The Drollness of Life: (A Story If You Can Figure It Out)

Please open your mind to a little drollness when you view this photo,

taken a little while ago. Your ratings and critques are invited and

most welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically, please submit

a helpful and constructive comment/please share your superior

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks!

Enjoy! John

This photo raises (and does not answer) several questions.

 

Can you name the questions that are not answered or, better yet, name the questions and then answer them satisfactorily.

 

;-)

 

John (Crosley)

 

Copyright notice: Image copyright 2007, John Crosley, All rights reserved

Hello John ,this is excellent. A great BW and a great piece of observation.

 

Pete

There is a term in music called an 'ear worm': a song that you just can't get out of your mind. You try to shut an 'ear worm' out of your mind and the tune just keeps playing, over and over.

 

Photography has no such equivalent, I think, but if it did, this would be an 'eye worm' for me.

 

I took this well over a month ago and couldn't find it in my well-organized archives, but found the chip which had not been erased and re-downloaded it again, all 600+ files on an 8-gig chip, just to get at this photo.

 

It was worth it, at least for me.

 

I LOVE this photo.

 

It is just full of 'drollness'.

 

So, I agree with your assessment.

 

Some of my photos, including some recently posted, I don't feel so red-hot about, but they can be counted on to get well above-average ratings, and on the other hand, this is not a surefire winner, yet it harkens back to the days of the great magazine photographers -- subtle and droll. I'm proud to have taken it.

 

Thank you so much for your comment.

 

It means very much to me that you communicated your appreciation to me.

 

John (Crosley)

except maybe the contrast and grey tones (which might be related to the quality of the emulsions HCB used).

The anthropomorphically erect phone booth and the contrast with the man and his reclined head. And then the contrast and the grey tones. Stunning.

This is another one worth of being exhibited (which is, as you know, my favourite judgement criterion)

 

Best,

 

lar

 

I greatly admire H C-B. However much as I'd like to be an H C-B, this is a JSC (my initials). My work, except occasionally, can never compare to the master.

 

Long ago, I abandoned photography after seeing his lifetime works, and mine were sufficiently close to his in style I felt I'd be seen as 'of the school of' the only photographer whose exhibition I had ever seen (H C-B).

 

I've only actually been until recently to one other exhibit, that of Photographer Bruce Davidson who also landed at Magnum, when he previewed his East 100th Street book, while looking for a publisher.

 

Well, make that two other exhibits'. I also attended an exhibit at the Universithy of Oregon of the work of Brett Weston, which I found wonderful, but lacking the heart of his father's work - there were more 'abstracts', such as his abstract on 'broken glass', there than I cared for.

 

But his father could make a pepper be sexy. . . .

 

I knew when I saw Davidson speak and present his work on transparencies, I was in the presence of greatness, and felt completely unworthy of ever being a 'real' photographer.

 

Davidson and his work also scared me away from my photographic aspirations.

 

I supposed the world was peopled with numerous such great photographers (little did I know Cartier-Bresson was retiring and using his museum full of photos to sell his life's work, photo by photo at $100 to $300 per photo, framed, to museum-goers).

 

I also did not know Davidson would be a world class great photographer -- maybe in a class of his own.

 

And, there a year or two later after seeing H C-Bs work, was Davidson, with a slide projector and a room full of photography enthusiasts, trying to beat the bushes to find a publisher who'd publish his work and do it full justice (he did find a good publisher - his work is one of the all-time great photography books).

 

I desperately wanted to buy one or two of the Cartier-Bresson prints just for myself, knowing they'd be priceless some day, but my salary was $135/week before deductions for taxes, etc.

 

When I was not taking photos, although I didn't open it often, Cartier-Bresson's masterpiece collection, 'The World of Henri Cartier-Bresson', bought at that museum exhibit of his in San Francisco, sat somewhere in my bedroom all my adult life, and, when I wasn't married, it always was near my bed.

 

A few photos before bedtime often cheered me up (or made me glum because for over 30 years I hardly took a photo).

 

Even if I didn't open the H-C-B book for a year or two, and it gathered dust, I still could look at the cover and remember the photos inside.

 

I absolutely 'love' this particular photo.

 

It's just so 'droll'.

 

Yes, it is worthy, I think of an H C-B photo or an Elliott Erwitt photo, but each Magnum member (H. C-B was a founder and Erwitt was the head of Magnum for three terms), generated hundreds or thousands of such photos. My life's work is more than a little shy).

 

I hope to make it up at my advanced age.

 

(My girlfriend says I have the energy of a boy, despite my more advanced age -- I keep her busy, and she's in her mid '20s -- very beautiful and smart, a good combination for me.)

 

She was with me when I took this and is an excellent photo critic. She will turn my attention to something photoworthy, too, and never complain if we're out and I suddenly stop everything and begin taking photos, even for hours.

 

I think she actually loves my photography more than I. At least there's no quibbling about my taking photos -- she loves it and knows 'that's what I do'.)

 

Like I wrote above about songs that are 'ear worms' - they continually play over and over, they're so catchy.

 

I think of all my recent photos, this simple little number is my 'ear worm' or 'eye worm' and people may remember me because of this and maybe 'balloon man' and a few others.

 

I hope so.

 

And I'm so glad it pleases you; you are a tough critic actually -- you only show up when there's something REALLY worthy -- exhibition quality as you said.

 

I hope this will end up being exhibited sooner rather than later.

 

I am working on it.

 

Perhaps longer and harder than I could really admit to anyone (all of whom know me as an 'amateur').

 

I hope 'to be somebody' (to paraphrase Marlon Brando's character) sometime soon, in the world of photography.

 

I let my photography skills go unused far too long; and these things come now far too easily to forego taking such photos as fast as I can see them (and a large variety of others, too).

 

(Photography for me long ago was 'hot sweaty work' which I dreaded, because I 'had to be perfect' and didn't really know if I was skilled or not . . . . )

 

(Now I have Photo.net and some new, worthy critics outside of Photo.net who encourage me.)

 

Thank you so much, Luca.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Addendum: The 'emulsions' used by Cartier-Bresson generally didn't exist. Cartier-Bresson only did his printing during a period of the '30s and maybe the '40s. He also dabbled in motion picture photography -- film, as assistant to Jean Renoir, and after the 'war' he shot some color (which he hated and tried to destroy.

 

Unless you know something the 'art' world doesn't know, after World War II, Cartier-Bresson trusted his work to a personal printer, not really caring too much about doing printing himself.

 

So, if you're writing about 'his' emulsions, you must generally for post-war work, mean his master printer's emulsions -- he undoubtedly knew what they were and how his photos should be printed, but sometimes he felt, it is written, photographers' time is best spent in the field, not in printmaking, which is an entirely separate art, especially for the 'photojournalist' which is how he is categorized, even if only partly correctly.

 

JC

and still I believe that it is a perfect interpretation of the HC-B style by JSC.

I think you can't and you should not "be" HC-B, because you have your own style. The important thing is that looking at a photograph you can say: "That's a JSC take".

HC-B was a master, but how many of his photos do we see and how many did he take? I think that a photographer can never be "detached" enough from his pictures.

 

Looking at my photos taken in the last 30 years only one or two pass my criterion. Yes, the technique has improved, the cropping is more careful, but still, there are very few of my takes which really strike me. The one you commented on has several mistakes, it's nice, but I would never expose it.

And I always try not to take myself too seriously, first of all as a photographer! :-)

 

Take care,

 

lar

When Henri Cartier-Bressson was asked to comment on his being at the forefront of the world's great photographers, his reply, it is reputed, was that's 'bullshit'. No euphemisms here. Source: Magnum web site blog.

 

So, remember that I am a devout fan of Henri Cartier-Bresson, but his takes usually included a background -- and this does not. It may be more of the Elliott Erwitt style than the Cartier-Bresson style -- look at Erwitt's work to see why.

 

But I also remember that anyone who takes themselves too seriously is full of 'bullshit' -- and I make no exception for myself.

 

My likes and dislikes are of small moment for the world -- even the world of Photo.netters, but occasionally I take what may be a memorable photo, and this is one.

 

I may be full of bullshit (I've been accused of that and maybe even should plead 'no contest') but I'm having a hell of a lot of fun exposing captures like this one to critics like you and many others -- many who are new to the craft (even I returned to the craft in Feb. '04, after decades without taking photos significantly, when I began posting 'old' works that I thought had merit and didn't know what to do with.)

 

You've actually been taking photos for 30 years; I'd been photographically sitting on my duff for those same 30 years, with a few exceptions - a week here, a week there.

 

This is my revenge to myself.

 

Like the Marlon Brando character.

 

'Photographically, I could have been somebody. . . . .'

 

Luckily a paunch does not prevent a 'comeback' for a champ that never was, though likely as not the most I could aspire to is a footnote in photographic history, or a few reproductions in some book somewhere.

 

But the photojournalistic style is coming to the fore for collectors, I find.

 

And I don't have a flood of prints floating around (none authorized at all, actually).

 

Maybe lightning will strike.

 

I can feel the hair on the back of my neck standing up, as critics begin taking note.

 

(If it strikes, I'll let you know.)

 

John (Crosley)

I have not overlooked this picture. It's just that I find it fascinating and at first I was at a loss of words trying to "grasp" it. I keep coming back to it because it has become a visual obsession hoping that with each repeated visit I get a new perspective. Here is my interpretation so far - It's comical to see that both man and object can look so similar in their postures, mimicking each other's gloomy disposition. It kind of reminds me of a couple in disagreement or in a fight. The drollness also contains some irony in it. One can talk to both entities here. Sometimes a person can be so unapproacheable that you can hardly get a word out of him while through the phone you can have the most animated conversation. A reversal of roles if you will.

 

BTW - please let me know if you strike. I will be in line asking for an autograph. ;)

There's a place for you just on interpreting photos, much as Micki Ferguson, a relatively new member who has a big following here.

 

Your interpretation of the phone and man's postures is 'right on' and the 'drollness' is its simplicity. It's why I went to so much trouble to re-download it from a chip I found rather than search through my (well-organized) archives of downloads.

 

Your idea of man being sometimes inapproachable while one can carry on an animated conversation over the telephone, is a new one to me, but its very fitting and one I may adopt as part of the 'official' interpretation of this photo (keeping in mind my interpretations are an amalgmation of those also of my best critics).

 

It's such a simple photo and yet so eye-catching. I think you read what I wrote above about how it may relate to a musical ear-worm, and somehow this photo had the same effect on you as it has on me.

 

Thank you for taking the time and energy to comment and rate.

 

John (Crosley)

In the history of this telephone booth (or boothes as another booth may be back-to-back with this one), this may be the first and last time ever a man has stood or will stand here like this at this particular place.

 

It's a most unlikely stance, unless you know better about the behavior of men standing next to telephone booths.

 

He even has to stand with the tips of his shoes sticking out over the concrete (cement) so he has the ability to stand mostly upright where he is.

 

And he's a shorter man.

 

And to get that extra eight or so inches of height, he has stood on that concrete riser/foundation, and to do that, he has had to bend his head forward.

 

And he stood like that for quite some time (enough for me to get horizontal AND vertical shots of this/this was one of three almost equal shots shot in the 'portrait' orientation, horizontal shots cut off his legs because the telephoto was too 'long' for the camera placement and no other camera had a long enough as the one with tele attached.

 

When one sees a scene like this, one takes the photo first of all, then takes another to refine what was not captured properly or agreeably the first time.

 

So, the first shots were 'landscape' orientation and showed his head and shoulders and upper torso.

 

After walking down the street, so the whole thing could be captured in my telephoto and also from a different direction, it became clear that the 'portrait' orientation would be the best, and also the one in which more background was included, not less -- in other words, not tightly cropped which is something I often do.

 

So, short man, shoes sticking out, head bent over to accommodate the telephone booth.

 

A rarity; perhaps the only time it ever has happened at this place.

 

Maybe it will never happen again.

 

You just gotta be there.

 

In the meantime somebody else is getting another shot that I'll never get.

 

That's just the way the photographic dice tumble.

 

John (Crosley)

I agree. And that is why photography can be so satisfying and addictive. You never know when that golden moment is going to unfold and when it does and you capture it the thrill is just ecstatic. It's worth it.

But it's pretty damn good.

 

And sometimes as elusive, too.

 

;~)

 

John (Crosley)

I wonder which vice will get you killed faster ;) At least we know which one will not leave you heartbroken.

You mean that seeing the perfect situation unfold in your viewfinder, only to find that 'Easy Exposure' was left in an overexposure situation so your wonderful, world best capture will end up 'blown out' is not going to break one's heart.

 

Or seeing the perfect situation unfold across the street as one zooms in with a tele and just at that magic moment when you press the shutter release, a car, (the only car for miles) passes by and leaves blurs on the frame or blurs and darkness.

 

How about having a lens or aperture fail, such as having a sticky iris so it doesn't stop down. Consider that you've been using that lens wide open so stopping down wasn't an issue, then the magic moment comes and the sticky iris keeps the lens open and throw the exposure into complete blowout -- that doesn't break hearts?

 

How about when you're camera has a button/lever for switching between spot/center-weighted and Nikon Easy Exposure and you've been knocking around a little with two cameras around your neck, then you see the perfect series of exposures, take them all and gloat at how wonderful they'll look on review -- you review them and each exposure is too dark, too light and none is just right. Reason, the jostling moved the botton/lever that switches between NikonMatrix Metering and 'spot' metering, so wherever that meter reading point was, it tried to make it 18% grayscale (or is it 17% -- I've seen it both ways), when in actuality, that point is a point of blown out light or complete darkness which is atypical of the scene. As a result, you have to throw away all those exposures.

 

I could go on.

 

It's all happened to me at one time or another, and I've been heartbroken because of it.

 

It hurts to see a world class exposure just evaporate as though you never took it, or to find remmants of that expossure, only to be unable to rescue it using any class or level or software.

 

It hurts me deeply, each and every time.

 

And the joy of getting that exposure is crushed; defeated; -- it just goes away in regret. 'Why didn't I do this?' 'Why didn't I do that?' 'What was I thinking when I started using the camera and assumed 'Easy Exposure was on neutral instead of three stops over or under-exposed.

 

How about a nonfunctioning flash that won't synch with a shutter or won't fire at all, despite having checked out only moments before.

 

Or spending $1,500 to $2,000 for a travel lighting kit only to have the flash yuo use to trigger it, triggering it, but only from the 'preflashes' that measure distance, exposure etc., to the expensive studio flashes don't fire when the shutter releases or fire sporadically as you move about ('preflashes' sometimes fire when there is no flash at all, so it would set off light flash related studio lights) And of course, there is no one around to tell you about 'preflashes' and how they can set off synchronized studio lights.

 

And so on, and so forth.

 

It's all happened.

 

It's called experience when you finally get over the heartbreak of ruining perfectly good photos that can't be seen or rescued to viewable status.

 

Sure, women (in my case I like women) can break a guy's heart, and that's happened. But so too can photography.

 

But there is a relationship; a friend/sexual partner who goes away with ill will can hurt far worse than finding one's photos ruined.

 

But what about photographer David Malcomson of London who during a move he couldn't be present for, found the movers lost his photo collection, and one of those photos had 1,000,000 views on Photo.net. Or my Viet Nam portfolio being lost because of an insurance company refusing to pay its policy in bad faith?

 

It can go on and on, if one is a dedicated photographer.

 

My best wishes.

 

May your heart be broken occasionally -- if it isn't, you're not taking any risks and are being too careful (and self-contained).

 

But of course not too badly.

 

And of course, there's always the wife/girlfriend who throws out your photo collection out of spite and anger. I know one guy that happened to.

 

That's double heartbreak.

 

John (Crosley)

That was an enlightening revelation John. Forgive me for my naive assumption. Sometimes my mouth is quicker than my brain.

Don't worry about my 'exceptions' to your general comment.

 

Photography is not entirely worry free, as I've shown.

 

But nothing compares with a relationship where things aren't going right or once were heaven and now are hell (or even worse, a relationship that once was reciprocated now no longer being reciprocated against your choice and will).

 

So, in general, you were right.

 

I just couldn't help pointing out 'exceptions' -- I hope in a friendly manner as there was nothing ill-intentioned about it.

 

John (Crosley)

... have sent you a private email about this shot.

It's one of my absolute favorites -- a droll little thing.

 

And I've replied to your two e-mails.

 

Please look for it.

 

Thanks so much.

 

John (Crosley)

Master Printer and Photo expert, Michel Karman who is curating my work, says, in his opinion, this is a 'FANTASTIC PHOTO', and he smiles big each time he sees it or refers to it.

 

Sometimes we disagree, or I can't see something he sees that is more esoteric in a photo of mine he'll choose, but this is one 'small' photo on which we both agree -- it's among my very best work.

 

Of all the 'classic street photos' I've taken, this innocuous photo is prototypical -- one of my best ever.

 

I'd place it in competition with just about anybody's work who does serious street shooting.

 

It's just so 'perfect' in itself with no reference to anything needed, unless you are from sheltered Filipino Tribe lost in the rain forest, or a time traveler moving forward from centuries past and don't recognize that this is a telephone.

 

And of course, look, it's not ringing, or if it's ringing, he's ignoring it.

 

He's alone perhaps in his thoughts, with a 'modern (enough) telecommunications device behind him that's capable of letting him talk to most people on all the world's continents.

 

His back is turned to it.

 

This is my masterpiece. My curator/master printer Michel Karman agrees -- enthusiastically. And we both have smiles thinking about this photo.

 

I said it early on, and I find I have agreement from the man I respect who's curating my photography.

 

(thanks Dennis Aubrey and your friend Mark, for the referral)

 

John (Crosley)

Beautiful and interesting photo John. Best regards.

I am most pleased to accept your compliment.

 

John (Crosley)

That's the title of a song, written by a famous songwriter and sometimes satirist who also was a very short man -- he was capturing both society's impressions of the 'manliness' of short men and his own personal viewpoint, I think, of how he regarded being 'short' in a society that respects tall men more.

 

After all, we find that among business leaders, the dominant ones tend to be tall, the tall ones tend to make a higher salary and so on.

 

Well, this guy's not tall.

 

He's very short.

 

We can't know his exact height, but if one looks at the taxophone (telephone in Cryllic, but anglicized for my readers), if one stands on the concrete (cement) footing, one should be at an easy height to use the telephone. Now, move this guy around in front of the telephone and see that he hardly is tall eough to clear the telephone, and he is more the height of many women, than of many men.

 

So, now we have a clue why this man is standing on the concrete (cement) footing.

 

He's short and he wants to be taller.

 

He gets about a foot or slightly more in height by standing there (1/3 meter).

 

He's self-conscious about being 'short', and just as a small child likes to stand on a sofa, a chair or even sit atop a poppa's shoulders, one gets a different world view from being 'up high'.

 

This man is 'up high' but about one foot (one-third meter).

 

He has to stoop over at the shoulders to do so, but that may be a small burden, if one is to be 'taller' -- as he desires here.

 

So, in the end, this photo is not just about a poignant view of a man bending next to an outdoor telephone; it is about this one man's view of his own masculinity, I'd venture.

 

Someone should tell him that many movie idols are not tall men at all; many are considered quite short. Tom Cruise is considerably less than average height, for instance, but he's a very appealing actor and sometimes very good. His height hasn't stopped him from being Hollywood's No. 1 highest-paid actor or a huge box office draw.

 

Perhaps someone should whisper "you don't need to be tall to be a 'big man'" in this man's ear (preferably someone of the female persuasion, in close quarters, late at night, with a big grin on her face).

 

Then maybe he wouldn't feel the urge afterward to stand on something to appear tall.

 

Despite all contrary indications perhaps tallness, ultimately, is something that comes from 'within'.

 

John (Crosley)

6/6 maybe too much light on RTC (right top corner), but..

This is a photo I laugh at every time I see it. A personal favorite, often overlooked for its simplicity.

 

Maybe people just don't get it.

 

It's one of my most humorous in my mind.

 

Thanks . . . I like your choices very, very much.

 

John (Crosley)