Value

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Felix, I'll reproduce something I put in my OP deliberately and mention that, though it's been used to refer to my way of thinking, I never used and never would use "absolute" here. The first time it was used in this thread was by Luis. The only time I used it was to say to Michael that I COULDN'T absolutely predict a viewer's response. You used it 7 or 8 times.</p>

<p>Me: <em>"If I value freedom, for example, <strong>I admit a preference for others to value it.</strong> If I value a certain kind of treatment of women or gay people, I want others to have or arrive at those same values. If I value commitment and individuality in making photographs, I universalize that and say it's a "good" thing, not just for me but for others."</em></p>

<p>That, to me, is at the core of what a value is. Wanting others to share it. That doesn't mean I think there are absolute values that we will all share. I certainly recognize a big difference in values from culture to culture. But my <em>wanting</em> it to go beyond myself, my wanting it not just to apply to me, is part of its being a value for me. Otherwise it's just an opinion and we all know which body part opinions are compared to in the old saying about everyone having one.</p>

<p>That I think photographic exploitation of homeless people is prevalent and harms us all in a way does mean I want others to stop taking these exploitive pictures. I'm not hesitant to take a stand on that. It's not absolute in that I recognize that I might change my mind at some point. It's not absolute in that I recognize that ALL pictures of homeless people are not exploitive. But I do wish people would stop exploiting the homeless when they're out snapping pictures. As I said, I don't think all pictures of homeless people exploit, but I'm not afraid to call it when I see it. I will be wrong on occasion and have to backtrack and may be convinced that what I assumed was exploitive was not. Mostly that doesn't seem to happen. I'm willing to risk being wrong. Others are not. I value that kind of risk taking. Others are much more kumbaya oriented.</p>

<p>You talk about having "unavoidable certainty" on the matter of artistic differences and use this to suggest to me that you are not an absolutist? I'm doubtful of such certainty. I hope you noticed that I started the OP with my own self doubt. "I'm not sure" and "this is tough" might have given you a clue to my lack of certainty here. I asked a question!</p>

<p>Without values, how would a teacher ever teach? My teacher knows that a faster shutter speed will freeze motion and a slower one will allow motion blur. Because she values that information, she passes it on to me . . . she wants me to know it, to share in her knowledge. My Classics professors valued the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle even while finding flaws with their philosophies. They didn't particularly care whether I agreed with their specific opinions about these writers or agreed with Plato and Aristotle themselves, but they did encourage me to find value in the ideas, if even just historical value. That required a commitment on their part to the subject matter. I'm thankful for that.</p>

<p>Oliver Stone makes movies about his values. I can agree or disagree with him but the passion with which he approaches these films has to do with wanting to influence others, with wanting others to adopt these same values. It comes through in his work as commitment, even when I disagree with his premises. It makes for much more compelling art than haphazardness and lack of conviction, which seems much more prevalent.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>We may have come to some agreement that values are not often objective or absolute in nature, which is certainly the case for taste. In the absence of the absolute, or in an approximation thereof, we can attempt to influence others by what, how and why we photograph. I guess I am not alone in wishing to make that a part of my photography, being a strong believer in the power of the medium to communicate with others.</p>

<p>As rightly mentioned, the word impose is connected to force or authority. Perhaps those of us who have used the word in the context of communicating a work are less interested in that aspect and more in simply conveying a different or novel statement or model, perception or opinion to others, who can adapt to or reject that as they wish. The communication is one of value and/or taste, the objectivity or universality or absoluteness of which is perceived by others (sometimes only a small group of enlightened citizens) and/or the society in which we function.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Fred, you have now wandered or chosen to go from 'imposed taste' to values.</p>

<p>I realize I did not invent the values I have, but inherited/adopted/chose them, and I assume that others came to theirs in a similar manner. In my case, those values come from two different cultures, and if you count religions, more, and like all living things, they are subject to revision & change over time.</p>

<p>For me values are shared to some degree because while the mix may be somewhat individual, each is social in nature, so no, I do not disagree with you on that. Unlike you, I do not consciously compartmentalize, fragment and propagandize my values per se, but see them as an integrated part of my being that manifests itself in everything I do. Do not mistake that for suppression. It is integrated expression.</p>

<p>And I am not the only person here that has not furnished a list of values, though I have, like the others, joined in to talk about them.</p>

<p>As you should already know, I used the word absolute because of the term significance, which I (and others here) had objections to. We differ on that and it looks like it is going to stay that way.</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>My teacher knows that a faster shutter speed will freeze motion and a slower one will allow motion blur."</p>

<p>Ok. Here we do differ, because I think of those as useful <em>technical factoids</em>, not values I hold. My house is valuable to me, as are my cars, lawnmower, factual knowledge, photo gear, library, degrees, financial assets, change in my pocket, etc. but I do not consider them as <em>values I hold. </em>They are valuables, not values.</p>

<p><em> </em> Fred's mileage obviously varies, and I respect and welcome that. In the Fredverse, I certainly do share what he calls values, and often. In that context, we would be in agreement.</p>

<p>Can fictional values be used as part of the toolkit? For example, one could do a fictional photo album of a famous persona, say, the Family Album of Dick Cheney...just an evil thought.</p>

<p>Last but not least, in spite of the disagreements (though at the substrate level I suspect we're closer than it looks) in the spirit of Anders' St. Exupery quote, thank you. You enrich me.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Nice thread--and right down my alley. It makes me want to be more active in it, but I am swamped.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis, I'm skeptical. Your kumbaya "you enrich me" which sounds all cuddly and warm, is belied by your constant drops of personal excrement. The substance of many of your words directed both to and at me speak louder than your sentimental recapitulation.</p>

<p>I'll state quite clearly that I am most often not enriched by you. You haven't shown me your photographs so that's its own kind of poverty. You most often express yourself by relaying other's ideas, those of famous and not-so-famous photographers and writers. I may talk about myself incessantly but I have a vision of you googling incessantly upon reading what others in this forum have to say, reading with an eye toward critiquing the thoughts of others rather than actually engaging in a dialogue. You react to what people say, often nitpicking on isolated statements out of context instead of addressing the gestalt of what they've said. You rarely take the risk of asserting your own original ideas, preferring to pick apart the words and arguments of others as your positive contribution here. I have occasionally been enriched by your words.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Fred, you have now wandered or chosen to go from 'imposed taste' to values."</em></p>

<p>The reason I can be caught (gotcha) in inconsistencies and self-awareness or self-consciousness is that I'm thinking out loud about questions that are real for me. For me, this is personal, not academic. Sometimes, I change my mind with each post I make. You can continue to tell me what I'm doing or you can do something yourself alongside me.</p>

[felixg]

<p>Fred – thank you for the expansion on important points. It makes a difference.<br>

I did realise that you hadn't mentioned absoluteness but, in deliberately emphasising so myself, I was responding to what I perceived in your OP which I kept before me as I responded.<br>

Having now re-read that OP in the light of your reply, I see it differently. We still differ, but I have a clearer idea of why – and a less clear cut feeling of difference. I value both the learning experience involved and the difference itself.</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"...I sincerely hope that you do not yet see in our photos, mine included, whatever you interpret in anyones writing." </em><br />- Anders<br /><br /><strong>Anders,</strong> I agree generally with <strong>Susan Sontag's ideas in "Against Interpretation"</strong> ... two earlier threads here that I think you've read. <strong>I don't interpret photographs for others</strong>. And of course, I don't find that interpretation is significant for the images that most appeal to me. Interpretation is different from description, as others have said here...I prefer to talk about how I respond to images, rather than what I see "in" them.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, I do sometimes interpret FOR MYSELF . Sometimes it's hard to avoid. Those private interpretations are tentative, unimportant, and shifting. AND I hope that I <strong>appreciate them in a non-interpretive way</strong> long before any playing-with- interpretation.</p>

<p>However,<strong> I do make decisions about the worth </strong>(to me) of an images. Who am I to make decisions about <strong>the worth of an image to me?</strong> I'm the ultimate authority about my own understanding of worth, and like all authorities I'm wrong much of the time.</p>

<p>...<strong>and to your other points</strong>, I think a photographers <strong>images substantiate their words.... or call them into question</strong>. Lots of writing, with no related images: obvious question. Not "interpretation," a matter of reasonable conjecture. So it seems reasonable to remember to click on names to see what kind of photographer is writing.</p>

<p>For example, I find the photography of Matt Lauer and Fred Goldsmith closely related to their writing. I generally "agree" with about 50-75% of what they have to say, but I admire their images and the way they relate them to their "philosophies"</p>

<p>I've posted my attitude about photographs of homeless: you won't find any such photos in my Portfolio...obvious. On the other hand, there is one "candid" image and that might raise a question about my written ideas... the subject-awareness factor. It'd be fair to wonder about that. Moreover, I've recently posted my admiration for Brad's work (see "commitment")...his images are often candid. Evidently my values allow exceptions?<br>

<br /><strong></strong><br />The images in my P.N Portfolio are relatively recent (5yrs old at most, 3 of them on film) : they do reflect me. If you clicked my name and saw none you'd be right to wonder if I had ever been a photographer. That wouldn't be "interpretation."</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Lannie seems to me not to be the only one around that find himself in a swamp (place fraught with difficulties and imponderables).</p>

[jtk]

<p>Anders, what is it that you find difficult here? </p>

<p>You're a bright guy, so nothing here is "imponderable" for you.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>John it was written before your latest contribution, which I, maybe mistakenly, believe to understand.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>The reason I can be caught (gotcha) in inconsistencies and self-awareness or self-consciousness is that I'm thinking out loud about questions that are real for me. For me, this is personal, not academic. Sometimes, I change my mind with each post I make. You can continue to tell me what I'm doing or you can do something yourself alongside me."</p>

<p>Or you alongside me. For me, it's not only my questions that are real. Yours are too. It is a simplistic egocentric and erroneous assumption to think I'm locked into one mode 100% of the time, while you're freely flitting in stream-of-consciousness. Please.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I want to acknowledge and thank you, Felix, for reconsidering what I've said. I, too, appreciate and even enjoy this type of disagreement.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>John, I acknowledge that you touch at something that is essential for our exchanges: The distance between our writings and the photography we make. However, it seems to me that this distance is to a great degree in your formulations measured by the "I" in our writings. </p>

<p>I would find it preposterous to insinuate that one of us is more sincere about his/her photography than someone else (you seem to do that frequently), not because it is not the case, it probably is, but because we have no grounds for evaluating the "sincereness" of a photographer on the basis of uploaded photos. Maybe photography of a lifetime of someone can tell us something, but the portfolios around on PN do not permit such an appreciation and judgement, as far as I can see.</p>

<p>It is surely not by the number of "I"'s we use in our writings referring to our photography or that of others, that give any hints about the relationship between an individual and his/her photography. It is surely neither a sign of sincereness about our photography to invite, or not, random readers of these threads inside our private spheres. The "I" is only relevant when expressed in photography and not as such. In short, I'm not interested in you and others, as persons, but only the "image" of the person in photography, has my interest - in case. This is why any tendency of narcism is noise in my ears and not in any way a sign of sincereness. Narcism is not a shared value among us, I would expect.</p>

 

[jtk]

<p>Anders, I think <strong>photographs are literally the only measure of a photographer as photographer</strong>.</p>

<p><strong>Only.</strong> Words don't come close. But I think failures are to a photographer's credit. </p>

<p>We're not all winners (unless we're narcissists), I'm certainly not. It's the same with painters, brain surgeons, gardeners, and World Cup players.</p>

<p>You don't agree. We don't need to agree.</p>

<p>Further, we don't <em>need</em> to measure or evaluate each others' work, but I do it and maybe you do too . By my own standards my own work often fails to meet my own aspirations, so I hold the biggest failures back until I know what to do with the files...or I vanish them. I've tossed a lot of negatives, too. What about you?</p>

<p>You seem concerned about "interpretation." I rarely do it, which you seem unwilling to accept. Appreciation of photos, as with music or sex or any other pleasure, is not done well verbally. Who "interprets" sex?</p>

<p>Formal wine tastings can be interesting but aren't nearly as rewarding as sharing a few decent glasses with acquaintances or friends. I want other people to have their own experiences of my work and the work of others, I don't want to tell them what to see...unless it's something annoying and technical and boring.</p>

<p><em>I may "insinuate" things about which you're especially anxious. But it takes two to tango.</em></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Does anyone ever set aside their own taste when looking at others' work? I sometimes find that helps me critique others' photographs.</p>

<p>I've been ahead of my own taste sometimes when I make a new photograph. I'll look at it and be surprised by what I've come up with. It doesn't seem to suit my taste but I'm <em>curiously</em> drawn to it. I have a feeling I will grow to like it but for the moment I am more intrigued by it. Has that happened to you with your own photos? Do you immediately like all the photos you come up with? Are you ever proud of a photo you've made that you're not sure you like?</p>

<p>Do judges (or are they supposed to) set aside their preferences in order to remain neutral?</p>

<p>Can we ask questions and discuss photographs from a neutral position, without an agenda, without our preferences either guiding or blinding us? It strikes me that Felix may have been setting aside his taste for the moment while listening to me. Is that why he could appreciate what I said and appreciate our differences even while recognizing them as differences? Did he in some sense value what I had to say without necessarily liking it or agreeing with it?</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>John, if you read my last contribution you will see that we seem to agree on a lot more than you care to accept.<br>

By the way, I have no anxieties what so ever about my photography. It is a pleasure all through. The failures, the progress, the successes, the learning. Mostly, this forum is too. I'm just that kind of guy.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>By the way John, I forgot to answer your question whether I happen to threw out / delete photos. The answer is a great YES. I really do photos worse than the ones I upload, if that is what you want to know. You too, if I understand right.<br>

Concerning wine tasting, I love it, especially among friends.</p>

[felixg]

<p><strong>Fred:</strong> Does anyone ever set aside their own taste when looking at others' work?<br>

<strong>Me:</strong> Definitely yes. Sometimes it's automatic; sometimes it is a conscious effort; the difference being, I think, the Levenshtein distance between my taste and that which I am viewing. In other words, if your work is only slightly different from my taste, I will set my taste aside without even realsing that I'm doing so ... if radically, I have to tell myself not to turn away but to look again from outside.</p>

[Julie H]

<p><strong>Felix</strong>,</p>

<p>Your overriding "taste" is to be open-minded and tolerant. For you to set aside your own taste would require that you be closed-minded and intolerant. I'm not seeing that demonstrated here by you. Please try again. Perhaps by trying to conceive of hating something that you love rather than the inverse?</p>

[felixg]

<p>Julie — my brain hurts! Could you run that request by me again??? [grin]</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Delay of game!! Fifteen yard penalty on the play!! Geez, Felix, do I always have to do this for you?</p>

<p>? esrevni eht naht rehtar evol ouy taht gnihtemos gnitah fo eviecnoc ot gniyrt yb spahreP .niaga yrt esaelP .ouy yb ereh detartsnomed taht gniees ton m'I .tnarelotni dna dednim-desolc be ouy taht eriuqer dluow etsat nwo ruoy edisa tes ot uoy roF .tnarelot dna dednim-nepo be ot se "etsat" gnidirrevo ruoY</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I've encountered many family members of alcoholics who hate drunks who they love. Mental illness can be another such challenge. Some honest mothers of children with hard-to-handle mental illnesses say they have a love-hate relationship even with their own children. It's a cause of great despair.</p>

<p>Julie, I'd call what you refer to as "overriding taste" a value. But that's just a word thing. Do you think there are values that apply to photographs or their making?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I don't think "values" and "taste" are separable. I think taste is an embodied value. Or values are disembodied taste. What act follows from some value or taste is the requirement for the existence of that value/taste. (If a value never causes anything, then what is it? The effect IS the (embodied) value.)) Which, if it is true suggests that every act is the consequence of taste and so, beyond involuntary acts, I'm forever applying values to my photographs and to their making.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, I guess I need a penalty marker, delay of game, and a fix like Felix got. Maybe I'm just in need of an example of a photographic action you've taken or choice you've made that was the result of a specific value and if that specific value seems to recur often for you when making photographs? But you may not accept the question as coherent given what you think about values and actions, I'm not sure.</p>