How we feel about what we do

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Alan:</strong> <em>"I don't have to provide some outside source to prove what he said is true and meaningful to me"</em></p>

<p>There seems to be some miscommunication. The last thing I was asking you for was an outside source. I wanted to know what that quote meant to YOU and why you posted it as an answer to Charles's question and as a followup to my saying that my own photos do say something and where I described—I hope sincerely—what I am trying to say.</p>

<p>Had you said that YOU have nothing new to say, I would have completely understood you and respected that. But you posted a more broad, general, and universalized statement. I talked about what I'm trying to say and you follow that with "It's all been said before." Imagine how I would have felt reading your words. </p>

<p>I no longer desire an answer from you, by the way, if you prefer not to. I just wanted to make clear what I was actually asking you and why.</p>

<p> </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Howard: Yes I agree we should enjoy whatever we do "under the sun" as Ecclesiates preaches. Certainly I enjoy taking and looking at my photos and sharing them with others. Afterall, our spirits reside in physical vessels that have to be fed. </p>

<p>The references to placing God in our lives to provide the only real purpose in life are covered in other portions in the Book of Ecclesiates, as in Chapter 12. The expository in the link I provided above only covers 1:4-11.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Fred: I wasn't attacking you personally with my comments about having nothing new to say. My point is only that we all seek to say or do something new but fail at it because it has been done before. What we say may take on different shapes and forms, but the structure has been covered sometime in the past. Mainly not because the thing is the same, but that people haven't changed. Our thinking, desires and needs remain the same as always. </p>

<p>I don't know if this is a good example, but here goes. Today we argue over which photoprocessing program provides the best image. 40 years ago, we argued over film type. If you were able to be a fly on the wall of a cave, you'd hear the cavemen arguing over which plant root provided the best coloring for drawing an image on the cave wall. Nothing's changed except means and methods. Yet all the images makers are trying to create an image that says something. Is the image of the bison on the cave wall any different than the macro of a bug in a framed picture? Don't both artists think they did something new? Well, what's new, really? </p>

<p>We all strive for our place in the sun. That's ok in itself. But these things have a very short half-life before we're looking again for another 7. At least that's what I've found. So I'm finally trying to not take myself so seriously any more. I suppose as I'm reaching my 69th birthday in a couple of weeks, I'm seeking things that have more permenance and substance. </p>

[charleswood]

<p>An early happy birthday to you Alan. Thanks to the link from Ecclesiastes. So I understand better what you meant when you first quoted from it. It's interesting stuff. My take on those particular versus is that it describes a mood whose presence is a precondition and precursor to a renewal of spirit. My take on God is that I avoid that particular one as much as possible, seeming a demanding sort of fellow that I personally would have as little contact with as possible. At times he hunts us down and that is unpleasant, but I've mostly gotten away. The eternal feminine on the other hand I can't get enough of: <a href="

Pretenders Hymn to Her. She's soooo nice.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Fred: I wasn't attacking you personally with my comments about having nothing new to say. My point is only that </em><strong><em>we all</em></strong><em> seek to say or do something new but fail at it because it has been done before."</em></p>

<p>Alan, I didn't take it as an attack but I did take it as an affront. It's hard to see how it wasn't about me personally since in the very next sentence (also quoted) you go on to speak for me (in the form of "we all"). I'm happy to hear you speak for yourself as I learn from all here who do. If your understanding of Ecclesiastes or these ideas motivate you, I find it interesting, especially as I view your photos within the context of your beliefs. I do take it personally, however, when you claim to speak also for me or for all of us. I don't share your views and find them antagonistic toward my own understanding of my situation as a human, so I find you're asserting them for me and for the rest of us problematic.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Fred: So if I give my viewpoint about what makes humans tick, which is what I did, that you disagree with, I cannot express it because you're a member of humankind. I'm sorry Fred, but I can't do that. It seems you just want to silence any opinions you disagree with.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>No, Alan, as I said several times, I'm interested in hearing your opinion. I'm offended by your speaking for all of us or for me.</p>

<p>And I'm not trying to silence you. I'm quite sure you will go on saying what you want and I hope you do. I'm telling you why I took offense at what you said. Unless you're trying to silence me, I assume you will allow me that freedom as well.</p>

<p>Over and out, for me, on this one, as it's lost any relationship to photography.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Well for me it has to do with being open to a subject which has to do with both observing the subject and one's self. I've felt self-conscious taking photographs, yet once I get over that and concentrate on the subject, I may not get a good result in the photograph but I do take more than a good photograph away from the experience. With coyotes it took a bit of self-examination to get an understanding of what I was taking a picture of actually. As to ego, with the coyote photo's I've taken, I went from just really wanting a dramatic shot of the beasts to get praise for, from that to actually getting emotionally involved with those particular animals to the extent that I treated the infested dad with a broad spectrum anti-parasite medicine, which took a couple of weeks to get him to ingest the doses. That lead to concluding that coyotes, wolves, dog social organization is based on reproduction, not food, that from our dogs' point of view, we are soul mates not pack leaders, a new paradigm for understanding the social behavior of the wolf, coyote, and the dog. Which gets back to new.</p><div></div>

[vrankin]

<p>Coyote is wise, and also the trickster! I count it a privilege to see one. But then I'm not a chicken farmer or cattle rancher.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>That's a good thing you did for the coyote. How did he make out? Good shot too.</p>

<p>I agree that photography creates relations beyond the picture itself. It opens new realtionships and can help us understand the things around us as we see better. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I just moved to New Jersey from NYC. My wife and I saw one run across the road one night not far from our house. Fascinating.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Alan it's breeding season in January and pups should be born by April or so. After that it might be about early June and into July when the parents bring pups out. Coyotes are more territorial from February on, more likely to show themselves if you are in the vicinity of where ever they decided to den. The den can be a hollow in a tree or dug in dirt. They're easy to stand down, don't feed them ever (medicine excepted), and leash your dog. Here's some video of pups with a haggard mom: <a href="http://coyoteyipps.com/2013/07/14/meet-the-new-kids-on-the-block/">http://coyoteyipps.com/2013/07/14/meet-the-new-kids-on-the-block/</a> taken by Janet Kessler in the Bay area.</p>

<p>I next saw the dad coyote six months later, healthy, when he was clearing their den area of a solitary coyote intruder. In late October 2012, his about 2 year old daughter hooked up with an older male coyote and the new couple cleared her parents from that territory and I haven't seen the older dad and mom since.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Isn't that sometimes just like kids? :)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Charles:</strong> <em>"I've felt self-conscious taking photographs, yet once I get over that and concentrate on the subject, I may not get a good result in the photograph but I do take more than a good photograph away from the experience."</em></p>

<p>Charles, this makes sense and seems like a good observation and accomplishment. I feel the same way in a lot of cases. Interestingly, there have been times when my inability to get over self-consciousness in certain situations actually helps provide flavor and texture to the photos I take under those circumstances. The energy of discomfort and self-consciousness can sometimes show up in striking and unusual ways. My own awareness of such self-consciousness or discomfort has sometimes meant I take away some valuable experience, knowledge, and tools from such a shoot, and not just relating to photography.</p>