the buck stops with photos

[jtk]

<p><strong>A photos Vs Philosophy-words question</strong><strong>... </strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

<strong>...please don't mention anybody's names or photos. </strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

What about the <strong>relationship between Philosophy posts and Photo.net portfolios</strong> (seen by clicking on names):<br>

<strong></strong><br>

Each of us properly evaluates the worth of posted ideas by <strong>clicking on posters' names</strong> and looking at their photos. The buck stops there. That's my hypothesis.</p>

<p>Agree? <strong>Do our photos in</strong> <strong>Photo.net portfolios measure/support our wor</strong><strong>ds about photography?</strong></p>

<p>In Photo.net <strong>bios</strong>, some of us assert genetics (!), academics, automobiles, vacations, careers, opinions, and photo equipment.... bios sometimes compare amusingly to photos, much the way posts do :-) </p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>John, a very good question.</p>

<p>Some present a great part of their body of work in their P.Net portfolio, others none at all, and still others, only a small part of what they may be doing. It is an individual choice and not one I believe that relates completely to what one postulates, or repeats from non-personal sources, on the Philosophy forum. My own portfolio does not nearly represent all of what I am doing, or have done, or even of my photographic approach. I put it there simply to give some limited idea of my interests.</p>

<p>Judging someone's comments or ideas on the Philosophy of Photography forum by their portfolio is only one small way to get an inkling of what drives them, what they can do, or they want to do, in photography. Any approach or philosophical idea he or she may have may be more in the future of their work, than in the present.</p>

<p>Also, some others who may have experience in photography or academics, or have studied the philosophy of art, may not need or wish to use the portfolio section. One can always Google their names or consult Citation Abstracts for other information on their careers or background, if needed.</p>

<p>In my own case, I feel quite able to weigh the opinions expressed on their merit (to me), without the absolute need of other reference.</p>

[chris_autio]

<p>And some photographers may have a whole plethora of photos on film yet to be scanned or catalogued for their portfolios. Others may be so busy in their work that they have not the time to share imagery here, but humbly share a life's vast experience. What I like about Arthur's answer is that a philosophical idea may be in the works in regard to one's work, but not yet completed. As Aristotle said, "Something well begun is half done."</p>

[Julie H]

<blockquote>

<p>Each of us properly evaluates the worth of posted ideas by <strong>clicking on posters' names</strong> and looking at their photos. -- <em>John Kelly</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never do that. Truly, cross my heart, I never do that. I'm here for the ideas. I don't care who or what posts them. If a poster says something interesting, I'm grateful. If what they say is not interesting, I don't care if they have pictures to die for. It won't make what they said any more interesting.</p>

<p>I'm interested in the ideas, not the personalities. Not that we don't all have lovely personalities ...</p>

<p>[<em>I am not passing judgment on those who do like to have a portfolio to go with the words. Seems irrelevant to me, but there you go</em>.]</p>

[jtk]

<p>Interesting points by Arthur and Chris. </p>

<p>However: </p>

<p>1) Why would we be interested in the opinions of non-photographers pertaining to photography (everybody has opinions, does everybody count?)...and without photos, how can we determine whether a "plethora of...film" is significant "photography" rather than a collection of casual snaps? We've all read a book or two about photography by non-photographers. THEY WERE GOOD ENOUGH TO GET PRINTED by major publishers and get into our hands. Does that formulation work the same way with chat rooms?</p>

<p>2) We CAN and DO evaluate (even "rate") the photos that are posted. If they seem trite, boring, inferior, that is (IMO) a measure of the photographer's words about photography. One relevant Texas expression is "big hat, no horse."</p>

<p>If the photographer's great her ideas are, whether great or not, worth consideration. And vice-versa.</p>

<p>Doesn't a photograph measures the photographer's photographic merit? .</p>

<p> </p>

[podstawek]

<p>

 

<p>When I show my pictures to others, I often feel as if I was stripping naked. When I show my pictures <strong>and</strong> express my views on photography, I feel as if I was stripping naked and lecturing on anatomy. The former feeling may be pleasant depending on who I talk to; the latter is seldom pleasant, since in large audiences there will always be someone who finds faults either in my body, or in my knowledge of anatomy. They may not speak it out, but that doesn't make any difference. The ease of access to my gallery from any of my spontaneous opinions expressed in forums (such as this one) is intimidating, therefore I delete my posts very often still before they are published. There is not enough lecturing here, so I'm not deleting this one.</p>

 

</p>

[laurent-paul]

<p>This is a very interesting question John, and perhaps in an absolute environment, where the photographer is aware of himself and his own work, photos and ideas should "match". <br>

But if we see photography as an ever evolving approach, it may happen that we are first trying to intellectualize our research, and therefore our question may be a step or few ahead of our ability to express them with photography.<br>

The opposite may be true as well, when doing photography in a very emotional way, being better able to communicate with a photo rather than words, the intellectualization / philosophical understanding may not be as deep or as accurate as the photos themselves.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Communicating and teaching are skills unto themselves. How many of the greatest teachers, coaches or theorists in <em>any</em> discipline have also been top or even noteworthy performers themselves?</p>

[jtk]

<p>Fun responses :-) </p>

<p><em>" How many of the greatest teachers, coaches or theorists in any discipline have also been top or even noteworthy performers themselves</em>?" - Julie</p>

<p>Don't know the answer to that one. How do "teaches/coaches/theorists" relate?</p>

<p>Asked about photographers: Most here do seem to identify that way and many actually show interesting images :-) </p>

<p>Would you ask a non-dentist to philosophize about dentistry? Why not?</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>A portfolio or samples become important to me when someone makes claims about certain methods and processes he or she uses and suggests that that method or process has an effect on his or her photos. I'd need to see the photos to assess the viability and effectiveness of the so-called method.</p>

<p>Since the ideas we write don't exist in a vacuum, lots of things have an impact on how I read them. Knowing the biography of a person will affect what I think about his ideas and the context into which I place them. Seeing someone's photos will add to the context, to the texture of the ideas. </p>

<p>Ideas swirl in a vortex of context. Whatever context, be it photos, biography, for heaven's sake be it whether the person wrote it just after he woke up or after a half dozen beers at 2 in the morning, will shed light on the ideas themselves. All those things will aid in actual understanding.</p>

<p>On the other hand, some ideas do fine on their own merit.</p>

<p>This forum is about photographs and, for many, it is about art, very human endeavors. It is less abstract than many other kinds of Philosophy. It is the Philosophy <em>of</em> something. So examples, practicalities, stylistics, the way ideas relate to the thinker who's writing them and the way those ideas relate to their photographs can be of help. My recently having access to Julie's leaf photos in the discussion of symmetry seemed to help both Julie and me not only to illustrate but to understand what we were talking about and even to understand what we were looking at. Knowing Descartes's relationship to the Church, Wittgenstein's relationship to Russell, is part of the ideas themselves. Some of the profundity of the ideas gets completely lost without the context, the frame of reference.</p>

<p>Not seeing someone's photos is by no means the end of a good discussion but it can greatly lessen the experience, especially when the connection between process and product is made an issue.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>Addendum to above post:</em></p>

<p>When I read a non-photographer on photography, I can't and don't expect to see photos, and yet they may have great ideas. Same for the photographer whose photos I don't have access to, but reading a photographer whose photos are kept from me can put a spin on <em>some</em> of the ideas and make <em>some</em> of the ideas ring hollow.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Clearly there's something to be said for conversations that draw out a person's experience with actually making pictures rather than simply *thinking about* making them! I prefer not to look for external qualifications to see if a person ought to be writing anything here in the first place. It's elitist, and in an important way, self-defeating. </p>

<p>I think in the past in these forums someplace I mentioned the value of nurturing a solid BS detector as an ongoing life skill. Believe me John - somebody can have credentials that would impress God and still spin a load of crap nobody should take seriously!</p>

[maris_rusis]

<p>I never look at pictures on Photo.net. The deep value of the place is as an ideas and information mill.</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>" I prefer not to look for external qualifications to see if a person ought to be writing anything here in the first place. It's elitist, and in an important way, self-defeating. "</em> - Albert R</p>

<p>Yes, of course: That's well-thought-out and non-evasive comment about what's important to a photographer (Albert R), not mere philosophizing.</p>

<p>(...though I gotta' say, responses are the REASON for photos, aren't they? What's "elitist" in finding somebody's photos trite or derivative or badly done ? Is it elitist to aspire to excellence? )</p>

<p>I <strong>never</strong> look to see if a person "ought" to be writing ("ought" presumes a position of authority, which nobody has without wonderful photos, IMO). When I look, I do it late in the game, when I wonder about someone's photographic credibility.<br /><em></em><br />Aren't some of the responses to this OT arguing in defense of disconnection between stated "philosophy" and photographic work?</p>

<p>Is that the same as someone's disconnect between "philosophy" and life? Are we photographers, philosophers, philosophic photographers....or disconnectors?</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Both the art of making a photograph and that of pondering the philosphy of art or of photography are ultimately very subjective exercises. The same applies to the evaluating of either by another person.</p>

<p>The disconnect, if there is one, is not terribly important, I believe. We will take from each comment and idea, or each perceived image, our subjective evaluation of it. The important thing is not always that the philosophical ideas and the photographic work be of equal standard or even related to each other. The ideas and the images can be independently appreciated by the reader or viewer, without having to be consistent with each other or of the same quality. In any case, we take from each what most interests us.</p>

<p>Some persons practicing photography may provide what many would consider excellent work, but the same person may have little to say in regard to the philosophy underlying their work and perhaps nothing about their personal approach. Another may argue logically and with profoundness various aspects of the philosophy of art or what makes an image significant, but not be able to transfer those excellent thoughts into images that most might find to be of very high quality.</p>

<p>Someone who purchases or otherwise takes possession of one of our photographs need not be skilled in photography to appreciate it or to be able to criticize it in a meaningful manner. Engaging in the philosophy of art or the philosophy of photography is not the "sacred domaine" (the French have a great expression for this: "chasse-gardée") of the practitioner of either medium.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>John:</p>

<p>I'm still puzzling over your use of the term "philosophizing" from another thread. Yet, based on your posts above, it seems to me that you intend it to be pejorative as in " . . . mere philosophizing."</p>

<p>I agree wholeheartedly with Fred. One can engage in this philosophy of photography without being a photographer, in the same way one can engage in the philosophy of religion without being a member of the clery or in the philosophy of psychology without being a therapist. Yet, as he points out, such activities become more fruitful when the context of opposing points of view are taken into consideration.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I think in fact that the main challenge to this specific forum of PN is to make it possible to engage in philosophy of photography discussions - without being philosopher. As concerns the need of being active photographer, and a good one of the kind, I agree with those above that states that it is not necessarily related.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>I believe that John wants to be impressed with another's work before he will listen to the things they might say to him. If PN is the standard this certainly leaves me out! But then I don't have to worry about the pictures I care about being stolen or misused in some way either. It makes no difference. Does one really have to present the right work in order to earn the right to be taken seriously in a forum like this one? I agree with the others who have already said that you have to limit the dialog to the content of a person's comments without trying to prove that they are invalid because the wrong person wrote them.</p>

<p>John: So who do you listen to, anyway? And how do you figure out what you want to hear and what you don't? You seem to get very angry when you don't like what another person has to say! Is this really necessary? I depend on other people every day to believe in me and give me their money for the services I provide. I have learned that there are a good many people who are willing to help my enterprise and, in fact, they make valuable contributions to me besides their cash that I need to build my success.</p>

<p>This is the simple truth - without good people on my side, my business would fail. I don't mind showing my appreciation for what they do in appropriate ways. At the same time I don't go out of my way to get all upset over the prospects that go somewhere else. Everyone has a right to his own opinion and controls his decision whether to hire my services or someone else's. The point is that whether you like another person or not, you don't get to be their judge. And you certainly don't have to like them to get along with them! True in business - true here in the Philosophy of Photography Forum in PN.</p>

<p>Pictures may tell you A story, but when it comes to thoughtfulness and clear expression in writing, they can't tell you THE story. My problem isn't what I think of others, but what I can make of myself. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>John, you have reaped some very good responses to an important question you raised, especially in the last few of the posts. When I first started to be active in posting comments on Photo.Net someone attacked me outright as invalid, as I had no personal portfolio. At the time I didn't feel I needed that (I had been exhibiting, even succsssefully, for two decades, through local, national and internatonal photo societies and in my own small gallery, and had already received much valuable criticism, for or against my vision), but to show some "credibility" in the eyes of others I decided to put a few images in the portfolio. Do those images represent what I think about art and photography? Probably not. A the moment, I do not aspire to creating a personal portfolio to show my work. I do appreciate the time people take to place a few comments in it, and I appreciate the comments, but it is not a priority issue for me. If I asked every visitor to my gallery what credentials they had to comment my photos or discuss the nature of art or photography, I might be spending a lot more time alone.</p>

<p> </p>

[laurent_jaussi]

<p><strong>> Do our photos in</strong> <strong>Photo.net portfolios measure/support our wor</strong><strong>ds about photography?</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br /> yes and no, I like Fred's take on it...<br>

<br /> You don't have to be a photographer (or show your photographs) to have a valid articulated opinion about photography in general or about a particular picture...often the best essay about photography have been made by non photographers who benefit from the freedom offered by the non-making position...<br /> On the other hand, when someone deliberatly articulate an opinion as a photographer, then I would like to know who is this photographer, what kind of picture he likes and present...in this case I think the images can lower the credibility of the words if they do not support or worse contradict them...<br>

<br /> I do tend to like clear facts...if you claim to make comment as a photographer, if you are a photographer you show pictures (here or elsewhere it is your choice)...if you're not claiming to comment as a a photographer you benefit from the non-making freedom...but not both...<br>

<br /> A specific example...if someone says: "my experience as a photographer tells me this is right or wrong", then I'd like to know what kind of experience/picture....if the same pwerson would have said...in my personal opinion this is right or wrong for these reasons, then I would not want to see the pictures....</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1154645"><em>John Kelly</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 30, 2010; 07:00 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Fun responses :-) </em></p>

 

<p><em>" How many of the greatest teachers, coaches or theorists in any discipline have also been top or even noteworthy performers themselves?" - Julie</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>We could start with my parents.....</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1154645"><em>John Kelly</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 30, 2010; 01:48 p.m.</em><br>

<em><strong>A photos Vs Philosophy-words question</strong><strong>... </strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>...please don't mention anybody's names or photos. </strong><br /><strong></strong><br />What about the <strong>relationship between Philosophy posts and Photo.net portfolios</strong> (seen by clicking on names):<br /><strong></strong><br />Each of us properly evaluates the worth of posted ideas by <strong>clicking on posters' names</strong> and looking at their photos. The buck stops there. That's my hypothesis.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, it's interesting that you'd bring this up.<br>

I agree, the buck stops there.<br>

I typically look at the bios and photos of posters to get a "feel" for who I'm dealing with.<br>

I'm amazed at the amount of people who don't post photos, and who don't post bios., or C.V.'s of any sort.<br>

I can't take their comments seriously because it seems like they can't take themselves seriously enough to post a few photos or bios. </p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1154645"><em>John Kelly</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Jan 30, 2010; 07:00 p.m.</em></p>

<em>Would you ask a non-dentist to philosophize about dentistry? Why not?</em>

</blockquote>

No.

Because I know nothing about dentistry.

I know about going to the dentist, but dentistry, no.

I do not discuss things I know nothing about.

I shut up and listen.

Intently.

Bill P.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>John,</p>

<p>I know most of my photos are not worth much. I'm trying to learn, and discussions here help me in that too. Does that fact invalidate my opinions? I don't think it needs to; for first of all we're exchanging thoughts here. Should we ask for a bio that "proves" the poster is capable of original, imaginative and constructive thinking for this forum?<br>

Second, not all of us are capable to create with their hands/feet/camera/... what their mind can think. Throw away those ideas because the end result is not to someone's liking? Because somebody thinks the bio should mention a number of things? <br>

Or would we rather let the thoughts, ideas flow and pick up on those we find interesting, those that can learn us something new and those that provoke us to watch at things in other ways?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Wouter, you said it for me in your last sentence. Thanks.</p>