Martyr Philosophy

[lex_jenkins]

<p>If not for Johnny's indignant rebuttals I'd have sworn this was a <a href="

post</a> . But since he appears sincere, I'll offer the most sincere advice a newcomer could receive from a friendly veteran when approaching any well established website with its own zeitgeist and shibboleths:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lurk%20moar"><strong>lurk moar</strong> </a></p>

[carlos_rodriguez3]

<p>Martyr:<br>

I must say it is an interesting philosophy. However I need to comment two things:<br>

First of all, there is no such thing as absolute non-interferral interaction between photographer and subject. You may be aware of the quantum theory of observer interference with a system. Many anthropologist agree that human interaction is very similar. For example: there is no way you can document an isolated brazilian tribe WITHOUT altering the system.<br>

If I misunderstood you, and you meant to say "to minimize" the influence of photographer in the subject, then I have a different comment:<br>

Being farther away from your subjects would minimize influences and minimize interruptions of the moment. That means extensive use of large and extremely large telephotos. Sort of wild animal phtography: you dont want to disturb any animal because it can get scared and flee.<br>

But you adhere to a maximum of 300mm, and that is very odd to me.<br>

Candid photography depends heavyly on the anonimity a telephoto gives.<br>

Having said this, over all, I hope your philosophy makes you happy as an artist or a hobbyist.</p>

<p>Good luck<br>

Carlos Rodriguez</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>This post, by someone who many seem to agree is either a troll or a fool, has gotten 51 responses in a few hours.</p>

<p>Wow.</p>

<p>That statistic says more than most of the statements here. This is exactly what people want!</p>

<p>As for lurk moar . . . Right, someone should definitely hang around this particular thread -- observing the sarcasm, snottiness, mean-spiritedness, crankiness, and incredible piling on, just one after another after another after another making the same point, the same put down -- so he can feel at home. Yes. That's what the wise newcomer should do.</p>

<p>He certainly should not try to raise the level of discourse, lest he risk winding up in that awful place of substance and creakiness at the top of the stairs known as the Philosophy forum. No, instead he should grovel here at the foot of the staircase with most everyone else, where the little superficial war rages, safely ragging together on the perceived fool, happy to be among rubberneckers at a train wreck unable to avert their eyes.</p>

[Ray House]

<p>Mr. Martyr, I like your philosophy and would like to see some of your photos. As to the way I shoot it is very different in many ways and maybe thats part of the reason I'm interested. I don't know why this thread went south so early on, but I would say "to each his/her own". I feel like I'm missing out on something if I'm not open to at least trying something new, so post a few photos and if you find the time take a look at mine! Welcome to Photo.net.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I just thought lurk moar was sensible advice, along with reading the warning signs to avoid stepping on land mines.</p>

<p>Also, there's a difference between a statement of philosophy intended to foster discussion, and a closed-ended manifesto. One is suitable for a discussion forum. The other is better suited to a personal blog or artist's statement on which no debate is invited or necessary.</p>

<p>But <a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=%22johnny+martyr%22&btnG=Google+Search">a quick Gargling around</a> shows that Johnny is consistent, having made pretty much the same pronouncement elsewhere. Since it either <a href="http://www.modelmayhem.com/834065">mirrors</a> or outright <a href="http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=20197205&blogId=498215220">duplicates</a> his statements elsewhere online, it's reasonable for most readers to interpret this not as a topic for discussion but an edict to be pondered in rapt silence. In which case, it's the antithesis of a conversation starter. It's a self-absorbed conversation stopper. Nothing wrong with that on your artist's statement or personal blog, but here on a photo.net <em>discussion</em> forum (emphasis on discussion), it seems to cross the line from mere self-importance toward blog-spamming.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>BTW, Fred, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think we do tend to yank the welcome mat out from under folks occasionally. I'm just not sure this is one of those occasions where it's unjustified. I'm not sensing a sincere effort on the OP's part to integrate himself into the photo.net community, especially since the same manifesto, word for word, was posted to his Myspace account. It just seems disingenuous.</p>

<p>But, yeh, sometimes we do lay on the snarkasm a bit thick. Another photo.net whose presence I'd missed recently pointed this out in another discussion yesterday. I'm certainly guilty of that at times. I'll hafta ponder this over the weekend. Might be an interesting discussion topic next week.</p>

[mike dixon]

<p><em>Also, there's a difference between a statement of philosophy intended to foster discussion, and a closed-ended manifesto. One is suitable for a discussion forum. The other is better suited to a personal blog or artist's statement on which no debate is invited or necessary.</em></p>

<p>This is why I initially moved the thread from the Philosophy forum. A list of dictates about how "all photography should be" doesn't raise the level of discourse; it leads to threads like this one (no matter what forum it's in).</p>

<p>Based on emails and responses in this thread, I don't believe that Johnny Martyr is trolling; I think he has a sincere interest in discussing his ideas. But I think an element of Lex's "lurk moar" comment is right on target: he doesn't understand the dynamics of web forum discussions. If he wants to discuss the concepts underlying his philosophy, he's quite welcome to do so in the Philosophy Forum, but he needs to present his ideas in a manner other than "this is how you should do photography."</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Very well said Mike.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lex--</p>

<p>I'm tempted to respond and say that perhaps Johnny posted it in two places because he thought it was a straightforward and concise statement of his photographic goals, wanting to discuss them both here and on myspace. I have no way of knowing and I'm not sure why I wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt.</p>

<p>But I'm actually more interested in the Idealism he expressed and how that relates to all of us. I tend to respond to Idealism and use it myself, but I also counter it with the personal, the mundane, the specific, and the imperfect.</p>

<p>There's an opportunity here to talk about our photographic Ideals (or lack thereof), if we ever find ourselves wanting a sense of purity even while we may recognize the impossibility of attaining it. My guess is that many of us have bottom lines, lines we won't cross. At the same time, many of us are also crossing other lines all the time. Art probably exists somewhere in the struggle or tension between the Ideal and Real, the Universal and the Personal. A lot of my favorite photos give me a sense, within one image, of both the iconic and the fleeting. These are great issues to riff on in a casual conversations forum about photography, better the philosophy forum where this was first appropriately posted. So far, the opportunity has been mostly missed.</p>

<p>I've now seen Mike's post and will add that there was one "should" in the original post, followed by a series of statements clearly indicating that this was the OP's own method. All the subsequent statements in the original post are "I" or "my" statements. Believe me, I've followed the Philosophy forum enough to see "shoulds" thrown about all over the place. Sometimes they're intended quite seriously, often just a lack of better phrasing on the part of the writer. I was initially taken aback by the "should." By the time I was done reading the entire original post, I could see that the lone "should" was the anomaly in the post and I was easily able to get past it and move onto the substance of the ideas.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I misspoke. Not ALL the subsequent statements were "I" or "my" statements. The first bullet included "I" and "my" and neither "I" nor "my" nor "should" was used again. His first bullet point put me on the track that now he was talking about his own method.</p>

<p>This crap occurs in the Philosophy forum all the time. Posters get hung up on personality and process, they focus on one stupid "should" or perhaps a strange use of a particular term instead of paragraphs of stimulating thoughts. It's tempting to fight and bicker instead of talking and learning. A little self discipline would go a long way, particularly in the Philosophy forum. New threads and contributors to that forum have severely decreased lately. It's because of all the distracting garbage and bickering one has to wade through in order to have a discussion about ideas and photographs.</p>

[mike dixon]

<p>Fred, a list of proscriptions and the authoritative tone of the statements comes across as dictatorial. It doesn't invite discussion, and it sets a combative tone to any disagreement. That probably wasn't the OP's intention, but it's quite typical for people to interpret such language in that way. It's not just the single "should" at the beginning that's the problem.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>They came across as dictatorial <em>to you and some others</em>. That they came across as dictatorial is no more true than that photographers should photograph a certain way. It's true for you. They didn't come across as dictatorial to me. That the OP didn't invite discussion is no more true than that one shouldn't use a flash. You didn't feel invited. I did.</p>

<p>The OP may bear a lot of responsibility. But don't tell me the responders here don't bear responsibility for falling prey to what they perceived as a troll instead of simply dealing with the ideas on a more mature level than they were giving the OP credit for. You always have a choice how productively to respond even to what you consider nonsense. Seems like turning it into sense would be more constructive than going on for 50 posts about how stupid something is. </p>

<p>I've now opened the door twice to a more reasonable and substantive discussion. No one has stepped through.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lex--</p>

<p>Thanks for giving consideration to what I said. I appreciate it.</p>

[mike dixon]

<p>This discussion is now closed. While most participants had moved on to civil disagreement and discussion, someone new wanted to return to name calling and insults.</p>