don_e

<p>In your op you wrote: "Weston's peppers are powerful, but not intimate. His nudes don't seem intimate, but many of his portraits, even his most formal (eg of Bender, his patron) do."</p>

<p>For you "many of his portraits" are intimate objects. There is no intimate human relation there -- except the humanity you bring to the viewing. "The photograph is not the photographed". You do not have intimate "human relations" with either Weston or his subjects, but with pieces of paper.</p>

<p>I see by the clock on the wall this is my last post.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Insisting upon definition of "intimacy" in a multitude of ways despite the thread's directly stated human intimacy"</p>

<p>You are replying to: "It is not about definitions,but about how we use "intimate"."</p>

<p>I was resonding to [emphasis in original]<strong> "</strong> This is a photo forum ... visual evidence, personal webpages and P.N portolios, says what we intend to say. We make the images, we edit what we share. If we do other types of photography, fine. But on balance<strong> I think we see something about human intimacy in photography when we compare words with images.</strong> "</p>

<p>and: "<strong>"Why have they</strong> <strong> excluded human intimacy from their photographic possibilities?</strong> ...I think they (and I) fear human intimacy.""</p>

<p>I understand this to mean not actual intimate human relations but the appearance of it or not in photographs. You write above as a photographer viewing photos. You believe human intimacy has been "excluded...from their photographic possiblities". That is distinctly different than actual human relations. You are referring to the appearance of it or evidence of it in photos, and you say you think it is exluded. And that, John, is a "use" of intimate, and not intimacy itself. How does that differ from Lannies use of intimacy in regards to "nature"?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It is not about definitions,but about how we use "intimate". You wanted to discuss one way, which is okay, but limiting. This is a photography forum, but it is a philosophy forum, too.</p>

<p><strong>"Why have they</strong> <strong> excluded human intimacy from their photographic possibilities?</strong> ...I think they (and I) fear human intimacy."</p>

<p>'Risk' is the most common word used in association with "intimate" or "intimacy" in this thread appearing about a dozen times. As you like to say "that is telling". But a thought, if you "fear" intimacy, consider it "risky", perhaps you can't recognize it in photographs. Perhaps you shy away from it or interpret it as being something else. What is risked and why does it induce fear? These are more questions for psychology rather than philosophy. My time is short now, so I'll leave it at that.</p>

<p>From Latin intimus meaning inmost, deepest, profound. </p>

<p>I understood the defining restriction in your op, "Fantasies aside, I don't think one has "intimate" relations with inanimate objects (buildings, rocks, moon-rises), or with objectified people." Above, I wrote "Mom" and it is "Moms" all the way down, iow that human relation -- those first few weeks and months -- has the precedence and influences for good or bad our intimacies. But to restrict the study to human relations doesn't shed light on the meanings and uses of 'intimate' (and therefore us humans) by labeling them "fantasies" so as to dismiss them from consideration -- not to mention that intimate relations as you mean it can be described as "fantasy" in many instances, beginning with ourselves in our infancy. Early on in this thread you wrote that you don't fully understand the idea yourself. Foregoing examining the ways we use 'intimate' seems to limit the possibilities of understanding.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"So many (5) denials."</p>

<p>Reasonable people would say five true statements</p>

<p>"Peerless? On Photonet?"</p>

<p>Non-trolls would think the clause previous to the quoted "I do not know any photographers", means I don not know any photographers.</p>

<p>"Let's see... Don shoots a leica, no less, owns cult cameras, like Olympus Pen, XA2, Canonet GIII.... photographs in B&W....is hardly a tyro...makes very good photographs..."</p>

<p>[Don E] "If you are a '50mm photographer', shoot silver b&w, and have adopted the Elder Esthetic (aka classic look, olde skoole), "</p>

<p> I didn't say I was a "tyro" (there's an example of trolling). Trolls and flamers do not read for comprehension</p>

<p>"He *COUGH* knows nothing about photography."</p>

<p>I know a lot about photography. You're doing a fine imitation of John Kelly style innuendo. You guys should meet someplace.</p>

<p>"Welcome, Don E.! You're hereby officially <em>OUTED.</em><br>

[it does seem he's still in denial, though.]"</p>

<p>I recall a cartoon from back in the early 60s. A cop is beating up a black man, and another cop says to the first: Let him be. He said he don't want to be ma equal.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"I doubt my favorite tree is volitional, but I wouldn't presume to speak for yours :-)"</p>

<p>Ask your friends on the res. I'll let them referee.</p>

<p>"...you're just one of us."</p>

<p>I'm not a professional photographer, nor does my life revolve around photography. I am not an artist. I have not studied photography in schools. I do not know any photographers -- I have no peers. What I have are Luke Swank's and Gene Smith's guidance for my photography work. This forum has introduced me to the thinking, attitudes, and personalities of photographers. It has been an interesting experience.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Scattered throughout your posts on this specific thread are a number of nasty comments about others who have, according to you, not worked hard enough to understand your posts."</p>

<p>Before I was accused of expressing "hatred" and "contempt"? If so, then I'm calling you a liar. John Kelly, you are a liar.</p>

<p>"You are not "above" the fools you denounce, your posts aren't more "reasonable" than the least here...you're just one of us."</p>

<p>Are you saying I wrote I'm ""above" the fools"?</p>

<p>You are a liar.</p>

<p>I believe above I wrote that for humans, narrative is like water for fishes. I also know that stories grow in the telling. Our lives. as lived at the moment, are not the story as told later over years and decades. The stories are 'honed' for effect, and they change in emphasis. I can tell a story similar to your grandparents story, about my wife and myself and our business during the past six years, including smiling photos, and second honeymoons.</p>

<p>Nothing you've written in response to me on this subject looks at the word choices and their meanings: "fiction" and "dark moments", and their appropriateness. It is seeing those terms used consistently over time that I wonder about. Maybe you have not come across them in this context before, but I have. That's why I called them a trope, a figure of speech.</p>

<p>"You want into the minds of people, and when you get in, you dismiss what is there? Why?"</p>

<p>And where did I write I wanted into the minds of people, and when having gotten in, did I dismiss it? This is like John's characterizing me with "unhappiness". He makes up stories in his head about posters to this forum and then writes as if it were the undeniable truth. He's been doing it for years here. And you are doing the same thing in this thread, as in the "Gesture" thread. In the Power and Glory thread, I posted, and you and Lannie discussed what I "meant", as if I were not present. Neither you nor Lannie bothered to do the obvious, which is to have asked <em>me</em> .</p>

<p>Then ask for clarification. How hard is that? I wrote above.</p>

<p>The truly annoying aspect of this forum is otherwise reasonable posters jumping to unwarranted conclusions about what others post. I am sure I've done it, but do I try to stifle it and reread carefully before replying.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Don, you write with great precision, often mostly to yourself. As a result it can be difficult to follow your thinking"</p>

<p>Then ask for clarification. How hard is that?</p>

<p>"your abuse of Fred is unjustified."</p>

<p>You are fond of the word "abuse". Let Fred decide, or not as the case may be.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"I don't think you're wrong per se, only that you don't think snapshooters are capable of, or consciously create fictions. I think they can, you think they don't."</p>

<p>I wrote "Where did this fiction/dark moments trope come from? It shows up a lot here. It think it is without merit."</p>

<p><em>"You</em> forced me to go the anecdotal route with this: "The notion of "fiction" assumes that one knows anything at all about the specific album, the specific family; that one knows how to read their posture, expression and so on.""</p>

<p>It means you can tell what is non-fiction or fiction by looking at a photo. In fact, you can parse photos according to that schema. You know your grandparent's state of mind when on their cruise, how they felt, what they thought. Where you the photographer? Where you there? Did you know them then? Where you in the business with him? You are taken into confidence by a person in what sounds like a messy divorce and accept what they say as objective and accurate. You note the behavior of a little girl. It doesn't matter. They are stories, anecdotes.</p>

<p>"Those who have a sophisticated expertise in photography and art are not the iconic family snapshot photographer."</p>

<p>Sometimes the advice is to use 'save as' (at 100% quality) instead of 'save' . I don't edit jpegs (display only format, imo) so don't know if 'save as' works for this purpose.</p>

<p>Luis, you are right and I am wrong. I stipulate that you are always right. I am convinced because, rather than demonstrating your rightness by arguing from authority, linking to essays and portfolios, you have chosen the philosophical rigor of arguing by anecdote. You are the better story teller, the better narrator. There is no way I can match you. Just accept my stipulation, and you won't even have to follow-up my posts.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Don, as I read you, you <strong>don't approve</strong> <strong>of</strong> (are judgementally negative about) photography that presumes to tell a visual story. Is that right? Interesting, if that's correct."</p>

<p>No. We're human beings, narrative is like water to a fish for us. About the only thing I can think of I've written that might give that impression is I try not to imprint on my photos a narrative or interpretation to guide the viewer (such as photos which are made up of 'signs', or strong titles or captions). Being humans, too, they will make up their own story. I'm ok with that. It's just human nature.</p>

<p>"...including the "fictions" and "dark tropes" you seem to decry have I misread you?"</p>

<p>I think so. In context I was writing about "Snaps of the family album sort, of the kind that are a resource for the 'snapshot aesthetic'". The iconic snapshot, which I described fairly well, I thought.<br /> <br /><br /> I disagree with this: "Family albums end up a fiction of sorts, because the dark moments are almost never photographed."</p>

<p>Street photographs end up as fiction of sorts, because the bugs in the street are almost never photographed...at least I've never seen a street shooter's portfolio with bug macros in it. I think the argument is "without merit".</p>

<p>To whom is a family album "a fiction of sorts"? Who "ends up" thinking that? Is it the family? I think not. <br /> I wrote, in essence, that those who have a sophisticated expertise in photography and art are not the iconic family snapshot photographer. They are the one's who "end up" thinking like that. For some reason my mentioning this is called an expression of contempt and hatred.</p>

<p>What do you do when little Sally falls down the icey stairs? Go to help? Call 911? Or do you rush for your camera to capture the fan of arterial spray on the new fallen snow?</p>

<p>The notion of "fiction" assumes that one knows anything at all about the specific album, the specific family; that one knows how to read their posture, expression and so on. But it is just another defensive reaction to my mentioning the specificity of the subject and I am not about to waste time explaining or defending it to the likes of Luis...or to you, or to Fred, as you know already.<br /> <br /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>"I have no interest in picking a fight with you (John, otoh, is tempting!)."</p>

<p>What about Ton?</p>

<p>"Seeing as I qualify for most of those categories"</p>

<p>Lucky I didn't include photographer.</p>

<p>Don't mess with me, Luis.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"the people you so hold in open contempt"</p>

<p>I expressed no contempt.</p>

<p>"Hateful"</p>

<p>Or hate.</p>

<p>"Then there's more generalized, nonspecific contempt"</p>

<p>Then there's humor coupled with a bad attitude. </p>

<p>I'm used to it, go pick a fight with a noob.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"I think the snapshot goes a little further than the simplest literal depiction of those involved and their activities. They often involve significant context, as in recognizable landmarks, signifiers of social/financial/cultural status, concepts of good parenting, intimacy, family hierarchies, love, affection, important moments, rites of passage, and much more."</p>

<p>They surely do, however that is from the perspective of some viewer, critic, essayist, academic, or photographer jonesing for some insightfulness or stylistic turn, not whoever took the snaps for whom it is "the simplest literal depiction of those involved and their activities". </p>

<p>"Family albums end up a fiction of sorts, because the dark moments are almost never photographed."</p>

<p>You want fiction, go to the nearest exhibit of art photography, where more likely than not neither the dark nor the light moments (or any moment, actually) can be found. </p>

<p>Where did this fiction/dark moments trope come from? It shows up a lot here. It think it is without merit.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"This then: to photograph a rock, have it look like a rock, but be more than a rock. Significant representations – not interpretation."</p>

<p>In the snap it's the rock Larry brought back from summer camp. Or the rock where we had a picnic. The significance is the in specificity. It cannot be swapped for any other rock. "Larry that rock's too angular, I see this as needing a river boulder, something smooth -- there's some in the garden, get one of those instead -- bring a couple, we'll see which one works best for this" does not happen.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"The intention and consciousness behind the snapshot becomes only apparent when we look at them as memory's from a past..."</p>

<p>I mean there is no "high concept"...it's a picture of Betty and her new baby, not 'Mother and Child', of Jimmy and his puppy, Spot, not 'Innocence', Sarah and her beau Dave, not "Young Lovers", Granpa kissing Granma, not "Intimacy". And it is this specific Betty, baby, Jimmy, Spot, Sarah, Dave, Granpa, Granma and not any others. The purpose is not to express a meaning, concept, idea. or swap out Dave with some other 'Dave' from the agency because Dave is too tall next to Sarah. This Dave is Sarah's beau not some other Dave.</p>

<p>The specificity of subject is why it is all about the subject.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Maybe some great photos have the best aspects of snaps with a little more consciousness and intention."</p>

<p>Snaps of the family album sort, of the kind that are a resource for the 'snapshot aesthetic' are very intentional and conscious. The takers may have been unsophisticated users of a camera and not photographers, but they were capable of working around the limitations of cameras like Brownies. Most of the 'amateur mistakes' we see are examples of dealing with those limitations. Place the subject in the center of the frame to avoid the softness of the lens in the corners and to avoid cutting off parts of people because the viewfinder was not wysiwyg. Step back because getting too close results in an out-of-focus image, and as well the inexact framing of the viewfinder. Take pictures of things that are not moving because the shutter is slow. Shoot in bright light or with a flash, due to the limitations of shutter and aperture and film sensitivity. And etc...</p>

<p>The important thing with snapshots is the subject. They are usually all about the subject. Nothing else matters. I think that is the significant difference between snaps and sophisticated photography.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"I took a night job at a one-hour Eckerd's drugstore lab to learn about snapshots. Over months, a tiny handful of truly extraordinary images flitted by."</p>

<p>I manned the film counter at Walgreen's at 6th & Market in San Francisico in 1969. The 'toss box' under the counter of film never picked up was shot by people living in the Tenderloin and the warehouse district. One of several crimes possible in my life I wish I had committed was grabbing that box when I left.</p>

<p>Also worth noting is that, on Windows at least, Firefox and Internet Explorer both default to resizing images to fit your browsers' viewport. One should go to Options and change that behavior, if set.</p>

<p>"Please help."</p>

<p>Don't worry. It'll break. They all do. And that will be that.</p>

<p>Your real problems begin when you buy another, and another...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Does anyone here intend to have photographic dialogues or pay homage to present or past masters or other photographers on occasion?"</p>

<p>Well, obviously, I've got to contend with Gene Smith and his cursed Pittsburgh Project.</p>

<p> </p>