Are Photography and a Sense of Humor Mutually Exclusive

[Norma Desmond]

<p>OK, OK. I'll make the attempt. And I'll do it transparently so you can all see my grammatical process. I've always prided myself on an anally-retentive relationship to grammar (and its associated route to understanding) and now that it's past morning in San Francisco, I'm willing to attempt it, for the good of all.</p>

<p>Often helps to work backwards, right?</p>

<p>So . . .</p>

<p><em>"humor and photography are not mutually incompatible."</em> = "humor and photography are mutually compatible" and since the "mutually" seems already implied, it's simpler to start with</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"humor and photography are compatible"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Next . . .</p>

<p><em>"haven't seen anything in this thread yet to make me doubt"</em> = "I don't (yet) doubt" which can't completely be translated as "I am certain" since room is being left that something could come along to cause doubt, which means an open mind, so let's say it adds up simply to</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"As of now, it seems to me"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Putting it all together, we then have</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"As of now, it seems to me humor and photography are compatible."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And there you have a clearer statement (clearer at least for some of us) but totally lacking in the personality, individuality, cleverness, and dare I say, elongation that a human being is capable of giving to language, which is always a living, breathing, and expressive thing . . . in the right hands . . . or I should say mouths.</p>

<p>So, perhaps this is a good although less interesting and frilly reduction of what JDM was saying.</p>

<p>Regardless, it is proof that I have way too much time on my hands today.</p>

<p>And also perhaps proof that a picture is worth a thousand words!</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>it is proof that I have way too much time on my hands today.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Too true. And not just you.</p>

<p>BTW, in logic a double negative is a positive, but in language, it is emphasis. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know nothin' about birthin' no babies</p>

</blockquote>

<p>a more colloquial version of Prissy's (Thelma "Butterfly" McQueen) statement, ca. 1939</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, in logic a double negative is a positive, but in language, it is emphasis.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It can be. Or it could not be. It could be a net positive in language as well, and often is. But, still, you're onto something and thanks a whole lot for adding another layer and another layer of potential confusion . . . or enlightenment (which are sometimes one and the same).</p>

<p>The thing about language is that most of the time (maybe not always) it has to be understood to be either communicative or emphatic. Sometimes it communicates something important just by its sound or syntax even when it doesn't necessarily communicate a clear meaning.</p>

<p>If we get what Prissy's sayin', we get all the shades of meaning, emphasis, and cultural expressiveness. If we don't get what Prissy is sayin', for any number of possible reasons, something could be lost.</p>

<p>But something is also gained just in her inflection, intonation, and the sound of her voice as well as the sounds of the words all put together in a package. There's expressiveness. Kind of like an exclamation. "Oh!" doesn't have singular meaning, but it's very expressive.</p>

<p>"I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies" (I don't think she said "<em>no</em> babies"), if you know the English language at all, has a cool ring to it and may not even have to make sense to be effective. Heck, just the alliteration at the end says a mouthful.</p>

<p>If we tell Prissy we don't get what she's sayin', she has many choices of how to respond, depending on what she wants out of sayin' whatever it is she's sayin'. This is where the caginess of the play of language comes in!</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Are Photography and a Sense of Humor Mutually Exclusive?"

 

Yes.

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think she said "<em>no</em> babies"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But she would have in real life, and should have in the movie if it weren't for the Language Police who were already stretched to the limit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>thanks a whole lot for adding another layer and another layer of potential confusion</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Glad to have done it; it was not far from my intent.</p><div></div>

[Julie H]

<p>Oh come on, you guys ...<br>

.</p>

<p><img src="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/birds_blooper061512_01.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="640" /> <br>

.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6657081-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="544" /><br>

<strong>Infidelity</strong></p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Well it's good to see a sense of humor is alive and well on photo.net!</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Here's another of my favorites from years ago. Sorry for the link, but I have no idea where I've stored the file.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/3535945</p>

[GerrySiegel]

What makes folks laugh is harder to pin down than the old what is art question, . I find that the PN folk have a funny bone. Sorry you got peeved at some of the responses to your wild spotted man photo but it really has a loose tie to Nature Photography in my humble opinion. Maybe this one would get a chuckle or two from 'photographers afield' even across cultures,lads and lassies:<div></div>

[jordan2240]

<p>Gerry,</p>

<p>I never got 'peeved,' and I was well aware it wasn't technically a 'nature' photo. I was a bit surprised that no one at all played along and some seemed to think I seriously considered it to be a nature shot.</p>

<p>The bear photo is quite funny. Unfortunately, it too would be frowned upon in the Nature forum here.</p>

[stinshoff]

<p>Bear photo reminds me of the old saying that you don't have to be faster than the bear - just faster than the other guys being chased by the bear.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Gerry, great shot. The . . . ahem . . . funny thing is that it's a photo of a moment that probably wasn't very funny at the time. Doesn't look like anyone's having too much funt. Laughter is the best medicine, though. And looking back, it can probably be a bit of a release to just laugh. Photography is . . . again . . . funny in the way it can transform moments even while it captures them.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Here's how I translate JDM's: "Sorry; but I haven't seen anything in this thread yet to make me doubt that a sense of humor and photography are NOT mutually incompatible."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry; but I haven't seen anything in this thread yet to make me doubt that a sense of humor and photography are NOT [not compatible].</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He hasn't seen anything to convince him that they [humor and photography] aren't as the OP says. They [humor and photography] is or they [humor and photography] isn't, but they isn't isn't the opposite of they is. It could be anything. It's open ended. Right?</p>

<p> </p>

[charleswood]

<p> ???? It's late.</p>

[Julie H]

<p><img src="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/purplefinch_fluffy.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="456" /> </p>

<p>[<em>frowning at Bill</em>]</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Julie, love those bird shots!</p>

<p>Charles, I think you've got it !?!?!?</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Some people, photographers or not, simply take themselves way too seriously.<P>

 

It's more than being able to make a photograph that's amusing. For inspiration, I look to Lex and Allen who

consistently makes good on both fronts, i.e. photography and attitude.<P>

 

<center>

.<P>

<img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Chuckie.jpg"><BR>

<i>

San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014

</i>

<P>

.<P>

</center>

[charleswood]

<p>Trying to translate JDM again:</p>

<p>There's yet nothing here to suggest that humor and photography are incompantible is not humor and photographer are incompatible.</p>

<p>But I disagree!</p>

[charleswood]

<p>And I agree with JDM ""I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies"" is said ""I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' no babies."</p>

<p>But it would better be written ""I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' no' babies"" where "nothin'" is a shortened form of 'anything' and "no'" is a shortened form of "nobody's".</p>

<p> </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Anna and Bernhard Blume do German humor. <a href="https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1683&bih=1034&q=anna+and+bernhard+blume&oq=anna+and+bernhard+blume&gs_l=img.12...0.0.1.2971.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1ac..49.img..12.3.819.q_YJ_nyPogY&gws_rd=ssl#imgdii=_">This LINKS</a> to Google results, though, um ... , I'm not sure you'll figure out just what they're doing without help (I have a show catalog/book).</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Or</p>

<p>There's yet nothing here to suggest not humor and photography are incompantible.</p>

<p>The German part I believe is their propensity to add many more letters to sentences than are really necessary. Or else its just an archaic form of English.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I take funny pictures all the time. Sometimes, I'll post one or more of these photos in online discussions in an effort to lighten the mood. It doesn't always go over so well. Occasionally, my efforts at levity are met with hostility. Perhaps the intent wasn't as clear as I had assumed. I guess I'll just never be as funny as Lex.</p>

<p>So, yes, perhaps there is an anti-humor bias in the photography community. The OP may be onto something.</p>

<div></div>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Anna and Bernhard Blume …</em> <br>

If you’re looking for over-intellectualised, marginal and twisted, the Blumes will do fine. Otherwise, consider any or all of the following:<br>

Heinz Erhardt and Peter Frankenfeld (feel-good family humor of the 1950s), Didi Hallervorden (a very sharp political cabaret artist who found a wider audience with a farcical approach), Otto Waalkes (highly intellectual but also gut-bustingly funny, managed to sustain a student-cabaret-style act over a 40-year career on stage and records and in film), Diether Krebs, Beatrice Richter and Iris Berben (stars of the “Sketchup” series), Loriot (the master satirist of social manners) … I could go on. <br>

I just love the way people with no knowledge of the German language engage without hesitation in sweeping dismissals of something they do not know the first thing about. I invite even those without a knowledge of German to engage with the above artists via subtitled DVDs before they make any further pronouncements! </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Interesting observations. Regarding Loriot, this echoes the sentiments of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/25/loriot-jokes-language-barrier">this obituary writer</a> for the German comedian:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...English people can be supremely arrogant about their own sense of humour ... Empirically speaking, English people are among the least qualified in the world to pass judgment on comedy in other languages."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite a bit of of nose is needed to maintain such an elevated and askance perspective. Coincidentally this same perspective seems to be gifted to aficionados of certain formal genres of photography which adhere respectfully to the rules so that viewers may appreciate the photographers' skills in rule adherence.</p>

<p>Unfortunately my nose is closer to <a href="http://maunet.com/the-daily-muse/elegy-for-jesse-the-assassination-of-jesse-james-by-the-coward-robert-ford/">Ron Hansen's description</a> of outlaw Jesse James' sniffer, "a puckish, low-born nose, the ruin" of my otherwise gallantly egalitarian disposition. It leads me to smell absurdity where none was intended.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I guess I'll just never be as funny as Lex."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not really funny, Dan. I just smell that way.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p> <em>I'm not sure you'll figure out just what they're doing without help …</em><br>

Let me see … and make the following observations directed at those stupid and arrogant enough (like myself) to believe they can view a picture without reading a book written by an “intellectual” first:<br>

Anna and Bernhard Blume appear to be German performance artists – specifically, they seem to enjoy dressing to look like “Spiesser” or “Spiessbürger”, a useful German word which means essentially “very narrow-minded and conservative lower-middle-class people who hate and sneer at everyone not like themselves”. <br>

The Blumes’ joke (there seems to be just the one) is that they then portray these characters not sitting behind their curtains tut-tutting as they would in real life but instead doing out-of-character things (which I would imagine the Blumes think are outrageously funny, but I don’t) such as bouncing on furniture, spontaneously vomiting, diving head-first into assorted piles of lumber, etc. Imagine how your grandmother might behave if she was normally teetotal but decided to catch up on her drinking at a wedding.<br>

Perhaps Julie might care to tell us what it says in her book so that I can compare the official interpretation with my own :-).</p>