WHEN TREE MEETS CAR

saw in my follow-up you both are still at it (or is it again?) Thought I'd stop by and say hello, that's all

You don't usually hesitate to jump in. Don't you want to put in your two cents worth?

haven't got the time. Went to my first short track race ever yesterday and go back there today. Got acces everywhere. Will upload some photo's shortly. Give my regards to Fred and don't let him talk you into a corner. He's got a way with words hasn't he?

Boy Howdy! I don't know if that expression is one you've heard, but that's an affirmative.

Ton, I know you're saying what you're saying lovingly and I appreciate it. I do, though, want to clarify something and if I'm coming off any differently, please let me know because I don't want to be painting anyone into a corner. I actually took David's words quite literally, that when he talks to me he feels as if he is painting himself into a corner. If that's the case, I'm pleased. If I could accomplish only one thing both for myself and for others on PN (and in life) it would be to get us all to see the ways in which we paint ourselves into corners and, more importantly, ways to break that habit.

So, for instance, in David's discussion of scenics, I think he is limiting (painting into a corner) his way of thinking about them if he thinks there is little room for interpretation. Same with flowers. Which isn't to say that both subjects aren't a challenge. They are, indeed. Much of that may be because we are so used to seeing them handled so similarly. As David points out, with portraits, we are more likely to see a more wide array of emotion and interpretation. It will be just the person who comes along and treats the landscape or the flower as NOT just a thing of beauty who will be the true artist, the true expander of sensibility, the person who can paint himself out of a corner, who can expand their emotional relationship to things typically related to in a certain way. If, instead of finding postcard-like BEAUTY in the landscape or flower, we can find longing, or melancholy, or soul, or loss, or ugliness, or hatred, or transcendence, or humor, or irony, or a host of other personal matters, we will realize that limiting ourselves to a certain set of emotions regarding any specific subject matter is to paint ourselves into a corner needlessly.

My encouragement to David to discover (and I believe from his response that he and I are on the same wavelength regarding this) whether his feelings about his subjects are being translated visually into his images is meant to expand his communicative power and his emotional reach, not restrict them. The reason I qualified my words to him about conveying his opinions visually by saying that he may, in fact, (and it is certainly valid if he does) want to present a more neutral or objective stance which could, in itself, be seen as a more expansive path to take. My pointing this stuff out is not so much to take a side that David should do this or that, or that I should do this or that in my own photography. It is more a way of suggesting some amount of intentionality and self awareness on all of our parts about what we are accomplishing and whether or not we are accomplishing what we think we are accomplishing.

I know I can be forceful and pointed, not to mention tenacious, but I hope I'm taken to be pushing people out of their corners rather than into them.

I'm pretty sure I don't have to explain this, but you know the comment about being painted into a corner was meant as a compliment. I was simply paying homage to the fact that you are a persuasive and eloquent advocate of your opinion. While I may feel outclassed, I never feel bullied or beat up by you. I consider you (like many others on Pnet.) to be a teacher with the best of intentions. Sure we may not agree on everything, but we agree on a lot more things than we disagree. And even if we didn't, the exchanges would be instructive.

Fred, lovingly I can live with because it was indeed a somewhat covered (but nevertheless honest) compliment towards you. Also it doesn't mean that I don't agree with you but although I'm getting somewhat used to your often metaphoric way of reasoning I have to think very hard about formulating a reply. Although I think my English is rather good it's not the same like doing it in Dutch. Also it's rather easy to be misunderstood.

 

When at the Acadamy I had a teacher who reminds me a bit of you. Very very pushy SOB he was but he did it with a reason. We got cut of at the knees more times than I wish to remember. Some people quit because of him but for me it was rather challenging (I'm also a very opinionated one, not that you'd notice ;-) All in all I think I became a better photographer because of it.

 

That's why I agree with what you're doing here. David is right, you would be a hell of a teacher although maybe not the most popular one ;-)

 

"I think he is limiting (painting into a corner) his way of thinking about them if he thinks there is little room for interpretation"

Of course ther is room for interpretation. Lots of it in fact. That's what we all try do do, find our own angle and making the most of it. But you know just as well as I do how difficult that is. It's like a wave, sometimes you're on top and sometimes you just aren't. It takes perseverance amongst other things.

 

Before I forget. I seem to remember you made a comment a while ago, I think it was one of Gordon's, where you suggested opening a thread on composition. Why don't you? Could lead to some interesting discussion.

 

"One thing that is not likely to happen is that I do not see myself becoming technically skilled. Don't want to, don't need to. And even if I wanted to I don't think I've got enough brains or time to do it"

 

David, this is complete rubbish and believe me I know. Good technique doesn't make a good photo but a good photo needs good technique. Something to think about.

 

Don't want to: possible

 

Don't need to: rubbish, we all do

 

Haven't got the brains: how much does it take then? Utter nonsense

 

Haven't got the time: one of the easiest excuses there is. In my four years at the Acadamy I worked 50-60 hours a week, was a member of a national board, president of another and was a member of a European forum. Lots and lots of meetings after work or even abroad which meant lots of travel not to mention evening classes. Had quite often to print my assignments after midnight while I had to get up at six every morning. It would just take a limited amount of time and some dedication on your behalf.

 

I told you before, you've got a real knack for social-documentary. So why not make the most of it?

 

 

sorry, that does sound patronizing. But I sure as hell don't mean it like that.

you're absolutely right. You're forceful, pointed and tenacious. Don't change!

Just remember that, although I'm now a mellow San Franciscan (HA), I was born and raised a New Yorker (New York City), where "pushy SOB" is part of the mandatory syllabus. :)

I went through grade school flirting with a girl (before I realized the error of my ways and began flirting with her older brother) who long ago married a Dutch guy, moved with him to Schin op Geul (I've almost got the pronunciation down!), outside of Maastricht, and has two teenage sons, one of whom may study photography in Utrecht beginning in the fall. As a matter of fact, Jeremy is the subject of one of my favorite portraits, HERE. They just visited me over the summer and I plan to visit them -- I was there a couple of years ago -- sometime in the next few months. I should mention that Jeremy will go to school for photography (claiming to have been inspired by me) unless he decides to drop out and play guitar on a street corner in Haight Ashbury instead, which he fell in love with when he was here and which would completely shatter his parents.

I should read biographies more often, in which case I would have known you are Dutch. It's easy to say because I don't live with them all the time, but Dutch people are nice. They occasionally do butcher the English language, but I have always found non-native users of English very endearing and often more expressive than those of us who use it as our primary tongue. I think you communicate excellently. It's your ideas themselves that suck (LOL - you know I'm kidding, NY sense of humor and all)!

of course my ideas suck. That's why you and David write all those lengthy replies (and get me to do the same in the process btw).

 

Seriously though, I live in Roermond and work in Maastricht. Schin op Geul is somewhere inbetween. Why not meet up if you come here anyway and we'll make us a dandy day in Maastricht or somewhere over the border. As you know it's quenched in between Belgium and Germany. Would be fun while we could quite literally bash eachothers heads in instead of electronically ;-)

 

Don't in any way feel obliged but if you want to just send me a e-mail

I've been trying to get your email address, so that I could write you directly and not bore David et al with my travel plans, but the darn (and that's a nice word I'm using) PNET server won't give me your email address. So I'll just say that I'll let you know when I'm coming, probably will be in the fall, and would love to meet you.

It's interesting to look back at old pictures and see the commentary (really extended in this case) that they sparked during the golden age of pn which I reckon ended about four years ago. Response to pictures nowadays is right out of the Twitter handbook for effective communication. I'm sure the" Twitterization" of our discourse and the effect it has had on our powers of expression is responsible - just Twitter alone - for lowering our national IQ two or three points. Add in Facebook and we're hovering on the edge of incomprehensibility.

I saw that there was a comment on this image, opened it up and scrolled down with utter amazement. It's a lousy image, yet it sparked a huge amount of commentary from some great image makers, and some top notch minds. I had completely forgotten how magical it used to be here. I don't know what prompted  you to revisit this image, but thanks for the nostalgia. There was a time..............

I, too, was struck by this conversation of long ago. It was great to browse through it again and remember more in-depth times on PN. Coincidentally, I had just finishing writing a fairly lengthy comment in reply to your posts on my current photo, so all hope is not lost, since you two obviously remain engaged and interested in saying more than cursory words about photos and things in general. So there is hope that at least the three of us can continue to take the bull by the horns and discuss things more substantively than what has grown common around here and all over the Internet. We don't have to succumb to this state of affairs, and I sense none of the three of us would be willing to. If, for others, a thumbs up or a "Like" is good enough, so be it. It will never satisfy me and that's what I can control.

Well yes those were the days. I had forgotten that PN was ever that engaging.

While I agree that clicking "like" is not much of a statement neither is clicking a number at PN. Ppresent company excepted, that is about all I can hope for if I bother to post at PN.

Social media like any other set of tools is a matter of what you make of it. I interact with far more people who, I met here but are no longer active at PN, in groups on Facebook than I do here. The level of discourse there is nowhere near as fulfilling as it was at PN in its heyday but a least I do not have to wade through countless photos of birds and bugs and boobs to find an interesting image. On the rare occasion that I visit PN I try to go through some of the image forums, the photo of the day or the critique forum or the TRP pages. In my estimation it is not only the quality of discourse that has slid down hill. I have a hard time finding any images which engage me enough to want to comment. The last time I offered ( what I considered) some helpful suggestions to try to expand options when shooting macro  my comment was met with the person deleting the image.

 

BTW I still think that these road side memorials are hideous and I still thinks this is a good photo warts and all!