I've had a lot of fun using a point and shoot digital and messing with the controls of contrast, color etc. It breaks me out of the straitjacket of doing things conventionally. It allows me to see in different ways. And it allows me to lighten up a little.<br /> <br /> Cloning dust and scratches is just housekeeping. Extensive alteration is fine if it is obvious or if not presented as unaltered.<br /> <br /> I get what you're saying, but it's an ultimately futile quest to define truth in art in absolute terms.<br>

There's no need to be a Martyr for art.<br /> I prefer living and being free to create as I wish, to martyr-dumb.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p><strong><em>i'd be happy to provide work in a less hostile and immature environment where you don't post over and over with unsolicited insults.</em></strong><br>

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

let's don't pout. ignore the "hostile environment"...let's back up that philosophy with some examples of those pictues that represent photography at it's purest...with none of the bastardization that most of us apply. seriously...would love to see some. but expect that there will probably those who will "react"! </p>

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>john galyon, your comments haven't been contstructive in the least bit and i still have no idea what your problem is with what i've said. </p>

<p>all you've said is that you hoped it was satire, that it's weird, that it's narrow. narrow is perhaps the most descriptive or objective term you've used so far. i really don't have a problem with having a narrow method. another word for that is specialization. my ideas pretty well encapsulate the philosophy of street photography, correct? but i doubt you'd see someone practicing street photography and tell them they should be shooting landscapes. i would just like to know what you find wrong, harmful or useless about what i said besides that i used one poorly worded phrase in which i suggested my philosophy should apply to all photographs. </p>

<p>david, why the sarcastic quotes and short response? why not just point out to me that you believe you've found a flaw in my logic? are you religious? do you belong to a political party? do you have any beliefs? are all your ideas ALWAYS 100% consistent? we're human. we do our best to define our ideas and that's what i've done here. </p>

<p>and what i was trying to get at is that subjects seeing the camera is unavoidable but blending the camera into their action and environment will help reduce the camera interrupting the scene. admittedly the camera will always interrupt and in the cases of obvious interruption, i say shoot the reaction because that's now the reality. </p>

<p>if you'd like to help me word this in such a way to make it more clear, i'd be interested. if you're just trying to point out flaws and assume i am conflicted any more than any other doctrine, well thank you for showing me that i need to clarify but i think you could probably do well leaving the attitude behind.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p><strong><em>Jeff Spirer-what does that have to do with anything? did you just want to find a way to flick me off without getting thrown out of the forum?</em></strong><br>

Uh....ya might wanna backtrack there cowboy. Mr.Spirer is a PN moderator and pretty well respected round these parts...</p>

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>"Johnny, I would like to see your work. When I can see your philosophy in practice, I can offer my thoughts on what I'm seeing. Even if I don't personally care for an image, I do recognize good work, when I see it and can provide a well thought out critique."<br>

glenn as i've stated, i would otherwise enjoy sharing my work here but feel widely insulted and uncomfortable doing so.</p>

<p>john, what is your problem? why are you all over me, even speaking for gerry? how have i offended you that you need to attack everything i say? </p>

<p>and what encouragement do i have for sharing my work? why should i? to prove something? if you don't like my ideas and you happen not to like my work, what will i have gained? more short sarcastic negative responses? nothing constructive is happening in this thread. all i'm doing is defending myself. we can't even get you to tell me exactly why you don't like what i have to say much less get into discussing my actual work.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Johnny, I am not ultimately responsible for your reaction to any of my comments. All I can add is that I intend nothing like <strong>malice</strong> (I don't know you that well,frankly.) I found your posting hard to believe as a working philosophy. A constricted approach. Which came out so dogmatic I was unsure if you were kidding or not. I would still ask that you consider what photography would be, how restrictive and boring, if we followed an approach which, for instance excluded flash, exempted zoom lenses. It was hard not to think " Is he kidding or what?"</p>

<p>The stage name Johnny Martyr-forgive me- begs for a <em>little</em> bit of razzing. I hope you can adjust to accept a little teasing. Yes, I <em>have</em> been teased and <em>insulted even </em> over my portfolio and definitely for my camera choices, yer' darn tootin' I have...reply by me would have invited a barrel of the same but that is not my point. I for one did not intend to 'step on your crank' so hard. Yet a nerve down there was stepped on, so be it... "Malice toward none, charity to all " is not something that comes from an <strong>ayatollah</strong> approach of photo dogma. Do you agree. It was not what you had in mind,but came forth like a fatwah, so to speak... No 'fatwah' re photo- style ever passed muster on PN, that is why I stay with PN over some other chit chat places I have sampled. Thanks for diversity and acceptance of same. With good taste as the guide. Aloha , gs</p>

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>jeff thanks for your comprehensive response. just as many folks believe in god but do not go to church every sunday, i am not unable to shoot with flashes and zooms etc. again, the phrase 'all photographs' seems to be the root of the problem here. also, the out of context nature of my post thanks to the philosophy moderator. but my purpose in writing this up was to gather my thoughts for how i've grown to shoot my art work and what my ideas are behind it. sure when i'm doing various paid gigs i don't work like this at all. </p>

<p>cue mockery for violating my own dogma...</p>

<p>but anyway, i think it's useful to set parameters for your method. it defines your statements and lends strength and cohesion to ones work.</p>

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>john, this is i think the third tyme i'm asking you why you insist on attacking me without identifying a reason</p>

<p>"Jeff Spirer-what does that have to do with anything? did you just want to find a way to flick me off without getting thrown out of the forum?<br>

Uh....ya might wanna backtrack there cowboy. Mr.Spirer is a PN moderator and pretty well respected round these parts..."</p>

<p>i'm new to these forums (and i'm getting a very friendly introduction) and i don't know who any of you are. and to the ends that i feel ganged up on, insulted and surrounded by discouragement, it really doesn't matter to me who of you is respected or how well accomplished you are because the lot of you are treating me like high school bullies. </p>

 

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>gerry, you seem very clear-minded so i'll accept that your intentions were not any more than jostling but i imagine that it's fairly easy for you to see how i'd feel like you're just contributing to the pile-up of insults and mockery that has resulted here. </p>

<p>my philosophy is not that difficult to practice in a non-professional setting. when certain conventional results are expected and necessary though, of course this fails. but i feel as though my personal 'fun' photography as well as my 'art' can adhere to this dogma very well and in fact i have written this up as a way to solidify what i've been practicing without previous definition. </p>

<p>i really would like to share some of my work because i think it would be of interest but and would support my words well but i can only expect to garner more mockery that i am not interested in dealing with.</p>

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>btw, yes, i can understand how my topic came off as excluding others' methods but i don't find anything i said as offensive as the reactions here about how i live in a box and have a tight butt. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Once we get into name calling (high school bullies) and gets personal as well,Johnny, the discussion can go nowhere but downhill and sour.</p>

<p>I respectively invite the attention of our moderator. (No way to 'lift the flaps' and pull out of this spin, kind of sad..)</p>

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>gerry! you kicked off your entry into this convo by talking about my butt! and concluding that i live in box. this is your FIRST post to me! how is THAT not personal?!</p>

<p>i think bullies is a very specific description of what most people here are acting like. call the moderator. he practically flicked me off. i'm obviously not welcome here.</p>

<p>all i have been trying to do is keep this airplane (to use your analogy) flying and on topic and i get john attacking every comment i make and you calling the moderator for what should be an expected reaction to a group of people attacking someone baselessly.</p>

 

[jgalyon]

<p><em><strong>your comments haven't been contstructive in the least bit and i still have no idea what your problem is with what i've said.</strong> </em><br /><em></em><br />Johnny...I'll try to be constructive. I've read your other posts from today, and you obviously have considerable understanding of cameras, and photographic terminology. Enough that I think it safe to assume that you've been involved in photography for a considerable length of time. Enough time that it would seem that you would have more understanding of other philosophies than your own. It doesn't seem you do...or you'd understand why people are reacting to it as they are.</p>

<p><em><strong>my ideas pretty well encapsulate the philosophy of street photography, correct?</strong></em><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br />problem is...you didn't present this as the "Martyr's philosophy of street photography"...and most of us don't claim to be mindreaders. your self-described "poor wording" that left the distinct impression that you were applying this philosophy "to all photographs"...is where your difficulty began. so let's don't attempt to minimize that failure on your part.</p>

<p>I won't attempt to address everything you've said, but just say that the main issue that I have at present, isn't so much to do with your philosophy...but your responses to others who have commented. You've personalized the comments at every available opportunity, wrongly accused people of mocking you, of creating a "hostile environment", an "immature environment"...and generally whining about how you've been persecuted. No pun or disrespect intended...but playing the part of the martyr.</p>

<p>It appears that you've been on PN less than 24 hours...not long enough to get a good feel for the ebb and flow of things, not enough time to know the people you're taking issue with...but instead, with no context, no hello, no kiss my rear...you debut "the Martyr Philosophy" in front of an international audience of your peers...who espouse a multitiude of diverse philosophies, who come from diverse cultural backgrounds, differing levels of experience and skill, etc., ...and you have no idea why the strong reaction? I haven't been constructive? Well, I will attempt to do so. Suggestion: knock on the door, say hello, and ask politely if you can come in. I'm sure you will be most welcomed by the membership. Barging through the door and subjecting everyone to a pronoucement of philosophy that comes off as the arrogant rantings of someone who feels they have "arrived"...and is here to save the community from their ignorance...just doesn't work, and shows poor insight into your understanding as to how to "play well with others". If you read the bios and speak personally with some of the photographers you've challenged face to face...such as Gerry Siegel (just to name one)...you might think twice about what you have to say, and how you say it, because you've been in the face of some good people, and some excellent photographers who can stand toe to toe with you ...regarding anything to do with photography. <br />I'm one of the resident a-holes...so I'm not offended. A year ago...my behavior wasn't much different from yours at times. No...I take that back. I just liked to engage in pissing matches over trivial things...and would get the last word in regardless of the consequences.</p>

<p>Welcome to PN Johnny! It was a hell of an entrance.</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p>[J. Martyr] "Luis G--yes, i left out the rage at the establishment hoping to make my ideas less whiny and against other peoples' work. if i'd gone all out as you suggest can you imagine the angry lynch mob that would have been offended? which was not my purpose at all, merely to express my ideas and why. thanks for the links. i'm very moved by the work of dziga vertov as well."</p>

<p> Johnny, lynch mob <em>schmynch mob</em> . Who cares? It's only a web forum. Besides, the mob always comes out anyway. Ever hear of shot-peening? It only serves to make metal stronger.</p>

<p>What got JM in trouble was this part: " ...<em>all photography should...". </em> Think about that...we don't want every photographer to think, alike do we? There is real strength in the plurality of hybrid vigor, specially in disagreement. Even in the wags giving JM a hard time. Read the Dada manifesto. Lots to be learned there about absorbency and acceptance, turning the energies aimed at you into fueling the engine of creation.</p>

<p> I do want to hear the passionate part, what lead JM to this. If he doesn't want to put it out here, I hope he feels free to email me.</p>

<p> As I said, this is somewhat akin to (though far from) the Dogme_95 manifesto, and in spite of how it sounds, many great films came from that philosophy. Great photographs can come from JM's. Whether we realize it or not, in all human endeavors, it is <em>always</em> 'this, not that'. Particularly in photography. JM is simply aware/conscious of his choices and why he made them. To some that may sound like silly stricture, but it can be liberating to others.</p>

<p> It is good that JM has an ideology, discipline and structure that informs his own work. Before anyone jumps on me, I should say that this is not required, but in the right person such a structure(s) can function as a conduit for creativity and the imagination. </p>

<p> JM, thanks for Dziga Vertov. Lots to dig into there, and a good link concerning your philosophy.</p>

<p> Ps. To Gerry Siegel: That photo of the upright rodent creature peering at that fat, white lens is hilarious.</p>

<p> </p>

[sketch_tbhotmail.com]

<p>Hey Johnny, I throughly read you post and while I disagree with it on a personal level I can respect your dedication. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and yours are no more wrong than anyone elses here. I'm pretty sure what set everyone off is when you said "my philosophy is that all photography...". Those are some pretty big words in a public forum. Everyone has an ego and you've indirectly insulted a few of these peoples' with your initial post by indirectly saying that their work wasn't valid as "proper" photography, at least not in your books.</p>

<p>All that being said, I don't think you intended to be dismissive and can overlook that faux pas. While I can appreciate your train of thought, doesn't it make more sense to try to convey the feeling you felt while being surrounded by your subjects? To me, that would make a lot more sense... and a lot more technically demanding.</p>

 

[papasan]

<p>I smell a throll, not sure why anyone keeps feeding him...</p>

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>john thank you for leveling with me finally. i see what you're saying and will proceed with greater caution in the future.</p>

<p>luis, i just feel as though it's a shame how much garbage we've had to sort through here in order to get to the bottom of things and feel as though you and i in particular could have been enjoying a more engaging conversation in that tyme.</p>

<p>i don't feel like this is a generally useful environment for me and have acknowledged that my presence here was an accident to begin with. now i will quietly return from whence i came. </p>

<p>sorry to bother you guys.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Johnny...I wish you'd stay! Most of us who are married have had a knock down, drag out on occassion...and we usually get over it. I'd like to see some of your pictures...just as I would anyone who is new here. Kick your shoes off...stay a while!<br>

jg</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Johnny--</p>

<p>Since you posted it to the Philosophy forum, I'll respond philosophically to say that I relate to your approach in a kind of Platonic way, a search for something you think of as pure, an Ideal, if you will.</p>

<p>I tend to be more of a Wittgensteinian both philosophically and I suppose photographically, relying on context, on what's before me, on the physical with all its imperfections, relishing the fluidity of situations and my effect on them as much as the purity of more undisturbed experience. I like a good imposition now and then. For me, photographically speaking, there can be a lot of truth in poses, artificial setups, in staging, in theatrics. I agree there can also be a lot of truth in moments left relatively untouched and I recognize the significance of some of your goals and also recognize that many photographers work with your own approach consciously or not, just not exclusively as you seem to have set out for yourself, a daunting task no doubt but no less worthy than any other specified goal.</p>

<p>If I were to see posing and flashes and interruptions of moments in photography as attempts to represent reality, I might well think they were flawed, as you do, though of course they become their own reality. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to interrupt reality with anything but reality. But I think photography can get at truths through the back door, around the corner, cathartically (more Aristotle's view than Plato's) and not just representationally. So that when I pose someone very deliberately it does not have to be for fakery's sake or even as a distraction, imposition, or interruption. It can be to create. It can be to create a reality just as real as the one that would have flowed by without me. One can create truths and one can create a means to truths.</p>

<p>It's actually more stimulating to think of the similarities between recording and creating than the differences and to think of how my own style overlaps with yours.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>i shouldn't have implied that everyone needs to follow my ideas.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then what's the point? If you have a method you prefer for making photos, then use it, but it has nothing to do with others, especially in the absence of any photos. I don't really think much about how other people shoot unless I happen to be interested in their photos. Even then, what is really interesting and useful is how they approach their subject and their themes, not their dogmatic beliefs about what works for them.</p>

<p>Also, the "philosophy" is that of a dilettante. Anyone who has to actually make a living, or at least try to make a living from photography, will die with this "philosophy." </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>i don't care how much of my ideals you violated with your photo. what does that have to do with anything?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You were the one talking about "all photography." You seem to have retracted it later. However, my point is that plenty of photographers do just fine without your rules. At least I do.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Mr.Spirer is a PN moderator and pretty well respected round these parts...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The first part is true, but there is nothing remotely closely to unanimity around the second part. Also, the fact that I am a moderator does not mean that I am immune to the same posting digressions as other people. Just today, I took a quiz on Facebook, the results of which say I have the emotional maturity of a five year old. I take issue with that - it's off by at least ten years.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>i would otherwise enjoy sharing my work here but feel widely insulted and uncomfortable doing so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the most part, people here take a far different attitude to photographs than they do to dogma. Photographs are far more useful than words on a photography site, or they are least a good complement to words.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>call the moderator. he practically flicked me off.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nobody "practically flicked you off." I thought this was a useful example (and I happen to like the photo) because I asked the person to do that, in direct contradiction to Rule #2. Usually, it's a natural reaction from women, but this one gave me the usual pose and I showed her what I wanted.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>to the ends that i feel ganged up on, insulted and surrounded by discouragement</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Now what's really bizarre is that you are acting all upset about this when you posted on your myspace page the following:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>a person who has a <a href="http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vZDIxYy5jb20vTWVkaWEtTWl4L0RhbGktQ2hyaXN0T2ZTdEpvaG4tQ3J1Y2lmLmpwZw==">MARTYR</a> Complex desires the feeling of being a <a href="http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vcHJvZmlsZS5teXNwYWNlLmNvbS9pbmRleC5jZm0/ZnVzZWFjdGlvbj11c2VyLnZpZXdwcm9maWxlJmZyaWVuZElEPTg4NDU2ODkx">MARTYR</a> for its own sake, seeking out suffering or persecution because it feeds a psychological need. [edit] Exaggerated desire for self-sacrifice</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure there's much left to say after you've said that.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p><em>The first part is true, but there is nothing remotely closely to unanimity around the second part.</em></p>

<p>I agree Jeff. I was just trying to put a little fear into the boy at the time. ;)</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I guess I didn't react as strongly to the OP. But, here's what I thought: I find that when it comes to imposing limitations to bring about improvements, sometimes it helps to limit the limits. Limiting restrictions to a modest period of time or trying one or two on at once can be a little more constructive. </p>

<p>Maybe try to incorporate one or two points per session. Then, move on to the next idea. This can kind of help to keep things fresh. Also, some of these limitations are strict enough to kind of hobble some creative opportunities. Sometimes being too tight doesn't work out well, either. Johnny will have to apply his ideas himself; but, I would suggest a more flexible approach. I would suspect that a lot of photographers have their guiding ideas evolve over time, instead of arriving in one large prescriptive pack. I think a guideline approach might work out better.</p>

<p>Yesterday, I had the pleasure of making some photos of a young musician in a recording studio. If I had strictly adhered to the rules listed above, I would not have been able to make a single photo. Kind of what I'm trying to get at here is that if you set very strict guidelines for receiving the moment, then you may find that there are many moments that you simply can't receive. Something to think about. Getting a proper exposure can be hard enough. I would suggest using some of those points as goals or guidelines in actual application. Good luck. J.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<blockquote>

<p>...gerry! you kicked off your entry into this convo by talking about my butt! and concluding that i live in box. this is your FIRST post to me! how is THAT not personal?!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Had I <strong>intended</strong> to be malicious and personally nasty, Johnny, this is how I imagine I <em>might</em> have posted, but did not:</p>

<p>" What. Are you serious? Your so called 'philosophy' is the most stiff necked, constipated, string of dos' and dont's I have seen upchucked since New Year's Eve... You sound like a reactionary/ masochist with an axe to grind and a soapbox of rickety scrap wood. And ,I suspect, you carry a giant <strong>redwood log</strong> chip balanced on your shoulder to lay it on like this. Grow up, Ace, and show an open mind. Don't misread everyone's intent to suit your martyr complex. Your philosophy- which you so gamely spout- has contradictions right under your nose and you don't see them. They are profound. Maybe consider admitting that <strong>you MAY be misguided in your own standards. </strong> ."<strong></strong></p>

<p><strong>I NEVER</strong> write stuff like that,Johnny<strong>. </strong> If I catch myself starting, I quick -like delete. (And ask myself a question. " Is <strong>this</strong> the kind of thing a 20 year member of KHPR - FM and PBS Hawaii would do? :-)..</p>

<p>PS. John O Keefe- Odom has a good stable way to put the compromise- we can all be half right- approach. <br /> I can buy into that easily...gs.</p>