Dogmatism

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Steve - In actual practice that particular street photography group on Facebook generally shows good work, but I suspect it has more to do with careful moderation/curation, and to some extent peer pressure/examples. Some FB groups require all photo submissions to be screened by a mod/admin before it appears.</p>

<p>In contrast another street/documentary group on which I'm a mod/admin has yet to establish a consistent vision to distinguish itself from any other S/D group. We've avoided any sort of dogmatic mission statement, and the only guideline is the Winogrand quote about street photography being a stupid term. As a mission statement that might be interpreted many ways, including "Anything goes" (which might explain some of the hum-drum touristy travel photos, long range sniper shots of bicycles and baby strollers, and literal photos of the street).</p>

<p>I was rather hoping the Winogrand quote might be interpreted as irony, resulting in some interesting and colorful interpretations of photos suitable for the group. I've even suggested with the group founder that we change the name and mission statement to emphasize more connection or engagement with the people we photograph. Not necessarily formal documentary. But it might be interesting to emphasize *people* in the group title and mission statement: show us, and *tell* us, something about the people you photograph in your community, your neighborhood. Not merely grip and grin or pose-in-front-of-(your tourist landmark here). But an emphasis on developing the photo essay, and encouraging each other in that pursuit, to develop a vision and sense of mission and purpose. The web doesn't really need another generic street photography group for folks to emulate their favorite random snaps of urban alienation, ironic juxtapositions and all those tropes we know and love and enjoy practicing ourselves. Those are all fine. But a group should have a purpose. More Brenda Ann Kenneally, Larry Clark, Jim Mortram, Zun Lee; less Winogrand, Moriyama and Maier.</p>

<p>But in actual practice I doubt anyone actually reads the group guidelines or mission statement. Very few photo.netters or members of any participatory website or forum ever read all, or any, of the guidelines.</p>

<p>I suspect that's why dogma is so prevalent. In the absence of actively involved mentors, and lacking a coherent mission statement that inspires rather than discourages participants, we always have dogma to fall back on. Thou shalt Rule of Thirds. Thou shalt not bullseye thy subject. Thou shalt not disturb the scene. Thou shalt gritty contrasty b&w. Thou shalt Keep It Real. Thou shalt not question what "Keep It Real" means.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>The web doesn't really need another generic street photography group for folks to emulate their favorite random snaps of urban alienation, ironic juxtapositions and all those tropes we know and love and enjoy practicing ourselves. Those are all fine. But a group should have a purpose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now, that's what I'm talkin' about. Good, solid, passionate dogma.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>I think I shall start my own Street Photography group, but Lex will need to be the head of it since he inspired its name, which also contains its mission statement:</p>

<p>Trope-free Street Photography</p>

<p>"Let he who is without trope cast the first aspersion."</p>

<p>;-)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>The art of photography is not fundamentally about the pleasing spatial arrangement of objects within a two dimensional space; it’s about communication. “Composing” pictures by the golden mean switches the whole enterprise from creatively constructing and communicating emotionally and intellectually engaging meaning, to hollowly making pretty or striking designs through rote application of a formula. Likewise, analyzing pictures by the golden mean switches the enterprise from trying to understand what pictures express, to checking how they compare to the dictated formula.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, I have to pick on one of the authors you linked to, even though I found the article of value. He's restricting understanding of and emotional response to a photo on the one hand with analysis of a photo on the other to an either/or affair. His assumption seems to be that a viewer or appreciator can only do one or the other, which is not the case. Many viewers do both and many other viewers could do both if they wanted or thought about it.</p>

<p>Let's look at grammar for instance. We use grammatical constructs in order to communicate by the written word. And good and sometimes clever and often creative grammatical usage can lead to good communication and more expressive communication. But that doesn't mean the communication is about the grammar. Just as having a sense of design doesn't mean the photo is about the design. And an analysis of the grammar (or syntax, or vocabulary, or other structural elements of the written work) might help to understand just how the emotional communicating took place and why it may have been so effective. In any case, analysis or not, the grammar and structure and word use is what can lead to the good communication. </p>

<p>Yes, of course, people dwell too much on design and forget all the other elements that go into communicating emotionally with photography (though I don't think all good photos have to "communicate" something). But understanding spatial relationships, understanding what makes a static and what makes a more active photo, understanding how the eye moves and how a light can make the eye move in certain ways around a photo, understanding how to make a flat and how to make a more deep photo (in terms of depth, not emotion) are all tools the photographer can use in his communication. </p>

<p>I think what the author above is addressing overall is not to get stuck in the design-mode of seeing or expression. But I don't think the way he expresses himself in this particular paragraph is helpful, as he seems to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. </p>

<p>He talks about a hollow sense of design, and rightfully so. At the same time, there are hollow expressions of emotion, often because of a lack of compositional and other structural skills that would have supported the emotional content.</p>

[spanky]

<p>I just did a search on Facebook for street photography and came up with mostly books about the subject. There was one group called streetphotographers.com. Is this the group you mention Lex?</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>other structural skills that would have supported the emotional content.

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=929184">Marc Todd</a>, Sep 15, 2014; 11:20 a.m.</p>

<p>I just did a search on Facebook for street photography and came up with mostly books about the subject. There was one group called <a title="Link added by VigLink" href="http://streetphotographers.com/" rel="nofollow">streetphotographers.com</a>. Is this the group you mention Lex?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc -- I think this is the group that Lex was referring to:<br /> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/135301913329329/">https://www.facebook.com/groups/135301913329329/</a></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred: He talks about a hollow sense of design, and rightfully so. At the same time, there are hollow expressions of emotion, often because of a lack of compositional and other structural skills that would have supported the emotional content.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which perfectly aligns with my dogmatic assertion that it is the final image that must be served. (Semi-kidding here...) Adhering to the Golden Mean, Phi, whatever we call it, may help serve the impact of an image. Other images might be better served by not adhering to it. So I agree with your taking exception to the way that particular author phrased it: making it potentially subject to an either/or interpretation. (I do not think that is what he intended as you already implied.)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Adhering to the Golden Mean, Phi, whatever we call it, may help serve the impact of an image. Other images might be better served by not adhering to it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes! And in order not to adhere to it, I often find it helpful to know what it is I'm not adhering to. A bad kind of dogma I often hear asserted, and have heard it often on PN pages, is that <em>"I don't want to read or learn about art or photography or rules of design"</em> because I want to establish my own path and be creative. As if creativity happens in a vacuum. Only God, the story goes, created from nothing or out of <em>the void</em>. The rest of us mere mortals are the inheritors of culture, biology, genetics, parental guidance, previous eras of art, influences of all sorts. Learning and knowledge are not the enemies of creativity, as so many prefer to think. And my sense is that they think this because it's the easy way out. I just do my thing and, <em>voila</em>, it's art. No one declared that art was easy, yet people seem to think that's just what it is or should be. But <em>easy</em> art is what often leads to endless pretty sunsets and pics of animals and adorable kiddies. A more honed sense of craft and a perhaps more painstaking outpouring of emotion can sometimes, together, produce deeper and more impactful images. I'm with you, that my choices ultimately serve the image, and those choices shouldn't necessarily depend on some external notion of what's good or necessary. Adherence to any strict rule can be stifling. But knowing, absorbing, and analyzing said "rules" (after all, physics and geometry are worthwhile sciences with worthwhile insights into the natural world around us and our relationship to it) is probably not such a bad idea as a groundwork either on which to build or to try to tear down.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>it's time for photographers to up their game and reconsider the dogma about the detached, uninvolved, disengaged street photograph</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. And no. All it does it is swap out one dogma for the other. (<em>Lex, I realise I take your quote out of context, and I certainly do not mean what follows against you - as I know your view on the matter is more open-minded.</em>)<br /> It is much what Clive said: take the old which was highly regarded, proclaim it bad and now redo it the new way. A lot of art movements, especially those that have dedicated groups with a proclamation, are anti-movements to whatever is mainstream at the moment. There is obviously little wrong with these action/reaction circles, but it is an endless circle of dogma and counter-dogma; as a problematic side-effect, it raises followers that live by the word blindly. In the long history, it loops through a gazillion different ways to express ourselves, partially iterating, partially innovating. On a large scale, perhaps those dogmas are what keeps pushing the evolution forward.</p>

<p>In a way, it amuses me that it is specifically street photography that got mentioned now; I see so much bickering and senseless discussions on what is and is not street photography; so much photographers telling others that their photos ought not to be called street for one reason or another. Probably more fundamentalistic drivel than actually good street photos. I completely fail to see any value in those discussions, it's shoehorning photos into some tight scheme that does do nothing to improve them; just makes them adhere to some random rules, depending on where you've put your faith.<br /> It is exactly the reason why I am not a street photographer; while there is a lot of interesting photography going on, to me a lot of its allure gets completely destroyed with those dogmas. Too much discussion that doesn't discuss the presented photo, but gets down to "oh no, a 60mm lens, that's surely 10mm too long", or "colour obviously won't do" - what is that good for? I'm not playing by those rules as they feel completely opposite to what I try to do. Does that make the photos less street, though? No idea - but it's a thought.<br /> Before I go off in a silly dogmatic anti-dogma rant... I think a lot of the street photography discussions make a pretty perfect example of dogmas in photography. It's not all useless, I know. Reading up on those dogmas (background sketches by believers, analysis by critics and so on), considering them, playing with them and against them is, in my view, really very useful. For example, "detached images, registrating life as it happens without trying to impose on it" versus "the photographer as active part of the everyday life and displaying the interaction" - even if you do not make a choice between the two, it is something worth pondering about if you want to get to know yourself as a photographer.<br /> Maybe on a small scale, it is also in part dogmas that can help keep pushing our own personal evolution forward.<br>

__<br>

Edit: Fred, you posted while I was writing this, and much more to the point I'd say you condensed perfectly what I was trying to get at.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>In a way, it amuses me that it is specifically street photography that got mentioned now; I see so much bickering and senseless discussions on what is and is not street photography; so much photographers telling others that their photos ought not to be called street for one reason or another.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One thing I've always wondered about is whether a site like PN, or any photography site for that matter, could avoid the compartmentalization by genre. When we submit our work for critiques or ratings, we have to choose a category. That can immediately set up a very forced and often misleading context for a lot of work. In many cases, though, it can be meaningful and important. It should be a choice, not a rule.<br /> <br /> Many of my own photos get tossed in "Portrait" even though I don't necessarily think of them as such, because it's the best of a bunch of inadequate alternatives. The very idea of categorization is restrictive and exclusionary by nature, and therefore presents a lot of problems, even as it also presents many opportunities.<br /> <br /> The infighting you talk about, Wouter, is amusing and often disheartening. It's much like <em>"Your manipulated photo isn't really a photo. It should be called 'digital art.'"</em> People tend to feel better about themselves when they can exclude others from their group. It can, of course, be much more serious than bickering among street photographers. It can become a kind of sociopathic dogma and has, in the more extreme instances, led our species into some pretty dark territory.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Lex - I'm not sure that the Golden Section/mean etc is in itself a dogma as in effect all it is a mathematical system for creating harmonious proportions and divisions, the dogma comes in when people add it in to their the list of things in their manifesto/s.</p>

<p>It also intrigues me that it translates what many people intuitively do, i.e. compose with horizon line off center, main subject similar etc and that its proportions are repeatedly found in nature.</p>

<p>In the discussion about "street photography" forums, I get the feeling that a lot contributors (not here in this forum) would like to be able to treat their photography as if it were a sport, with a firm set of agreed to rules, and that assessment was conducted in thoroughly objective manner with 1-10 scoring in various categories. And modifications to the rules were nutted out annually by members voting.</p>

<p>Can't think of anything worse myself..............</p>

 

[michaellinder]

<p>Sometimes posting a photograph for critique involves choosing a PN category either by reading tarot cards, throwing dice, or by some other randomization technique. Would we agree that this is anti-dogmatic?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Now, that's what I'm talkin' about. Good, solid, passionate dogma."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hah! Ya got me.</p>

<p>But, in my lame defense, I'm not opposed to any of those streety tropes. I enjoy 'em too. I just don't think the web needs another outlet for that stuff. Or, more specifically, I don't have any enthusiasm for moderating/curating another such outlet. I'm more interested in the photo essay.</p>

<p>But could that be closer to ecumenical doctrine than dogma?</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred: I often find it helpful to know what it is I'm not adhering to...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely. And this is key to so many different discussions we have had on this board, not just this particular discussion on dogma. I think the same notion (simply put: <em>understanding) </em>applies to reading an aesthetic critique, an artists statement, or some pronouncement made by someone in the so-called "art world". Before you reject or embrace it, you should at least make the effort to understand it. Don't reject it because you think it's high flown bull manure, and don't accept it just because St. Ansel or St. Bresson said it is so. </p>

 

[Brad_]

With respect to pigeonholing sp, why get wrapped up about it? I have my guiding view (Photos of people or

evidence of people in their environment), others can have theirs.<P>

 

If someone sitting in the back of the classroom desperately looking for weird boundary conditions gets to squirming in

their seat with right hand bobbing frantically in the air and left hand over their mouth trying desperately to

get out, "buhbuhbuh but wait, what about an NFL photograph of a quarterback throwing a pass, or a

wedding photograph in a park," well, knock yourself out and go with something more restrictive if that's

really important. It's OK with me.<P>

 

iSnap, on approach to PDX last week:<P>

 

<center>

.<P>

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

<i>

Portland • ©Brad Evans 2014

</i>

<P>

.<P>

</center>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"One thing I've always wondered about is whether a site like PN, or any photography site for that matter, could avoid the compartmentalization by genre. When we submit our work for critiques or ratings, we have to choose a category. That can immediately set up a very forced and often misleading context for a lot of work. In many cases, though, it can be meaningful and important. It should be a choice, not a rule."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point. Unfortunately in practice it's difficult to receive (or give, for that matter) meaningful, useful or relevant feedback without some context.</p>

<p>A recent example, at the local level here in N. Central Texas...<br>

Photographer Terry Evans, acclaimed for her essays on the Midwest, was commissioned by the Amon Carter Museum to <a href="http://www.terryevansphotography.com/index.php?/projects/meet-me-at-the-trinity/">photograph the Trinity River</a>. Evans admitted it was an unexpectedly difficult assignment. And the admittedly (by me) lackluster results reflect the difficulty she experienced trying to interpret the river and its regional significance. If the Amon Carter was hoping for something comparable to Avedon's "American West" series, I'm afraid history will never elevate Evans' work to that status.</p>

<p>The Trinity "river" throughout the Metroplex is mostly a tarted up drainage ditch, designed along with the US Army Corps of Engineers reservoir systems in response to massive flooding decades ago. Fort Worth and Dallas have done the best they can to dress up the "river" where it meanders through public parks. But it looks and smells like what it is - a flood control drainage ditch with nice, uniformly landscaped and manicured grassy banks along the public parkways. Some folks actually go tubing and swimming in the ditch, which seems like an incredibly bad idea. I've fished in the Trinity, mostly for the challenge of using ultralight tackle with lines a typical panfish could snap with a hard wiggle, but always tossed back everything I caught.</p>

<p>Personally, I thought the Amon Carter should have commissioned a Texas photographer for the Trinity series. Someone who would grok the significance of a serpentine body of water with the charm and personality of a Texas water moccasin. We have plenty of qualified fine art photographers with solid resumes, gallery shows and whose work hangs in fine art galleries and museums.</p>

<p>But one particular local photographer - <a href="http://brianluenser.com/">Brian Luenser</a> - is a <a href="http://facebook.com/brian.luenser">social media maven</a> and pretty good downtown upscale lifestyle snapshooter of folks enjoying the rejuvenated parts of downtown (mostly the safe, pretty touristy areas like Sundance Square, the new pavillion, stuff within a block of Main Street and occasionally the Water Gardens). In that enthusiastic boosterism capacity he's filled the niche once occupied by newspaper society page photographers. And the downtown lifestyle crowd love him for it. He's very good at what he does. And he does it gratis, for the social media accolades. By profession he's an accountant. He also lends his social media clout to community aid programs by photographing their events, which is a very good thing.</p>

<p>He also takes pretty photos of the nicer parts of the Trinity River that local newspaperman Bud Kennedy described as being reminiscent of "postcards". Nothing inherently wrong with that. Luenser's photos of the Trinity would grace any local calendar, corporate brochure, Chamber of Commerce promotional material, and might even hang comfortably on some walls. Those photos are good and do fairly represent some - but not all - parts of the Trinity. But Luenser lacks the cachet of a fine art photographer in the conventional sense. He doesn't have an MFA. His work isn't critically acclaimed, outside of his Facebook fans. Neither he, nor I, will be commissioned by a museum like the Amon Carter, which has earned international prestige for its photography collection and curation. There is a very definite velvet covered rope line, manned by a very polite but immovable sentry, between us ordinary folks and the rarified level of the critically acclaimed and recognized fine art photographer.</p>

<p>Evans' photos depicted the funkier aspects of the Trinity: the muddy waters, unenhanced by a polarizing filter, punchy color saturation settings, or twilight reflections of deep blue skies, full moons and fireworks. Where Luenser's upscale downtown photos depict pretty people dressed to the nines, Evans' show ordinary people with a bit of tummy pudge tubing in brown water, with real un-veneered teeth, with crinkly eyes, and evidence of makeshift homes under bridges and overpasses.</p>

<p>The dichotomy provoked an uproar among Luenser's fans, who chastised the museum for choosing Evans, Evans herself on an unnecessarily personal level, and even the journalist who reported on the hubbub, with some folks taking cheap shots at his weight. It was all very high school cliquish. And hilarious, if you're not among those personally targeted for angsty abuse. To some extent Luenser himself contributed to this mini-hysteria by expressing his personal disappointment over not having been commissioned to do the series, or asked to contribute or participate. And he didn't do much to ask his supporters to tone down the unnecessarily personal abrasive and abusive comments from his fans.</p>

<p>They are quite assertively dogmatic about what is and isn't good photography, especially of *their* Trinity River - their idealized perception of the Trinity, filtered through the occasional local concerts, fairs, and considerations for property values in the increasingly gentrified downtown. And that's understandable. I remember the 1970s when downtown Fort Worth was a ghost town, and the surrounding Trinity really did look like little more than a drainage and flood control ditch.</p>

<p>Back on topic - forgive the drift...<br>

Lacking any sort of context - categories, genres, etc. - here on photo.net or elsewhere, Luenser's photos of the Trinity would draw the same accolades and praise as on Facebook. Great capture! Wow! Bellisimo!</p>

<p>Evans' photos, in contrast, might draw a few suggestions for editing, personal favorite Photoshop actions and Lightroom presets for punching up that contrast and saturation, and cropping or cloning out those awful looking people. A few folks might actually get what she was trying to accomplish.</p>

<p>But even in full context - specified by genre or category - the most open minded fan of street, documentary and realistic, naturalistic urban/suburban photography might find her Trinity series uninspiring - although some individual photos do stand out.</p>

<p>And even though I know this area well, I'm not sure that my own photos would stand out or appeal to many viewers. I'm more likely to photograph people I meet on the bus or at the bus/train depot than debutantes posing downtown. I am more drawn to the oddly abandoned bit of clothing on the street than to the slit skirts and high heels of the upscale downtown denizens. I have my limits and comfort zone, just as Luenser has his.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Lex - I'm not sure that the Golden Section/mean etc is in itself a dogma..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, it isn't, in itself. The application of it tends to be dogmatic.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...as in effect all it is a mathematical system for creating harmonious proportions and divisions, the dogma comes in when people add it in to their the list of things in their manifesto/s. It also intrigues me that it translates what many people intuitively do, i.e. compose with horizon line off center, main subject similar etc and that its proportions are repeatedly found in nature."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whether you agree or not, Mike Spinak presents an interesting case that none of the characteristics attributed to the Golden Section and its offspring is actually true. Maybe not even mostly true. It's certainly not always true. For example, many of the assertions of patterns in nature - popularized by Dan Brown's hyperthetical novel <em>"Da Vinci's Fibber Nachos Code of Everything in the Universe (The Smart Guy Gets the Girl in the End)"</em> - have been refuted. It turns out the center of the Fibonacci Spiral isn't really the Eye of Horus or Jesus or guidelines for the perfect cut of Porterhouse steak. In many cases it appears that the characteristics of the Golden Section and its offspring are assigned retroactively - often with generous modifications, allowances and fudge factors - to satisfy the dogma of the true believer.</p>

<p> If the Golden Corral universally encircled every Golden Calf of art, how do we explain <em>wabi-sabi</em>, and the absence of emphasis on rhythm and harmony in traditional Asian music? Perhaps the concepts of "harmony" and pleasing-ness are Western conceits adopted to justify our personal comfort zones, and our penchant for coloring and playing music within the lines. The theories dominate because the Western world developed the printing press.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Lex - I think I'd characterise what you've you've just written as a very good example of a number of stereotypical dogmas or dogmatic stereotypes.</p>

<p>The blunt truth about the Golden section was that it was perpetuated over many hundreds of years through successive generations teaching it to their students, apprentices and assistants, with or without the aid of the printing press.</p>

<p>It is particularly interesting that in order to avoid using the golden section you have to know what it is to start with.</p>

<p>Sure for our entertainment we can prove that all the angles in a room are greater or lesser than 90 degrees, walls are curved and the sun travels in an arc over my head. </p>

[spanky]

<p>Thanks for the link Steve G. I was shooting street photography even before I knew there was such a genre. I didn't know there was such a thing because I was new to photography and it wasn't long after my father gave me my first camera that I just simply started street shooting. I guess that's why throughout the years I've never been concerned about my photographs following a a particular..well...dogma. Even now, I don't care. A former teacher of mine a couple of years back told me "Most street photography is being done in color these days." You know what? It went in one ear and out the other as I went to the store and bought more B&W film. I think there is a great deal of freedom one gets when they shoot the subjects that are dear to them without regard to concepts and accepted norms. Shooting street photography takes tremendous concentration; why compromise?</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Lex's last post got me to thinking....</p>

<p>If we express Phi (i.e. the golden ratio) as a mathematical value of 1.618034 (rounded to the 6^th place), but reduce it to a simpler geometry based formulation via an equilateral triangle construction (ala George Odom), but substitute the Steiner inellipse of an isosceles triangle to account for the dichroic intangibles encountered when translating a Fibonacci sequence to units of lumens (since we are talking about photography here), we arrive at a value of 1752.8701.</p>

<p>[Phi divided by the base angle of an isosceles triangle multiplied by the mean average of lumens striking a full frame sensor at f16 on a sunny day for 1/100^th of a second, or 1.618034 / 72 * 78,000]</p>

<p>Now this is where it gets very interesting. If we look at 1752 not only as a mathematical expression but also as a year, we see that Rousseau's opera "Le Devin du Village" premiered in October of that year.</p>

<p>Because the 8701 appears on the opposite side of the decimal point from 1752, it becomes a reversed value which expressed on its own should be seen as the year 1078.</p>

<p>In 1078 AD, Johannes van Fecamp, an Italian mystic writer, died. “Devin” translates into English as soothsayer. Our mathematical expression of Phi in a photographic formulation is bookended by a mystic and a soothsayer.</p>

<p>Futhermore, if you subtract 1078 from 1752 , you are left with a remainder of 674! If any photographer in this forum types in the sequence of numbers 6-7-4 on their cell phone, their fingers will inscribe the key points of a golden spiral!</p>

<p>Coincidence? I think not. Mock the Golden Mean at your own peril, my friends.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Golf clap?<br>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP6v4T3VT7I">Golf clap</a>.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Oh well - any applause is better than none.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Where the Golden Mean was actually derived from: <br>

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/005/848/ancient-aliens.jpg <br>

(I can't seem to get the hot link button to work when I select text....)</p>

<p>Back to a more serious aspect of this thread -- Marc Todd & Brad Evans (and Lex, Fred, Clive, and Wouter now that I think of it): I hear you. I share your attitude and approach to, whatever it is we want to call what we do. I'm not trying to put words in your mouths, but my take is that "we" do it (SP, portrait, narrative documentary, if we must use labels) in the ways that we do it because we love it, it satisfies something in us and we need to express it in a certain way regardless of what the current fashion is, or is not, in the genre. I've read all of you talk about SP before (and photography in general, not just SP) and none of you is ignorant of styles, history, or past practitioners. Taking this back to dogma, it is my opinion that the best approach in any genre of photography is to find something you can call your own, that is important to you, that satisfies your creative itch, and practice it without fear of violating dogma or being seen as derivative, a dinosaur, or hopelessly out of fashion. How many photographers out there would envy having a calling? A path to follow?</p>

<p>Brad brings up the point about why worry about it (something to that effect). I'm not sure why I belabor it at times. For me personally -- partly because I don't have many people I know who I can discuss these kinds of things with, and at times I do enjoy thinking about it and trying to put down in words why I feel a certain way, or what my reaction is to a certain group or dogmatic approach. And I really enjoy hearing what other people think, what their attitudes and approaches are. The other part of it is a bit crude and immature, in that it can be a bit like gossiping or "dishing": "<em>OMG! Did you see what that person wrote about ____!? What a _____!</em>" <br>

</p>

[spanky]

<p>We all want to create good work that is thought provoking and aesthetically pleasing. We enjoy the praise and attention that producing such works brings us, and it encourages us to continue fourth. However, we also have to be aware of where we are at any given time in the sense of how our work is. I've seen some pretty crazy exchanges in street photography critique forums online where the photographer cannot accept honest appraisal of his/her work and lashes out in response. These are the people who seem to be simply seeking attention and acceptance for their work which is OK but they seem to be too wrapped up in themselves to be able to take a step back from their work and see what it has truly going for it.</p>

<p>Here's a bit of family history. When I was in my late teens to mid twenties, I did a lot of painting. My mother and grandmother were both painters so this was no real surprise. I gravitated toward Cubism and Abstract Expressionism. Picasso, Klee, Mondrian, and Rothko were my influences. Me and a girl I was dating at the time even made a drip painting together that maybe even Pollock would have liked. Perhaps this was because as a child, I simply could not color in the lines and my coloring books were a absolute mess and I have vivid memories of how angry my mother would get at me because I just couldn't seem to stay in the lines.</p>

<p>Anyway, I was living with my grandmother at the time I started painting. Now my grandmother was an exceptional painter. She painted very detailed landscapes, mostly desert scenes. We would go to used book stores where she would go through stacks of old Arizona Highways magazines looking for pictures. She also painted ships on the ocean and of course flowers but they were all copied from magazines. So there we were, the two of us in the spare bedroom with my grandmothers easel on one side and all her oil paints and brushes and turpentine and me on the other side. And we would paint. Now my grandmother used to chide me for making splotches of paint on a canvass, bringing in dirt and debris into the house so I could mix these into the my paint etc. Meanwhile, I would silently wonder how she could throw away her tremendous skill in painting on copying work from old magazines. "Where was the creativity in that," I wondered. Different approaches to art, and different forms of dogma.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Marc, very good points. Just want to add that it's also important to know in one's heart, gut, and intellect what critiques to heed and which ones to ignore. I'm more likely to be skeptical or dismissive of a critique that comes from a dogmatic place ("A photographer should never . . ." "It never works to . . . ") and more likely to give careful consideration to one that seems to consider my own vision and goals. So, your and your grandmother's critiques of each others methods were rightfully ignored by each of you and it was nice how you kept painting in your different ways by each others side. Had you or your grandmother fully accepted the very different ways you were working and critiqued WITHIN the visions you each sought rather than from WITHOUT, you each might have made substantive and constructive observations that could have been valuable to the other. Who knows, maybe you did!</p>

<p>While I don't "enjoy" negative critiques, I've had my share of them and have learned to grow from them over time, even if I was resistant and even hurt at first. Enjoyment isn't necessarily the key here. For me, a lot of it is <em>willingness</em>. Willingness to take the bad with the good, to be an adult, and to assume that, since I'm wanting to learn and grow, some critiques will probably have value. The important part is trusting my gut enough to know which critiques will guide me well. When a negative critique or a suggestion on why something isn't working stings a bit, I try to give it some sway and consider why it's stinging. On the other hand, some critiques and suggestions just don't register or ring at all true, and those I usually put at bay even if I may come back to them at a later date.</p>

<p>I'm not dogmatic enough about my own work to not listen and consider what others say about it but I am dogmatic enough to insist on achieving what I want and hopefully not to fall into someone else's formula of success. I want an individual voice, but in order for that voice to at least have the potential to be heard and understood, I've found it wise to make adjustments and listen to some good advice along the way.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Interesting. Just a thought: with respect to proportion, golden mean, rule of thirds: our bodies are bilaterally symmetrical, with body parts placed relative to each others. Things in our environment that aren't proportional, that are instead randomly placed: such things can't move around and bother us on their own; and those random things don't interest us: they aren't food; they can't eat us. So I entertain the idea that at our core, in our tap root, we're wired to respond to living things, things that are laid out in proportion as opposed to things that aren't living and instead have random placement. Good architecture, furniture: looks alive, etc. etc.</p>

<p>Proportion means living, random means dead. Likewise we respond quickly to things that move on their own as opposed to things that just fall, get blown around, tip over, etc. Proportion and movement are biological signifiers for our core biology, for food and reproduction. If stuff is just splattered around in a painting or photograph, some visual medium, we're programmed as living things to not look. We're biologically predisposed to see nothing interesting in 'no visual order'. That surface layer of intellectual constructs called our reasoning faculty might find something interesting in visual art with no life though, which takes more energy and as a result is physically tiring. When we focus and concentrate we're biologically <em>supposed</em> to get something sustaining back, either food or reproduction. After walking through some exhibits I'm so tired I just want to collapse.</p>