'Overlooking'

Much as I admire those who have such facility with words that they can 'do' cross word puzzles, I have a LIFE that I lead and little time to engage in such mental masturbatory acts as trying to figure out word puzzles.

I do my own thing (here with photoapparat - camera/lens).

I think it's more fun, because there's no 'dictionary' of words or photos to refer to; and any day I can come up with a world class photo and once or twice may have.

Doing crossword puzzles, it's guaranteed you will NEVER create anything, and that runs against my grain.

Maybe for those who have time to waste, but I never have any.

I had a wife once who had immense facility with crosswords, anagrams and all sorts of word puzzles -- almost an Asperger's array of abilities with words and their sounds and letter components - it was all a mystery to me.  I admired that part of her enormously just as it was all mysterious to me and something I did NOT hope to emulate; not ever.

I would rather create something; even 'practicing' law long ago, I think I did so 'creatively' and in ways that often astonished others who wondered 'how did he do that' or 'think of that' when all I did was re-arrange the fundamentals my own way, which often never was from the form book, but it GOT THE JOB DONE, OFTEN EXCEPTIONALLY WELL.

I bring that creativity now to photography; my own style, my own attitude, my own willingness to 'be myself' and stand up for my own values, and those who do 'form book' photography (or text book photography -- all the best to them).

I'll do it my way, and while there will be some failure - as I shoot 'street' often and street is like Golf, success is partially measured by the number of failures -- there are some wonderful, wonderful exceptions.

When I posted this I never expected it would be critically successful; it just pleased me and met my own test.

That's mostly what counted (I do like critical acclaim and even popular acclaim . . . . and don't think I'm above criticism or so 'avant-gard' in my photography that it's somehow above criticism.

I do shoot for popularity, but not always for the same people who are on Photo.net, and the main audience is ME.

If it please me, it has a good start, and I have so many different facets that a photo may have a number of different 'looks'.

If I weren't so often in an urban environment, or so restless, I might take wonderful landscapes . . . .I know I'm capable, but I just don't show them.

I like the 'action' of 'street' and 'flying birds' as the subjects re-arrange themselves so often in ways that take on compositional meaning.

People are special because when a photo has 'meaning' it so often is not just compositional.

Best to you in that tiny nation, at the center of the bulls eye.

May God help you all and keep you all safe there.

And show the other members of the other tribes from long ago that you are all cousins and not to fight any more.

john

John (Crosley)

I'm a complete dunderhead with crossword puzzles - not only am I disinterested, but I'm also probably incapable of even finishing the most elementary of them.

Perhaps I'm even proud of my own ignorance, Sarah Palinesque style!!!

You Betcha!

Now I gotta go shoot  a moose!

So I can skin it for the Rupert Murdoch financed Fox TV cameras, so I can take on that black guy - the (p)resident, turn it into the Presidency,  where people no longer have curiosity about anything, and toe the corporate and fundamentalist Christian line, just like under George W. Bush.

After all, we all know that dinosaurs and man roamed the earth together, and all the earth's history occurred in the last 7,000 years since the Garden of Eden.  But then I'm just awondering, since Adam killed his brother, and later got married, where did his bride come from, since he is the son of the 'first family' -- in the original sense?

That's the original Holy Mystery.

When you solve that to my satisfaction and communicate it to me, you can start posting all you want in Hebrew.

john

John (Crosley)

This photo's elements were waiting there and immediately 'seen' by me and soon also by my walking companion, who saw me rush forward (rush may be a little overstating it, but I did pick up my pace).

But it took 70 frames to 'get it right'.

Or some similar amount of shutter clicks.  Many were good or 'good enough they would have been postable, but none was quite so good as this -- many were far inferior.

I shot then to 'preserve the image' in hopes the scene would improve, which I often do as I 'sit a scene out', documenting small movements and gestures once I have generally framed a scene and the actors (subjects) engage in smaller, but often telling gestures -- here the casual crossing of the lower leg/foot to contrast with the poster mannequin who has his feet firmly and primly together - 'at attention' - a good contrast that I think adds zest to the photo.

On balance, though this is a scene ripe for 'capture', it had to be studied, then waited on as it ripened. I had to frame it 'just so' (the mannequin's shadow has arms outstretched, Christ-like, and I had to decide to crop that out of the frame, as too compelling and distracting, which seemed a shame, but necessary.

So, though this is indeed a 'capture' it is a scene that I 'made' -- basically I manufactured it from available raw ingredients just as a chef would do in a well-stocked kitchen and a good recipe 'in mind' and some good ingredients at hand.

I chopped, diced, mixed, simmered and stewed, and this is the result.

Specialite de la Maison.

Crosley

john

John (Crosley)

Adam and Eve were created innocent. You would not be here if god didn't say don't eat from that tree, the tree of knowledge. What does a child do when you say "do not"? So of course, Eve took a bite and gave it to adam and only then did they know about  fucking and here we are. And if god did not boot them out of the garden right away they would have eaten desert from the tree of life and we'd all live forever.  As for Cain, It is said that Cain's wife was either his sister or a grandchild of his parents Adam/Eve. Adam and Eve did have other children.  Adam did not kill his brother. Adam did not have a brother. Cain killed his brother our of sibling rivalry. god liked Able better. Adam did not actually have a name. Adam in Hebrew is non specfic meaning "man" or "mankind". If one changes the English text to read "mankind" or "man" it could change a lot of things l'gamray -I think. According to tradition the year is 5571, not 7000. I'm kind of loosing count myself. Most orthodox jews I believe, accept that the first days of the creation could have been billions of years. Just like Spencer Tracy said in "Inherit The Wind"; if there wasn't yet a sun and stars then how could you tell how the fuck long is a day. Brady, Fredrick March,  he did not have an answer for that one. It was critical for the defense. Yes? Dinasours did not roam earth with man. Their fossils were put here by satan himself to mislead us. And according to the muslims there never was a jewish temple in Jerusalem so I don't know where Jesus went to church. Do you? 

I once had a teacher who gave ANYBODY an 'A' of they made her laugh.

I give credit to those who write things that are interesting, even if I disagree, in whole or in part, or am just amused.

Also, I sometimes write when I am sleepy or almost passed out from fatigue; I know that 'Cain killed Able' not Adam.  Thanks for the correction.

I am interested in your comment about 'things' religious, and how "Satan' buried the dinosaur bones to confuse mankind.  Wonderful!  Reminds me of how the early astronomers had constructed cycles and epicycles to explain celestial mechanics, including various planetary orbits and those of the planetary moons.  If there's an exception to a rule, write an exceptional rule!

And of course, Jesus didn't go to Church, he went to temple - he later founded, the 'church' but it didn't have a physical presence, it was in the mind and spirit of his followers, or so they say.  I think you might disagree (I might also) though I'm a baptized and confirmed Protestant Episcopalian (WASPE).

On paper at least.

I've enjoyed your comment.

john

John (Crosley)

 Of course it wasn't called a church. It was a temple. So then where did Jesus go to temple if islam is on the money that there was never a Jewish presence in Jerusalem. Now you have to throw out the entire new testament and also baby jesus with the bath water. And these christian pilgrams that come every year and walk the walk that jesus walked with the cross but they are not walking the real walk because the walk happened someplace else. ????Christian Arabs have a big problem with all of this and the ones I know want nothing to do with muslims. It's no wonder jesus called her a cannanite dog (cannanites were arabs). If the "son of god" couldn't get along with the arabs how does anyone expect us jews today to get along with them. :-) This has nothing to do with the photo but you started it.

I have an enormous interest in a great number of  subjects and pursuits, even those for which I have little aptitude or talent (except crossword puzzles, see above).

And on the subject (see the segue back on track) of aptitude and interest, I know you to be quite scholarly on things Biblical, especially relating to what I know to be your present homeland and your religion, so when you write something (factual, humorous, sarcastic or even sardonic), it sometimes, even often, can be a delight.

And for that alone, (and sometimes for other reasons) it can be fun to read your posts and to exchange with you . . . . where else on the Internet on a site related to your passion of photography, do you get to look at fair to middling photos (or sometimes better ones even) critique them, then offer your views on the Arab-Israeli conflict and trace them back to Jesus and his view of the Canaanites, AND have a willing reader, (at least in me).

I do not mind learning; in fact I revel in it, when someone speaks or writes with authority that I understand to be genuine -- not balderdash.

And on this subject and these matters I judge your knowledge to be quite reliable based on reading your prose and views thereon over time.

That's another advantage of not trading views on forums; here we have substantial leeway away from moderators who will boot us for straying 'off topic', because for me any good faith effort to have discourse promoted and/or initiated by any of my photos seems pretty fair game.

In fact, in many ways, that's the stuff (perhaps the staff) of life.

Mazal tov, (that's a direction, not just an observation or greeting).

john

John (Crosley)

Since my reference to haiku contributed to an interesting digression, here's one from my pursuit of a goal to write a haiku genesis for folks with short attention spans:

darkness all around
the serious universe
God says "Lighten up"

When I finish it, I'll let you know what i think of it.

Short attention spans is why I take photos; In practicing law one had to look years ahead for the consequence of almost every action (or at least I habitually did, for something that now is decades ago.)

In pushing the shutter, now that film is out of my life, I get results instantly, and can move on, whether results are good or bad or make instant adjustments as here, where things are stable enough (in street) where one can try to approach 'street perfection' (whatever that is).

It's an entirely different way of life.

I'm comfortable with it.

(oh, and I've now finished your haiku . . . .wonderful!)

No moderator here; just good taste (mostly) and certainly 'good faith' -- spurred in some way by something relating to the photo or someone's analysis -- taverns and bars now are becoming outmoded, but my 'comments' section, I hope never will be.

And you're a very welcome member.

john

John (Crosley)

;~))

ha; I am great poet too http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=875632 

On satan and other things, they are viewpoints. They are not mine... No we are not away from moderators. Josh reads every one of these. So far he has excerised tolerance.

these comments do not stray from the photo. The man is doing a crossword puzzle. He is searching him mind for the correct word which happens to be  "haiqu". The man in the window smirks. He knows the answer but he is not telling.

I see you have found a back door way to post here in Hebrew (by reference). 

Now is that right to left, or up and down?  And how do I know if it rhymes?

And does it matter?

Hebrew is definitely not my strong suite.

There were not many Hebrew schools available to me, a gentile, growing up in Western Oregon. and like many familes I have met in Europe, there's a whisper, that some great aunt some where was Jewish or some other ancestor.  It was not spoken of with shame or embarrassment, either, and it did not affect my life as I grew up; the Jews I knew as I grew up were just pretty good kids, and seemed not really different.  (at Columbia I noticed some pretty substantil differences, but not in Oregon).

And I spent my entire sophomore yeat at Columbia taking the Broadway line twice each weekend to Brownsville Brooklyn and back (2 hours each way) to pick up Shoiley Shatzkamer  then quickly exiting their house before her parents could try to speak Yiddish with me.  (don't know if they spoke Hebrew).

She spoke with an accent as strong or stronger than present-day Fran Drescher, but was quite a wonderful and amazingly smart person.

'SHE GOT A DENTIST!' an uncle excitedly shouted to me over the phone when I once tried to track her down to send her the photo on display in my gallery.  I decided against further effort.  (with a last name like that, and one call to Miami phone directory, tracking down was NOT hard at all at that time, a decade or so ago.)

;~))

john

John (Crosley)

Meir,

Of course, the views of Satan and things 'editorial' are free wheeling discussion.  There is a place for that in forums, called 'casual discussion' too.

I'm surprised Josh reads everything here; hasn't he got better things to do?

I'm an excellent (maybe one of the very best) Photo.net  citizens.

From time to time I meet people and even over a relatively short time I have brought hundreds of new clickers and now surely thousands and thousands to Photo.net through personal meeting.

Since Photo.net sells advertising, those additional eyeballs must surely mean something . . . . as all are interested in photography . . . . and often they return to follow my work.

Many turn into new members, too.

I find out from e-mails, the occasional post,  and being stopped on the street and being told 'I liked this particular photo; I looked through them all, and I liked particularly this one and that one (describing each, often with questions, even months after first meeting a person)'.

It's very flattering.

I think overall Josh does a very good job of running this joint, and if I have differences with this or that deicision, that's  largely unimportant; it runs smoothly and I try not to interfere.  I only get het up when someone tries to libel me me; it only takes (from experience) less than 28 minutes for Google.com to start reprinting something I have written about someone else, and supposedly the same about me -- hence speed in retraction or correction of derogatory comments is of utmost concern.

Other than dealing with such posts, I have little need to be involved with Administration . . . . .

I get high views, and they are helpful, I think, to getting 'eyeballs' in great number to the site AND I am both helpful and courteous to members of good faith.  I do not by any belief, think I am 'essentil' to Photo.net and am pleased for the privilege to be a member.

But I'm surprised that he reads everything, since frankly there are just no transgressions here.

It seems somewhat masochistic since he has so little time, and these posts run so long.

;~))

john

John (Crosley)

I admire the cleverness of your final post of the trilogy.

john

John (Crosley)

No back door.  Just that photo.net decodes hebrew script. Maybe russian and arabic too, I don't know. Some email services decode/encode the script and some don't. If they don't its just garble.