Where do you go from there?

[Norma Desmond]

Yes, loosely because it just helped me toward an idea. Didn't care whether viewers realized it.

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Strong photo, Brad.</p>

<p>Unfortunately a lot of folk seem to think they can talk a photo into existence with words. Don't they Phil..</p>

<p>A lack of respect for great photo, without a word; other than how wonderful they are without a photo to their name....Sad.</p>

<p>Just a thought.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Other media do not have the burden of seeming to be a true record of what things <em>really</em> looked like at that moment"</p>

<p>I think we have moved on from those thoughts unless we are talking about some cold truths of documentry.....but even then most folks are suspicious they are not dipped into a cold reality of a truth.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"At what point are you <em>done</em> with a picture? Or, at what point are pictures <em>done</em>?"</p>

<p>A picture is never done neither is any work of Art. We constantly move on that is our nature of our species...relentless in our search for truths in any field of endeavor. There is no done...the done has never existed and never will...ask any of the great Artists if they were ever done on anything.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Strong photo, Brad.<br /> <br /> Thanks, Allen.<br /> <br /> But, I have to disagree with you on one thing. Phil has an excellent body of work - something I've suspected for awhile. In fact, of the very most active participants on this forum, he's the only one whose work lives up to, and in my opinion goes beyond, his talk. He's actually walking it...</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"But, I have to disagree with you on one thing. Phil has an excellent body of work"</p>

<p>Indeed he has....</p>

<p>I would also disagree with myself...my bad. Apologies, Phil. </p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

As I look at the names here, I don't see anyone not walking the walk. Most have portfolios or have posted many pics in threads

or have links to websites. Even those who show no photos at all shouldn't be assumed not to be walking the walk

because of that. There are many reasons people keep their work off the Internet and it would be really unfair to make

such accusations based on that. Many of us aren't walking beside you through the San Francisco tenderloin and are

walking a very different walk than you. You may not like or think much of what some of us are doing. But it shows a

complete lack of empathy to claim that others who are dedicated and put in the effort aren't walking the walk.

[Brad_]

<p>Fred, no, it's just the truth. There really is no other way to express how refreshing it is to see his posts. I had a feeling from months ago he had a great body of work just based on his thoughtful and insightful discourse, without calling attention to himself to support his views. In fact, 3-4 months ago when he started posting, if I remember correctly, I characterized him as a "puzzler" and that he was probably an excellent photographer. The fact that he's walking his talk on this forum is a HUGE bonus and an excellent change in dynamic. Respect.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Many of us aren't walking beside you through the San Francisco tenderloin and are walking a very different walk than you. You may not like or think much of what some of us are doing. But it shows a complete lack of empathy to claim that others who are dedicated and put in the effort aren't walking the walk.</p>

<p>Fred, that's a ridiculous and disingenuous assertion. First, I haven't walked the Tenderloin in four years. Second, others don't need to in order for me to appreciate and express views about their photography and walking their talk. As a photographer I enjoy MANY different kinds of photography. I have a ton of respect for Phil's, as well as many others on photonet, even though their work is very different than mine. I also have respect for, as an example, some landscape and wildlife photographers even though their work couldn't be more different. Ditto for sports, wedding, rock/event, fine art, nude, etc photographers.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>I snapped this with my cell phone in the downtown on Market Street two days ago after meeting a friend for lunch. NOT IN THE TENDERLOIN!</p>

<center>.

<p><img src="http://citysnaps.net/2015%20Photos/Blue%20Clothes.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <em> Communications Breakdown • San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2015 </em><br /> .</p>

</center>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I haven't walked the Tenderloin in four years. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

A bit like me being a "pop star" of a forum I rarely post in.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>What? You don't want to be like Fabian?</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>My last word on the Egg. <br /> I have already stated I’m not crazy about Eggleston’s pictures. What I find in him and other artists whose work I may not even like is that they give me <em>permission</em> to do similar work and examine various creative avenues I’ve been visiting myself. Given permission to move in a new direction (paradigm shift happens) is good. You must choose who you <em>hang</em> with.<br /> Why shouldn’t one seek an affinity with someone of critical acclaim? I respect the critical writing about them. (although, I think Szarkowski's gotten way out in the weeds here) I feel comfortable knowing that I at least <em>get it</em>. <br /> AZ<br /><br /></p><div></div>

[charleswood]

<blockquote>

<p>“To photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves, by having knowledge of them that they can never have; it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed. Just as a camera is a sublimation of the gun, to photograph someone is a subliminal murder - a soft murder, appropriate to a sad, frightened time.” Susan Sontag</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I get more out of that quote today than I did a couple years or so ago. That's due to a large extent to my having participated in discussions here in the PoP forum. So I also know that I'm getting more from photographs than I did before. For example, Brad with his photo posted here comes off to me as pointing something out to the viewer. Same as to Alan Zinn's photo, he is pointing something out, not just pointing at something for the sake of pointing at it.</p>

<p>So I could rewrite Sontag: To point at people is to violate them, pointing them out as they never would seem to themselves, pointing to knowledge of them that they can never have; pointing turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed [whatever that means]. Just as a finger is a sublimation of the gun, to point at someone is subliminal murder - a soft murder, appropriate to a sad, frightened time.</p>

<p>What do we do with that knowledge of someone else, knowledge of them as they would never seem to themselves? How tenderly would we point to it, if with tenderness at all? Indeed, are we that tender with each other ever, or ever so tender to our own self? And if life imitates art, what is our responsibility in our art knowing that it might be imitated in life? </p>

<p> </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Thanks for looking Charles W.<br /><br /> Sontag’s shift of the conversation about photography to a postmodern, Marxist – some say more cynical, style of criticism threw many photographers into a tizzy. I felt she was completely over her head before I came around to understand her aslant point of view a bit. I went to one of her talks. She spoke of her affinity to John Berger whose writing I already admired. Sontag opened for me other interests in a picture to look for. We know close reading of the “text”in <em>any</em> picture reveals things unseen at the time of its creation. <br /> That the text in a picture can be read, was not a new idea. But changing it entirely to suit somebody’s polemical bent was. Her “guns and murder” comments were a sign of the times. “Revisionist histories” were rampant. Long-held beliefs were being shot at. This picture only <em>reads</em> one way. No?</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>This picture only <em>reads</em> one way. No?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you being sarcastic?<br>

<br>

Reading 1: Homeless people get ignored while others are having a good time.<br>

<br>

Reading 2: Racial divide.<br>

<br>

Reading 3: Homeless people are a blight on our fair cities. (Probably about 20-40% of the US population would read it at least with some tinge of this, sadly.)<br>

<br>

Reading 4: Class divide. (New pink shopping bag / old plastic bags filled with stuff.)<br>

<br>

Reading 5: One photographer competing with another photographer (directions of waves and gazes).<br>

<br>

Reading 6: Fast food is what really counts! ;-)<br>

<br>

And then, of course, there would any number of combinations of the above and any number of additional readings possible.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Fred,<br>

Me sarcastic?<br>

Why aren't you out looking at the eclipse?<br>

AZ</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Alan,<br>

Not sure I'd know how to read it! ;-)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Seriously, though, too foggy in San Francisco today to see it. We miss a lot that's up in the sky because of that.</p>

<p>Will have to rely on others' photos!</p>

[spanky]

<p>Didn't Sontag later retract some of her statements she wrote in her book "On Photography"? I could be wrong but I seen to recall reading somewhere she did. Either way, she paints with an awfully broad brush and by doing so she generalizes that a photographer can have some sort of knowledge about someone that is not known to the subject of the photographs. Just how well can one really know another person? Not as well as many people would like to think is my guess. Can anyone look at the picture of Ricky below and say that they know what he is all about? We can make assumptions but how accurate are those going to be? What if I said that I've photographed Ricky numerous times over the years and I still have no idea why he goes out into public like this? Should I know or does it not matter? Does he do it for shock? Is he making a statement about society or politics or is he simply proud of who he is regardless of what others think? How many people can you name that are truly at peace with themselves and who they are? Is he an exhibitionist? You see, just because a photographer points his/her camera at another doesn't mean the subject is unaware of how they appear to others.</p><div></div>

[charleswood]

<p>Marc she writes with a broad brush and I don't take her, or myself, too seriously. And to me it would be in a series or a body of work that we might get some better sense of Ricky.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>she generalizes that a photographer can have some sort of knowledge about someone that is not known to the subject of the photographs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>She does and I think she makes a good point. I take most philosophy and criticism of the sort Sontag practices as ideas to mull around. They often speak in generalizations and absolutes. I can understand it, however, as throwing something into the mix that isn't absolute but is just worth thinking about.<br /> <br /> We are each a subjective being. We don't see ourselves without context or isolated from the context in which we exist, certainly we never see ourselves, as subjects, stopped in time. <br /> <br /> In some respects, I'd say, photos turn us into objects. They frame us. They objectify us (not necessarily in the negative way we tend to use that word). This is why so often many others will like a photo that the subjects themselves will often not like. Because they're not used to seeing themselves stilled, and without context, and without being able to step quickly away from the mirror.<br /> <br /> I don't think Sontag is saying we don't know how we appear to others. It's about how we look to the photographer, others, and ourselves <em>in a photograph</em>.</p>

<p>I think the knowledge Sontag is talking about that a photographer has of the subject isn't facts about the person or whys and hows. As a matter of fact, knowing facts about the subject, knowing his behavior, knowing his heritage, knowing why he's doing what he's doing in the photo would be much LESS objectifying. I think she's saying something similar to you. Because the photo doesn't tell us any or at least much of those kinds of facts and the subject certainly knows all that for himself, the photographer knows the subject in a very different way, minus all those facts, minus the subject's experience. The subject can't have that. The subject has his experience with him.</p>

[spanky]

<p>"In some respects, I'd say, photos turn us into objects." - Fred G.</p>

<p>Well Fred, yes the photo itself is an object be it a physical print one holds in their hands but is the person in the photo really objectified? If so who bears responsibility for this - the photographer who is creating a visual description or whomever looks at the photo and reacts to it based on their own psychological make up? </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I didn't mean that the photo itself is a physical object, though it is.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Marc - "If so who bears responsibility for this - the photographer who is creating a visual description or whomever looks at the photo and reacts to it based on their own psychological make up?"</p>

<p>My answer would be both.</p>