I love doing Street Photography but......

[Moving On]

I've run into very few pretentious and presumptuous viewers of my photos. Most who've seen them seem very sincere and insightful in their reactions.

 

I would expect that to be the case.

Different perspective when you are the subject of the critique.

[Moving On]

“Nothing new under the sun” does seem to refer to Genesis. I think The Creation gave us both creations and raw materials for more. Certainly, creation continues and is practiced in all sorts of ways by all sorts of beings and circumstances. New islands have been created by earthquakes. New ages have been created by ecological occurrences. New art is created daily, as are new human beings and animals. New photos are created all the time. New songs come out of a relatively few musical notes that are put together in limitlessly new ways every day. New styles of music are created regularly. New pots are fashioned from old clay. Creation is ongoing and abundant.

 

You are defining it in a loose, broad sense.

As an illustration I heard an interesting tale once.

Lucifer asked God what made him think he was any more creative than anyone else.

Reaching down for a handful of dirt he declared “ See I can form a man from this “.

God replied, “Get your own dirt”.

 

Be that as it may, I should add that I have enjoyed, appreciated, and learned from many contributions made by people here I’ve disagreed with.

[The Shadow]

I would expect that to be the case.

Different perspective when you are the subject of the critique.

Most interactions with viewers of my photos are not a matter of critique. They are simply responses to the photos.

 

Regardless, I've run into relatively few presumptuous and pretentious reactions to others' photos as well. Sure, there's the occasional critic or viewer who sounds a bit full of himself, but mostly I hear fairly humble, honest reactions to others' photos.

Let’s try an example.....

 

Asylum

 

See what I mean?

 

Without the title or contex of familiarity with your views, the picture has little meaning.

As a reply to the No Words thread it substitutes for a whole conversation as a backhanded slap.

Hmmm. That's not how I see it. I see it as a very up front and open slap, not backhanded, which I've always thought of as a more veiled kind of slap.

 

I do agree that the title of the thread motivated me to think of posting that picture, and the thread title gave a whole new meaning to the photo. So, yes, absolutely, context is very relevant to our understanding of photos. But, as I said, I love photography for its allowing me to express myself and I often use photography to reveal, rather than try to cleverly veil, my feelings and beliefs. I think photography can be an important political and social tool or at least can be used to express political and social views and I love being able to use it that way, which will sometimes depend on finding a certain meaning in the title of a thread and using a particular photo to mean something in that context, whether political or not. I've done similar things in No Words with non-political themes.

 

That particular photo, which as it stands is all statement and not a very compelling photo, is originally a much more interesting photo and goes well in this thread, which is about fear of taking pics on the street. The foreground I cropped out is of a sidewalk vendor across the street who I'd struck up a conversation with and who was happy to have his picture taken. I debated leaving the vendor in for my PN posting, since it's a better picture with him in it, but didn't want to imply that there was any association between the vendor, who was actually the subject of the photo, and "asylum." I felt it was a more blatant and in-your-face statement when cropped just to the building entrance. So, no, not backhanded at all. Full-throated.

[The Shadow]

In terms of interpretation, I think there's little chance of misinterpreting my photo when viewed in the context of that thread, whether someone is familiar with my political beliefs or not. The photo in that context seems to speak for itself. I think most people will interpret its meaning in that thread similarly even if their own political leanings cause them to react very differently to its being posted there. In other words, most will get what is being expressed and people will likely feel very differently about that message.

[Moving On]

Yes but see how here you used words to fully illustrate your intent, which I agree, was obvious, I would add to the point of tedium ;).

Additionally, your words described what, in my mind, is probably a more compelling photo in its own context.

Post it if you please.

Ironically one of the most interesting aspects, in some cases, of the No Words forum is words as pictures.

That’s why it’s enjoyable to see the different takes on the thread titles.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Moving On

[The Shadow]

Yes but see how here you used words to fully illustrate your intent

Didn't need the words to illustrate my intent. That's why it worked so well in the No Words forum. Used words to respond to what you said in our conversation and to clarify that it wasn't a backhanded slap but a full frontal one and give you some backstory that wasn't necessary to understand the photo but simply explained how it came to be.

I would add to the point of tedium

Sweet.

[Moving On]

Then at least we agree there is a correlation between art and conversation when it comes to clarity or lack thereof.

[Sandy Vongries]

There are 13 floors of offices and 39 floors of residential condos in the building - does a clear insult to all of those renters and residents seem appropriate weighed against a political shot? Where is the wonderful kindness and inclusiveness that the Left constantly proclaims? At face value, without Your weighting your image was off topic.

[The Shadow]

There are 13 floors of offices and 39 floors of residential condos in the building - does a clear insult to all of those renters and residents seem appropriate weighed against a political shot?

I sense that most understood it as an insult to the eponymous owner of the building. As I said, though, all reactions are welcome and I completely understand why you want to read it as an insult to all the residents. I find that my own and others' reactions to photos, whether honest or manipulated to try and attribute something to the photographer that isn't necessarily there, says as much about each viewer as it does about the photographer or photo. Personally, I think you'd be much better off being offended by it because it takes a slap at a political ally of yours rather than fabricating that it somehow says something about the residents of the building but, as I said, I appreciate reactions and welcome them in the spirit in which they're given.

Edited November 8, 2018 by The Shadow

[Moving On]

That might be true from the perspective of a non-resident, which is how I viewed it.

But if I lived in that building or it was my place of employment I would surely interpret the picture as a slight directed at me, intended or otherwise.

So Sandy’s point illustrates very well what we’ve been talking about.

It isn’t really what Sandy wants that is relevant.

It is an articulation of a different reading of the meaning of a photograph in the identical context from a different point of view.

But it took his conversation to point that out.

It’s why people discuss art......

Edited November 8, 2018 by Moving On

[Sandy Vongries]

Actually, the President of the United States, President Donald Trump, lives in the White House, AKA, the People's House, not Trump Tower.

[The Shadow]

Actually, the President of the United States, President Donald Trump, lives in the White House, AKA, the People's House, not Trump Tower.

I think most people know that. I certainly realize it, though I don't think of the White House as the People's House no matter who the occupant is.

 

Anyway, I don't think whether or not Trump lives at the White House changes the common interpretation of the cropped photo I posted in that thread. As Moving On has been saying, it helps to think a little metaphorically when thinking about photos. That Trump literally doesn't live in Trump Tower really isn't relative to understanding the photo as posted. It's about his name being on the building. Sandy, it's really not that complicated nor, to be honest, is it an earth-shattering photographic political statement on my part. It was just a quick gut response to the theme "asylum."

 

In any case, I hope you got my point and sense your homage to the "People's House" was just a deflection as a way not to respond to my pointing out your fabrication of the residents of Trump Tower as the supposed subjects of the slap of the photo.

 

To me, the photo below is a more worthy politically charged photo that's also personal for me. It was part of a series I did on the first day gay marriages became legal as couples rushed down to City Hall to get their licenses and take their vows. It's probably more documentary than street, but this forum covers both.

 

[The Shadow]

But if I lived in that building or it was my place of employment I would surely interpret the picture as a slight directed at me, intended or otherwise.

Sounds like there's a little snowflake in all of us ... On the other hand, I think many residents and employers would have a sense of humor about it, might well understand it the same way non-residents do, and a lot would probably agree with the political sentiments behind it.

Edited November 9, 2018 by The Shadow

[Moving On]

Sounds like there's a little snowflake in all of us ...

The marked difference being in how we let it govern our lives....

I accept insult as the inextricable baggage of the free exchange of ideas and willingly manage accordingly.

I do not require a safe place or legislated tyranny to protect me.

 

How ‘bout posting the unedited photo?

[The Shadow]

It is an articulation of a different reading of the meaning of a photograph in the identical context from a different point of view.

Absolutely. There can certainly be different readings of the meaning of a photo in the identical context from different points of view. And, just as a photographer can very intentionally imbue a photo with a political message or even manipulate a photo into making such a statement by placing it in a particular context or other means, a viewer can very intentionally read something into a photo in order to make it seem to say something the viewer very well knows it does not, as a way for the viewer to make a political statement. Nothing wrong with either of those things, as long as there's self awareness and even some acknowledgment on both photographer and viewer's part that this is what they're doing. I've already been quite up front about the intentional political statement I created.

[Moving On]

I've already been quite up front about the intentional political statement I created

Yes but in the context of so many former identities that might seem a bit hollow.....

More so to some than others.

Honesty being the heart of it.....

[Moving On]

“That particular photo, which as it stands is all statement and not a very compelling photo, is originally a much more interesting photo and goes well in this thread, which is about fear of taking pics on the street. The foreground I cropped out is of a sidewalk vendor across the street who I'd struck up a conversation with and who was happy to have his picture taken. I debated leaving the vendor in for my PN posting, since it's a better picture with him in it, but didn't want to imply that there was any association between the vendor, who was actually the subject of the photo, and "asylum." I felt it was a more blatant and in-your-face statement when cropped just to the building entrance”

I guess after asking 3 times, that unedited version ain’t forthcoming.......

Edited November 9, 2018 by Moving On

[Sandy Vongries]

To me, the photo below is a more worthy politically charged photo that's also personal for me

Doesn't bother me, their life, their business, none of mine - mostly I am entirely disinterested in what is important to you, and why. There is the key - your content is largely about you, your life, your perceptions - you may truly be as "evolved" ," advanced" and "superior" as you present yourself to be in your posts - if so simple courtesy would suggest that you "shutter the brilliant light that you shine" on all of us poor bitter clingers, deplorables, virtual dregs - only a few of the bon mot applied to us from your side of the great divide.

[The Shadow]

Yes but in the context of so many former identities that might seem a bit hollow.....

Since I assume you know very well who I am, at least as far as anyone knows anyone on the Internet, I don't know why this would seem a bit hollow at all. I've never gone out of my way to hide my identity. I don't consider a particular pseudonym I might choose, or a stage name for that matter, a change of identity. I know you're the same person you were before changing your PN name to Moving On and it doesn't make me think you had a former identity or that any of your words seem hollow because of it. To each her own, I guess.

[The Shadow]

mostly I am entirely disinterested in what is important to you, and why.

The reason I find that hard to believe is that you chose to enter the conversation because the conversation had veered to a photo I had posted in another thread. I think "disinterested" is a very bad choice of words here.

your content is largely about you, your life, your perceptions - you may truly be as "evolved" ," advanced" and "superior" as you present yourself to be in your posts - if so simple courtesy would suggest that you "shutter the brilliant light that you shine" on all of us poor bitter clingers, deplorables, virtual dregs - only a few of the bon mot applied to us from your side of the great divide.

This is a perfect example of something that, if I had written it, you likely would have edited or deleted it. I'm perfectly fine with your saying it, ad hominem as it is. But you have a very obvious prejudice in what you tolerate in posts and what you don't.

[The Shadow]

I guess after asking 3 times, that unedited version ain’t forthcoming.......

Yes. You'll find none of us are at your beck and call to respond to the many requests you make. I post what I want when I want. I felt the marriage photo illustrated my point about political street/doc photos and didn't feel the unedited Trump Tower photo would add much. I've posted many a street photo along with my commentary over the years. You?

[Sandy Vongries]

But you have a very obvious prejudice in what you tolerate in posts and what you don't.

Report.

[Moving On]

is originally a much more interesting photo and goes well in this thread, which is about fear of taking pics on the street.

That statement clearly indicates you thought it perfectly suited, unedited, to be posted here, yet now you do a 180.

Why?

My request was not an undue imposition upon you in light of what you clearly put forth representing it.

Your reactions in such cases tends to add to the hollow ring.....

[The Shadow]

Report.

I don't report people. I didn't like when the school monitors reported people back in elementary school and I don't much care for it now. I simply respond directly to the people who say things to me. I don't need to find some authority figure to report it to.

[Moving On]

I've never gone out of my way to hide my identity.

Uh yes you have.

That statement in itself supports my inference of your lack of forthrightness, because the history here indicates otherwise.

As for me changing the moniker to “Moving On” it wasn’t to deceive at all but a more interesting Avatar than my name, Mark Smith, which is as commonly irrelevant as an old shoe.

Additionally my name has been posted many times as a point of accusatory rebuttal.