Tim_Lookingbill

Here's my response to that.

 

Tim Holte's work is individual and personal, he's developed a particular voice in the way he treats landscapes and other subjects, often a little haunting, rarely from a typical perspective, often with a bit of an edge if not more of one. Polished might describe them, and there's nothing wrong with that, though I'd just say they're technically well done as well as aesthetically compelling.

 

Your work, to use your own words, I'd describe as disappointing unpolished mediocrity. They're generally uninteresting, bland, and lack visual acuity, social commentary or relevance.

Great! Good call! You should be a judge at these contests. I'll expect the same keen eye and articulation on all the posted winners.

Good luck seeing the light of day.

Who shoots pictures to be stored in the attic unseen? Appreciative comments from others urges us on to greater accomplishments. We all need "atta boys" in life including for our photos. If your kids soccer team won the championship, would you deny him or her the excitement and gratification of celebrating victory? Of course, you might balance that with inviting the losing team to the party and show appreciation of their sportsmanship as well. We are all human after all. FInding balance in life is acceptable as long as you didn't cheat to win the game.

Alan, you crack me up. Yes, invite the losing team. LOVE IT!

Tim, you are either part of a community, or not, you decide. If not, consider why you are still here. You are not a value monitor or conscience except for yourself.

You don't define what a community is, Sandy. It's a simple exchange of opinions whether you or anyone else agrees or disagrees. I've been here longer than you have. I've also frequent quite a few other forums where my input is welcome whether it's taken negatively or positively. I see something, I say something. If someone doesn't like what I say, that's their problem.

Good time to stop - bereft of value and turning toxic. Since I have participated, I will not delete, just report for the next moderator who comes on line.

The dude that's going to make this thread toxic, Sandy is Moving On. And I have him permanently on ignore for good reason.

The importance of history, I agree, is an established kind of authority, and it's always worth questioning established authority, but only sometimes is it worth rejecting established authority. I understand your reasons for rejecting books and history to the extent you do. I think they're myopic and of little value. That doesn't mean I'm right and it doesn't mean what I say is fact. But it also doesn't mean I think little of your position because it goes against established authority. I think little of your position on its merits and lack thereof.

And you think that your opinion is new information and is helpful how? You offer nothing except arguments because every one of your sentences is coined to address every point I made on what is factual information vs stuff read in a history of photography book.

You've established you have no new and useful information for making better photographs.

I don't need to understand why you believe the way you do - it would only be valuable to me if you were a family member or friend.

Well then you must not get much out of this place, Sandy. Why are you here? Or maybe you just don't want to be taught. Lot a dudes yours and my age just don't want that any longer. I have life experience and education as well so where did I come up with my premise that seems to rub folks into responding to the contrary?

Back to addressing the topic...

How do we, as a community, feel about sharing our successes, such as posting images and announcing their having won in competition? Perhaps I'm just a bit dense, but I would appreciate the opportunity to share good outcomes, but without crossing the line into braggadoccio.

I wouldn't be interested in hearing about photo contest successes because I don't want to be reminded of the tons of polished mediocre photos that will most likely win these contests seeing the over abundance of content online make it impossible to find the really good stuff. The judges just don't have the time to do the work necessary to find really meaningful photos culling through a trillion images.

No matter who wins a photo contest it's always going to be a display of disappointing polished mediocrity. And I really don't give a crap if that's taken as an antisocial comment.

Tim - every structure must have a foundation. Knowingly or unknowingly, every time we pick up a camera, pen. paintbrush, musical instrument or even sit down at the keyboard, we are building on the work of those who preceded us. No one lives in a vacuum. It would be the same for the apocryphal child raised by wolves on entering human society. Just using the tools others developed makes that fact. If one were able to come up with an entirely new artform which employed previously unused and self invented media, there would still be resonances of the past - part of being human. I appreciate your wish to have it be otherwise.

Nothing that you said, Sandy, is a fact. You're repeating what you've read in the past. It doesn't make it a fact. And you may appreciate my wish to do the opposite of what you espouse to be as fact. You don't understand why I choose to do the opposite.

And that is made fact by you not wanting to know why by asking further questions. You are dug in thinking your response is new information to me and that I need to be told that. Did you feel like you taught me something new? If not, why did you tell me something you know I already know? It's good to feel like you're an authority on a subject whether it's necessary or not.

I gave new information that wasn't taken as valuable or useful because it goes against established authority of what most think is factual information when it is just what someone writes in a book. Because that author is automatically taken as an authority, no one questions the validity of their information.

Lot's of folks who don't question authority soon pay dearly for it into the future. That has been proven as FACT!

This in bold...

Oh, I notice those things. I just don’t consider them socializing. Tell me, what about someone’s personality do you learn by which direction they lean when they walk? Maybe listening to them would be of more value for understanding personality. Noticing details in the world is wonderful, especially for a photographer. It’s NOT socializing, sir.

Conflicts with the lines in bold below when it comes to your definition of socializing...

Part of the reason I like taking walks around the city is for the human contact, whether it’s chatting with someone in their front yard, saying hi to someone waiting for the light at a street corner, going into a produce store to buy a peach. Those can often stay with me long term, not as individual details, but as an ongoing connection with those around me. It inspires a lot of my street photography as well. Human connection comes in many forms. It doesn’t have to be deep to be real. Certain personalities don’t enjoy these simple pleasantries of life. That’s fine. But it’s telling when they look down on others who do, or minimize its effects and reach.

So you socialize in order to use people as subjects in your photography. In my book that's a bit of a dishonest, shallow and disingenuous way to socialize (and not very deep so you're correct in that claim). So which is it? Photography as a way to socialize? Or socializing as its own reward?

You socialize in public much like you do online. Keep it light with no commitment and always be distracted by waiting for that defining moment. That's not what I call developing lasting friendships where I come from.

And what's the definition of a serious photographer? Who gets to define that term? From the way you've defined socializing I can't take you seriously.

I can't even comment on this comment because I find it very bizarre and the antithesis of what I believe. I totally disagree with your view on photographic history also but I am a firm believer in free expression no matter how strange I think it is.

Good! I left you speechless. My work is done.

That sounds to me like detective work or forensics. I always thought socializing had to do with emotional human connections.

So you interpreted my very descriptive account of what I see in people in the flesh as overly analytical instead of an appreciation of the nuances of a personality. Maybe you don't look very closely at the world as I do.

I can't imagine your take on the Mona Lisa.

Comradery is about the most anyone can expect in the form of an emotional human connection whether in exchanges online or in person. It feels good to be connected this way but it is short and sweet unless there is a clear demonstration of a true commitment and that isn't happening online or in chance meet ups in person.

I get somewhat annoyed when I find out a friend or photo site member gets a rather prestigious award and doesn't say anything about it until I mention it to him/her after I find out about it. It's called "sharing" amongst serious photographers. I find it a lot more interesting than any kind of gear head talk.

So you are annoyed about strangers you meet online that don't share their success at getting a prestigious photography award. Looks like more socializing is required. How does one get into this sharing group of serious photographers?

Seeing that the creative process is a very self centered endeavor I wouldn't know how to find the time to cultivate a group of individuals who see them self as serious photographers but then I guess that makes me a serious photographer. I'm too busy photographing to enter photo contests. I also don't have the funds to pay the fees to enter. I wonder if more socializing would fix that.

While I think I understand what you're saying and your philosophy is as valid as anyone else's, Tim, it seems contrary to your own profile statement that your "...philosophy on photography can be expressed with one single image...always reminding me of the fragile and fleeting life I have on this miracle planet that I cherish and savor every minute of my existence." Cassini's not human, but the choice and presentation of that image were made by humans based on their syntheses of their own perceptions, experiences etc.

 

You certainly don't "...know everything on how [Cassini's] work was created". And despite your stated belief that you are "...more interesting than what I see published in a book or any one else in history", the simple fact remains that you didn't create the image that best expresses your philosophy on photography. I find it hard to believe that you've managed to completely ignore so profound an effect on you. That photo is history, and it has to have influenced your own approach. I suspect you bring at least one or two other historical influences to bear on your own aesthetic. If you look hard, you'll probably find many. :)

The Cassini photo has nothing to do with my not wanting to have other folk's preconceived ideas and pictures in my mind when I seek scenes I want to shoot. The Cassini photo is a symbol of my perspective and philosophy on life and how I make my decisions on what I want to shoot. The Cassini photo is never in my head as a preconceived image to aspire to make. I don't think your reply to me was thought through very carefully.

You also based your reply from the first lines of my comment out of context of my entire response.

it’s socializing. human contact. what can be learned from waving hello to someone.

I didn't know online chatting was socializing or sufficed as human contact.

I've always associated socializing with others as being able to tell what cologne they like to wear, which way they lean when they walk, how they pronounce their 'S'es, check if their eyes are too far apart, how much ear hair, or whether they shake hands with a soft grip and then go on to tell me about their boat they just bought.

How many of you rely on your knowledge of photographic history when evaluating your work or the work of others?

I don't rely on any history at all. I photograph while I'm in the moment. I don't want another person's preconceived ideas and pictures in my head when I seek scenes to photograph. I want me and only me interpreting and being inspired by the scene.

I don't read books anymore because books tell me that another person's life and creative approach has convinced a cadre of like minded publishers I don't know a thing about that they are more interesting than myself.

I am more interesting than what I see published in a book or any one else in history and that's because I have all the facts about me and nothing about the person being written about and/or featured in a showing of their work that went through careful selective editing process.

It's my life and I get only one chance, so I don't want to waste it living and admiring someone else's life. History books are made by folks for other folks who live their life as spectators blindly sizing each other up without really having all the facts about the other person being written about and comparing them self to.

Life is short so I really have no desire to read about or look at another person's creative life. I'm never sure I know all the facts about them and their creative process that created works that were culled and curated so the public sees what they want them to see. It's not a true history about the creative person even when one looks at a finished work they admire and think they can learn from it. One would have to know everything on how their work was created and that's impossible to know.

History is for those that want something to read about and contemplate over. It's not going to make them creative and they're never going to see the way the artists sees because they will never know all the facts on how it was done. Even the artist doesn't know all the facts on how it was done.