'The Urbane Merger of Eons'

I don't think I've ever had the 'privilege' to hear Jerry S speak. Have just read about him somewhere. My impression of him: gifted comedian, crass, even obnoxious, but blunt.

Jerry Springer is the former mayor of Cleveland, now an entertainer who hosts a television show.

 

The television show presents some of society's worst elements, and presents them 'in conflict', say 'over boyfriends' etc., and the inevitable television show ends up with two people (or three) involved in a 'situation' that is unstable.

 

One woman, for instance, may have told lover X, that she loves him and wants to marry him, but may have slept with man Y and actually be carrying Y's baby. That fact may not be known to lover X, who is going to marry her, until right before or during the show when he is told the truth in front of everyone to provoke him.

 

The lover is, during the show, allowed to learn that fact in the presence of man 'y' and almost always there is fighting -- sometimes between lovers and sometimes between lovers and the woman - almost always with much yelling and screaming, but also with actual hitting and more.

 

Thus the need for 'guards' who intervene but with restraint. They do allow the fighting to continue up to a certain point.

 

Apparently the people who appear on the show agree to such possibilities and allow themselves to be placed into the possibility of a melee.

 

Meantime, the crowd in the audience, chants for one resolution or another --- not much removed from the ancient Roman Circus except for the absence of the lions.

 

It is 'gladiator' sport,but not 'to the death', although sometimes one wonders.

 

It is televisin for the 'lowest common denominator'.

 

Paddy Cheyevsky, who wrote the television classic movie "Network' foresaw such moments in his masterpiece, which satirized US network television (except I think this show is shyndicatded where it may bring in much, much more money, becuase if it is, then Springer owns it.

 

Adulation for Springers stems from three distinct sets of people: 1. Television executives who admire Springer for bringing eyeballs to television (to view advertising) They do not discriminate much. 2. Those who are followers of television for the 'lowest common denominator -- e.g. gladitor tv; and 3. those who view such television as a 'spoof' on traditional values', which includes a whole generation of some university students whoo view the television show as 'camp' just as some view 'big time wresttling' 'not for the contest' but for the theatrics'.

 

You must see it -- preferably for about 24 hours straight - before you choose where you fit in all that.

 

I vote with my television.

 

I keep it 'off'' whe

never that show and its screaming, shouting, shoving and hitting comes on (provided it's still on the air.)

 

John (Crosley)

 

(not to be confused with the wonderful comedy of Jerry Seinfeld, another Jerry S., who perhaps made the seminal television series of the last 40 years.)

 

jc

i didn't know this guy was into such creepy stuff! he certainly can't 'inspire' me now...

 

i haven't watched a minute of television in the last 3 or 4 months...

 

thanks for the education, i'm wiser for it.

Let's Make it Clear.

 

'This Guy' refers to Jerry Springer the entertainer, not the subject of this photo.

 

His television show has been running for years - maybe a decade or more, unless it's been pulled at some time in the more recent past.

 

Its hallmark is the trick of revealing something to a 'guest' who often has been lured there under some guise' then revealing to that guest a deep, dirty dark secret in front of the audience, together with a possible antagonist who is seen responsible.

 

Think in terms of 'This guy is actually the father of your youngest daughter'. (my invention) or some such, as the new guest comes from backstage.

 

Or this is your wife's old boyfriend she's been texting love messages to (again my invention but certainly easily within the theme of the show).

 

And other scandalous matter.

 

The idea, and what the audience tunes in for, is 'the fight' with possibly the spouse or boyfriend of the invited guest swinging at the person brought in from offstage because of newly revealed information, or maybe even the 'guest him or herself joining in the melee, arms and fists swinging, and ultimately Springer's guards stepping in if it gets too dangerous.

 

For some large number of university students, it's 'camp' and just like Big Time Wrestling, they enjoy it because it's culture at its lowest -- it's all culture, but it's the absolutely lowest common denominator.

 

They enjoy it as a spoof on modern culture, not just for the fights per se . . . . but for what it says about a certain element of society and our culture in general.

 

For others, from certain classes, it's a means to be entertained - to participate in life's struggles, and to actually see conflict come to a head.

 

Metaphorically, It's societal pimple popping right there on television. Nothing is left to the next episode -- the (societal) pimple is discovered, squeezed and popped right there in one episode -- one-half hour minus commercials and including the inevitable fight. No waiting to 'see what happens' -- you see the beginning, the development of the situation, and the end.

 

Jerry Springer.

 

(Not Jerry Seinfeld -- and certainly not this gracious guy in black depicted above - who was nice to me as he sprinted off -- which is why I hasten to make sure there's no confusion about whom your remarked is aimed at.)

 

It seems if you're in the US you never turn on broadcast television in the daytime, or you'd have run across Mr. Springer. Good for you.

 

So, given the above, you can imagine my disdain for the keepers of the United Airlines Red Carpet Club when they announced excitedly among themselves in loud whispers 'Guess Who's in the Club? Excited Answer:; 'Jerry Springer'. (He really is held in high regard by some, but I am the last person you want to ask why.) This was the LA United Red Carpet club where celebrities pass through every day.

 

I do remember sitting there one day several years ago when one beloved comedienne, famous for having her own show fairly long ago on television, waxed forth to her handlers and hangers on (there were several there), in rather loud tones (I could hear every word though I was a distance away) . . . . how 'certain people' were just not used to handling 'stars' and 'celebrities' (like her) -- and that particular woman is considered a 'lady' among comediennes . . . . or was by me until I heard her discourse on 'stardom' and its powers (it really was rather impossible not to hear, though I was a fair distance away, and I guessed that she wanted many others to hear her speak about her stardom.

 

Remember the famous phrase about Las Vegas: 'Beneath all that tinsel and glitter . . . . is more tinsel and glitter.'

 

The same may easily hold forth for the LA/Hollywood Entertainment Industry in my passing experience.

 

Thanks for your comment (sorry to get too graphic above in my description of the Springer show, but I calls 'em like I understands 'em).

 

John (Crosley)

'this guy' i assure U referred to J Springer, following-up on my second comment of 12th Aug... i am in India... travel to the US perhaps alternate years and watch American television (other than Weather/History/some news channels) only under duress while i'm there

Most awesome photo you managed to take.

But frankly there is no need to explain how well prepared you were or ask others if they notice anything about the composition.

my "harsh or very critical" comment therefore targets your words rather than your picture.

I am sorry I had missed your comment and it went unresponded to for so long; I make it a mission to greet all guests to these comments and welcome them (so far as they behave reasonably well, which 99+ per cent do).

I thank you for sharing your views about Jerry Springer and not getting too upset at my 'pimple' analogy of his show.

;~)

I just re-read it and smiled.  I think I apty described his show's character (or lack thereof).

Thank you for your comment.

john

John (Crosley)

Thank you for the kind words about the photo - like everybody else, I like to be flattered when someone likes something that I put my heart and soul into, even if it happened in one inspired moment and was somewhat unexpected (but happened during the course of 'working a subject', a theme I have been writing about a little lately).

As to your rebuke about my writing what you may think is excessively, perhaps that is  true for you, but several years ago, before or during a period of rapid growth, but before this site reached its present huge membership, this site claimed 800,000 registered members. Not all participate of course, but a substantial number do.

Not all may be as sophisticated or otherwise uncaring as you about how certain photos come into being.  When I joined the site at first, I was intensively interested in how certain photos 'happened' -- how they came to be 'born' or 'captured' and the stories were almost always wanting.

I vowed to change that.

There is a cure for 'too many words' about the process of how I made a photo:

Don't read that part.

Just look at the photo.

The rest is for the more plebeian readers -- the proletariat, the newbies, the beginners, and the aficionados who happen not only to like my photos (or this photo), or just want to know how a certain photo came into being, and for those people I write.

If that category doesn't happen to fit you; no reason to tell me so, just don't read, or if you happen to read and that particular shoe doesn't fit, just don't wear it.

Just look at the photos.

Over time, and I've been here 7+ years, I've learned, through tens of millions of views (counted) that there are a certain number of people who come here to read the discourse under the photos, and a certain part of those people come to read the 'how to' and the 'where from' part of this colloquy.

I wouldn't want to deprive them of that part of this experience.

I'm a fan of Cartier-Bresson, and although I don't read much about him and over time I read (or view in kinos) little that is new, what I do learn, I find interesting and it sticks with me.

I could take the viewpoint: I like the photos and nothing else matters, and that's a valid viewpoint, but I like to enjoy his work in a different way.

Over time, I can literally envision myself standing in his shoes for a great number of the photos he took and understand why he took them as he did.  During much of my earlier life, about half or so that I had in a book collection (maybe one-third) I just didn't 'get'. Now I do, as I become more experienced and bolder.

Because of that, I have even more respect for the man as a photographer (maybe not as a guy, or a man, but as an artist, the highest respect.)

(I also know of several of his flaws, that interest me.   He was cowed by one certain artist he photographed who spoke philosophical gobbledygook about the philosophy of the self portrait.  It was hifalutin gobbledygook, and Cartier-Bresson was cowed, but gobbledygood none the less.

The self portrait artist thought he (the artist) was miles above Cartier-Bresson intellectually, when in fact the only thing the artist had over Cartier-Bresson was that he was able to bluff Cartier-Bresson by using confusing language and Cartier-Bresson's lacuna was his inability to think his way out of the man's confusing reasoning (and in that way, I suppose Cartier-Bresson, who knew every intellectual, it seems, in France, was indeed the man's intellectual inferior, because he couldn't penetrate the man's smoke with his own piercing intellect.  And Cartier-Bresson's intellect was piercing, at least much of the time.)

Thanks for stopping by Andreas.

Glad you liked the photo; I do too.

Hope you'll let others have their enjoyment of the words; the suggestions about topics like 'composition' are meant to foster the discussion, much as a good host offers drinks, canapés and interesting guests to his parlor to stimulate good discussion.

Welcome to my parlor.

john

John (Crosley)

I did not know it at the time, and now I know for certain, that the graffito of the 'prehistoric waiter' is done by tongue in cheek and political satirist, and now world famous artist Banksy.

 

Banksy spent time around the Los Angeles area and still does.  See the movie 'Exit Through the Gift Shop' for an introduction to the general world and history of such graffiti especially the LA scene and featuring an introduction and 'appearance' of sorts by reclusive Banksy.

 

Now Banksy's works sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece -- maybe more -- so much so that when one appears in the U.K. there often are mobs of people lined up to look at them.  There are problems with defacement.  Building owners have been known to tear down walls on which the graffito may appear and sell the entire wall (or move it to preserve it as the wall then becomes very high priced).  Banksy now is a British hero and even one in parts of the USA, such as New York City which celebrated his ad hoc work recently.

 

I've learned a lot about Banksy since I took this photo -- most of it good -- and I've a great deal of respect for Banksy's puckishness.

 

Proposal to Banksy:  I'll trade you,  Banksy, a signed, framed copy of this photo to a reasonable maximum size that the medium will bear in return for your painting a graffito in a place of my choosing (your subject of chohice).

 

This photo is a belated tribute to Banksy and his work.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)