Innocence....

Men will always find an excuse....LOL, Good to start the year with a sens of humor Kirk....

"Men will always find a reason"

 

Pnina, that was the reason for my response on "Destiny" as well. I'm not sure if it is a matter of language or a conscious choice of words on your part, but I, personally, would have said "Men will always find an excuse."

I'm going to bring it down a notch.

 

Have you considered that it may simply be a matter of looking/seeing and not much else? Is it always more than skin deep?

 

 

Fred, thanks again , the right word is "excuse" and not reason...( and it was changed...) thanks!! for your help to better my English wording.

 

BTW, I don't know if Rachel will see your comment to her. I hope she will.

Ah, Fred, perhaps. But you see, for me, self-understanding is important and helpful, so the world is kind of a Rorschach for me. Perhaps I read too much into things, but it serves a purpose.

 

Perhaps, my friend, perhaps.

All well and good . . .

 

My simple photographic point, though, was, look more carefully! :)

 

Both the trees and the forest are important.

Ah, but Fred....isn't the meaning of a photograph what matters? When I am knowledgeable enough to critique style, technique, I suspect I will automatically be more reductionist in my approach. Until then, all I can give any meaningful comment on is my gestalt response to the image.

Of course. This is all about the meaning of the photograph, not about technique, style, or anything you haven't learned yet. How do you access the meaning of a photograph other than by looking at it carefully? It is the details (not the technical ones, the communicative ones) as well as the gestalt that engenders meaning, no? If I read a sentence and there's a big word in it whose meaning I don't know, I will get some things out of the sentence and miss others. My understanding of that sentence will be proportionate to the importance of the word I don't understand. Seeing man as woman in a photo is at least a bit of a misunderstanding of meaning. It's not about technique or style or photographic things you haven't yet learned. It's about what you saw and didn't see because of how you looked.

 

How could you have gotten the gestalt of the image with such a mistake of detail? Don't you have to sort of get the surface stuff down before you go beneath it? Your critique was certainly honest and heartfelt, revelatory of your own stuff and mindset. I just have a hard time imagining that certain aspects of it spoke to Pnina's image itself. I may be missing something here and it's worth discussing because I'm quite willing to stand corrected. How we view photos will greatly affect how we shoot our own, I think. Or will it?

I hope Pnina doesn't mind if I derail the discussion just a bit.

 

Fred,I disagree. I firmly believe that emotion/cognitive set/priming all direct perception. What we see is determined by those factors. Now, we can use a heuristic to go deeper and probe at different levels, but I'm not prepared to go to those levels just yet. I'm staying at a more basic (mixing metaphors but I hope the meaning gets through), more fundamental response level of critique.

 

When I look at this photo, I'm overwhelmed by the color, the lighting, the figure, the body language. The gender, to me, is insignificant when compared to the story being told. This speaks to humanity, not to "man" or "woman." This transcends gender, ethnicity, or any other group membership. I responded as human to human and gender was not salient enough to break through and usurp space in my consciousness; perhaps not even the unconscious.

 

That he is not the same gender was no more meaningful to me than that he has muscles I do not, is younger, etc.

 

Now, critiquing photos: I respond on that level right now. Later, I'll go beyond that level and get more reductionist, more detailed, more analytical. But not now.

 

Added: I think you may underestimate the degree of skill and knowledge you bring to a photographic critique. I'm not anywhere near the same level and I feel trying to go beyond where I'm prepared to go is a mistake. I'm not sure I'm articulating this well.

I think you make an interesting point about gender not making a difference in this image. I will have to think about it and am glad you suggested it. It's important. I wonder what Pnina thinks about that as the photographer (although her input will only be her own and won't make Rachel's thoughts right or wrong).

 

I think your taking a more abstract approach to this is valid.

 

I'm also not considering your critiquing here as much as I am your viewing or looking.

 

You shouldn't go anywhere you're not prepared or ready to go if you don't want to. My experience has often been that I often find myself "there" before I think I'm prepared to be "there." I've often been pushed. Sometimes I'm truly not ready, sometimes I'm just obstinate, sometimes I'm, well, a pushover. We all come to that one differently.

 

When I make suggestions, it is not to insist that you go there, just that you are exposed to the idea.

 

In this case, the suggestion was not to do more or go further. In fact, it is to consider doing less and staying shallower, if that's at all comprehensible.

Rachel, don't cut yourself short. Just because Fred is more studied and has a deep interest in seeing into a photograph and discussing and articulating what he sees and finds does not mean you cannot engage him or anyone else in sharing your ideas and outlooks.

 

You do not have to see as deep as he does, I try to sometimes myself and usually fall short. I feel I am more of where you expressed yourself to be yet had not really realized it. So, had you not engaged Fred here, I would not have discovered something that possibly fits or describes my feeling of shortcoming when looking at many images others seem to get more out of than myself.

 

In fact, I almost always avoid Fred's images because I know he is looking for some deep meanings and comparisons that are usually to subtle or unrecognizeable by my eye. However, I always read his comments either on his own images or others. They are thoughtful and contribute a great perspective whether he is right or wrong to your own thoughts. I will never be on his and many others' level of seeing but if I dismiss it or not try to see, I'll never grow more than I am. I think the saying is "Set your goals higher than you can reach."

 

Your opinions are valid, just because Fred or anyone questions it does not make it wrong, they just want to understand where you come from. When that is known, they may dissagree with your opinion and express why, you can defend opinion from there or not. Rarely is it personal, I think its usually more philisophical. I could be wrong though.

 

Kirk

Thanks for what you've said to Rachel. I agree.

 

Often the more simple comments on my photos enlighten me greatly. Honestly, I am not creating photographs in the hopes of getting a certain kind of or a particular level of response. I do them to express myself, knowing that people might want to look at, enjoy, or get something out of them. I love hearing all kinds of reactions. Please never hesitate to give me one. As long as it's genuine, how you approach it doesn't matter to me. You want to talk about messages, that's fine. You want to talk about colors, that's fine. I hope I am as open to a variety of responses as I am to a variety of photographers.

Kirk and Fred....one thing about me is that I know what I think and I believe in my own judgment when it comes to me. I never resent being pushed a touch nor do I feel unduly pressured to adopt another's viewpoints...when it comes to me (emphasis).

 

However, I do appreciate challenges that cause me to analyze my own responses, more deeply understand what it is that I do. That's one reason I engage in philosophical debate...it makes me think, helps me pinpoint flaws in my logic, and aids self-understanding. Again, I never take these questions or challenges amiss. If I choose not to engage or debate, I'll simply say so.

 

Fred, you know this very well, and that's why you feel free to gently push or challenge me. And it's one reason I value your input so highly.

 

Pnina, if you find my posts a distraction in the discussion of your image, please let me know. I don't want to derail this. In fact, Fred, this might be a good discussion under philosophy of photography or casual conversations. If you would like, feel free to c&p any/all of my comments (should you choose to start a thread).

Interesting discussion, I think I understand your explanation of seeing it more in a general humanity( or humanistic form)and less as a gender form. also your claim of lack of enough experience is valid. But I do think that our commentary is laying also in the details of a given work.I think that Fred's sentense , learning to look for the tree AND the forest is right.

 

An exaggereated example... lets say somewhat a bizarre house situated on a lake's edge, you will not "read" it as a boat.. because the commentary if it is a boat or a house will change your perception /interpretation. on the other hand you can interpret the house looking like a boat , both used by human, which is right and a more general interpretation, but still not the right "read" of the house on the edge of the lake.. I hope I have succeeded in my explaining my point of view. It means that in order to come to a more accurated reading/understanding/interpreting, it is looking first at the details and how they connect to the whole. Really needs a lot of experience that is accumulated with time.

 

I think that the part of your interpretation about the disappearing of innocence was a very good read!

Pnina, I agree with both you and Fred that critique does need to go to that level. I hesitate to jump there right now, though, because I'm still working at getting the level I'm working on more solid. I want to have this sort of analysis second nature. You see, I fear that if I prematurely go deeper, I'll change/lose this level. William James, turn of the 20th century psychologist, said that consciousness is like a snowflake: catch it in your hand and you change it's nature (I'm admittedly offering an oversimplification here). I don't want to change the nature of what I'm doing by moving on before I should.

 

I intend to go to the level Fred is talking about...when I feel I've got this nailed.