fi_rondo1

<p><em>I usually run for the nearest exit whenever the talk turns to "art".</em><br>

<em>--Marc Todd</em></p>

<p>At least you don't reach for your revolver...</p>

<p>I was talking with a bunch of street photographers about HCB and the consensus was that few photographers were as consistent as Bresson in pumping out good solid work. The amount of "good" (subjective, I know) photographs are astounding. The framing, the timing, etc.... and yet, looking at his work doesn't make me want to get out there and shoot in the way Klein or Moriyama does...</p>

<p>Open question: Does anyone really get anything out of these online critiques?</p>

<p>Real nice pictures here... Night was my favorite time of day in Paris as well... Unfortunately I was there long before I started taking pictures. Good work, Gents...</p>

<p>Well, that beats Woody Allen hands down. Sort of like Don Rickles on steroids.</p>

<p>The internet is a great venue for everyone who feels as though they're superior to others. The whole idea of people laughing at the Walmart People is that they are looking at people they would rather not be. This is, as sad and weepy as it sounds, is a natural tendency, but it usually isn't played out so blatantly, so harshly, so contemptibly...</p>

<p>There was a scene in Annie Hall where Woody's pointing out to Annie all of the anomalies in NYC and ridiculing each one. This facet of our human behavior has been brought to the web with a terrific series of bonuses... you don't have to fear that you'll be overheard, you can malign others anonymously, and you don't have to even go to your local Walmart find them...</p>

<p>On the other hand, how do we know that the people who go to Walmart don't go to that website and say, "Check it out, Mom! That's me!"</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred, I think you're underestimating the integrity of the participants here...</p>

<p>I don't know of any landscape, portrait, pet, photographer (etc.) who has his genre questioned as frequently as the SP photographer does. In fact, oftentimes the SP is the first to question his own intentions, the first to come to a realization of how and why he photographs what he does...The picture of us being a bunch of loose canons without any moral scruples is an interesting analysis...</p>

<p>Anyone who has ever encountered a raging subject intimately knows what lines they have crossed (whether real or imagined)...</p>

<p>Bresson's name often comes up as the AWARE PHOTOGRAPHER and yet it is documented that he jumped up from having lunch with his admirers to shoot a man who suddenly was seized with a fit of epilepsy... he also threw a writer to the ground (one he was collaborating with) so he could get the shot he wanted.<br>

As with us all, Fred... neither demons nor angels...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hey Fred, we are in accord...</p>

<p>Just curious, why do you hesitate to describe photographs as two-dimensional "representations"?</p>

<p>Ray... making fun?... I treated her as if she were my own dear Grannie...</p>

<p>First of all, Fred, I'm glad that you can laugh about something (oh, come on... I'm kidding...) Anyhow, it's best for photographers--or any artist--to question themselves and their motives. The last thing I want is for people to feel good about themselves (especially my subjects)...</p>

<p>Also... I wrote "the more censorious folks". I didn't name any names... <em>what a shame</em>, indeed!</p>

<p><em>.</em>.. but you're also confusing things. The picture of the couple kissing in Times Square, for instance, is symbolic. They are certainly people, but because they are depicted in a photograph, they immediately become<em> not what they are</em> but <em>more than what they are</em> (italics, mine)... A photograph may put you in touch with flesh and blood, but don't mistake a photo for the person. It is a picture of a person, not the person himself (you seem to confuse the two). Photography is a funny thing in that it objectifies everything it records even as it can put us in touch with <em>flesh and blood, mind and soul </em>(as you well put it). </p>

<p>Capa's soldier caught in the act of being killed goes beyond that single individual and is symbolic of all soldier's being slaughtered. Is he dehumanized by being symbolic of all soldiers on any side of any conflict that also happen to be human?</p>

<p>As for the title of my old lady, I was just quoting my subject.</p>

<p><em>What a shame!</em> Don't cry for me, Argentina...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just for the asking... Paul Stand's photo of the Blind Woman, Walker Evans in the subway, countless shots by the masters and mistresses of the art that directly or indirectly engage the subject in just as many countless ways... the whole oeuvre, genre, tradition, back catalogs and so on are comprised of images that would be censored under the more censorious folks who have bothered to participate in this forum.</p>

<p>When people are photographed, in the best street shots, they are no longer who they are, but have become symbols that will, hopefully, outlast this withering flesh... Winogrand used to smile at his people who objected to him and say, "I have made you immortal!" and then go on his way...</p>

<p>Anyhow, this business about the photographer, the public, perception, misperception, assumed and unassumed bad behavior, etc... is old news and, as so many have written already:</p>

<p>Use your noggin, deal with the people as best you can, according to the situation, and don't be a big pouting, potty mouthed turd...</p>

<p>Fred, so much of what is acceptable, irresponsible, etc., is in the mind of the beholder, and give all parties their due--even the devil--what more can you do but meet the world we document with a civil mind.</p>

<p>As for the idiots who comment on unflattering or pictures that are perceived to be exploiting whomever, they're not my responsibility. They're hydra-headed and this is where Mommy has to come in (in the form of a moderator) and expunge expunge expunge...</p>

<p>Also, consider this, people... it's not advised we photograph when Mars is in Retrograde...</p><div></div>

<p>Also might add, Ray, that oftentimes people celebrate their anonymity by revealing the idiot within...<br>

Also might add, Ray, that you're right on both accounts... the coarseness of culture and that you're getting old...<br>

Also might add, Marc, you made some excellent observations on Fi's photos...<br>

Also might add, John Elder, if those kids were armed, you'd be a dead man...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There's the subject being photographed and then there's the public eying the photographer as he photographs. My object wasn't to exploit or whatever... As Dave said, you see a picture and you take it.</p><div></div>

<p>Dave and Todd, thanks for posting... here's how, one day, I exploited...</p><div></div>

<p>A FEW RANDOM THOUGHTS BY Fi (Fi Rondo)</p>

<p>In a way I can see how street photographers can be looked upon as poachers... We take what's not ours and give nothing back...</p>

<p>On the other hand, we can be seen as preservers of a certain time and a certain place: this is how people lived, how they dressed, how they conducted themselves in their daily lives... Even the worst street photographer will leave a trail behind that might intrigue another generation...</p>

<p>And if we had 3 hands, there's the artistic contribution that has been made in the past and will be made in the future. (But pictures are taken in the present (which does gum up the works a bit)... At its best, street photography captures life's intangible moments, the ones that make life worth living, or the ones that are often too fleeting...</p>

<p>So it's good to have a record of this... but try explaining this to someone who, frankly, doesn't give a damn...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hey Josh... don't tell anyone, but I think we pretty much said the same thing...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Josh, if we were to stop and consider the validity of what people believe we'd stop taking pictures altogether. People believe all sorts of things and usually they'll project the worst intentions on the photographer (any photographer, no matter how benign, upfront, friendly, etc...). There are things you can do to minimize their suspicions, just as you can exercise the proper common sense that will minimize your grief...</p>

<p>Ton has it right about the intentions of the photographer. We've been through this before with the homeless, the handicapped, etc., but fat people is an addition to the list... If the shot is just to show some fat slob gorging himself (or herself, let's be politically correct on this) to death it's not to be advised (in my humble opinion)...</p>

<p>Speaking of wheelchairs:</p>

<p>A wheelchair shot that comes to mind is the one by Meyerowitz, a guy is parked near a mailbox and he's looking at a woman traipse by in a short skirt. The look of anguish on the guy's face is heartbreaking and the viewer can empathize with him and his condition... Some would look at it and say it's exploitative. Some would say everything and anything is exploitative. In this you have to cultivate your senses to see the difference between an honest portrayal of humanity and treating subject as object.</p>

<p>So, I come full circle, if you stopped to consider the subject, the potential viewer, the PC police, and what your grandmother would say, you'd be so whacked out about what you were doing, you'd stop shooting on the street.</p>

<p>This is not to give full license... there has to be an awareness of what you're doing and why you're doing it, and--the intangible of all intangibles--how you're doing it...</p>

<p>The photography here seems to be beside the point... but the stories they tell--flat as some of them are--round out the picture of a town in crisis. One quote which I'll paraphrase: <em>Whenever anyone gives directions in Rockford, they always use landmarks that used to be here...</em> That's pretty telling and gave me of a sense of the place and the people than any of the photographs could have.</p>

<p>But the pictures? Sort of dull...and the voices? Just as dull and flat.</p>

<p>I have to ask, John... what is it you find so challenging here?</p>

<p>One man's opinion to another...</p>

<p>Clive, thanks for the links... the raw video said it all... and nice b / w from Delano...</p>

<p>It's hard to duck what you can't see coming at you... I'm thinking of the radiation reports we're getting on the news in the US... be well out there... (I take it you took the 10K?)</p>

<p>Ton, regarding conspiracy theories... most conspiracy theories are based in fact... or I should say, <em>information</em>... where they go astray is in the conclusions that they draw from such information... There are examples in history of real conspiracies and plots to overthrow governments, kings and queens, etc... A conspiracy is a bunch of people who are<em> consipring </em>to work together to produce a tangible result... They often gather in caves or basements or attics (with creepy lighting)... or, more sinister yet, at cafes and speak in code and wear strange insignia on their lapels...</p>

<p>Anyhow, Ton, this has nothing to do with photography. Thanks again for the Fenton link. I'd seen some of the pictures before but didn't know they were taken by the same photographer...</p>

<p>Clive, how's the situation in Tokyo? Be well, old sport...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jeremy, Pack a clean change of clothing... you're about to be sent to re-education camp...</p>

<p>Quick question: from the letter you posted (which I would take down if I were you) such violations are open to interpretation. This seems to be the legal system you bought into by agreeing to live in the dorms.</p>

<p>There are a couple of books that might be worth looking into...<br>

One is The Good Soldier Schweik by Jaroslav Hasek...<br>

The other one (which you might find entertaining): Oleanna by David Mamet<br>

And finally: How To Win Friends & Influence People by Dale Carnegie</p>

<p>Good luck out there, Jeremy...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Elmo, there's a more noble intent behind a lot of the war photographers than making a name for oneself... Robert Capa, for instance, and James Natchtwey come to mind. Roughly speaking, they're idealists in thinking that by allowing others to witness the suffering that comes of war, that suffering will be alleviated and war will cease to be glorified.</p>

<p>I'm in the middle of a great book that deals with this (I mean Great with a capital 'G')... it's called "A Cruel Radiance" written by Susie Linfield. There are chapters are Capa and Natchwey, the Abu Ghraid images and their Islamic counterparts, and China's Cultural Revolution, among other things... Here's the link to Li Zhensheng's photos of China during that time:</p>

<p>http://contact.photoshelter.com/gallery/Li-Zhensheng-Red-Color-News-Soldier-Exhibition/G0000lojZ1uExtck/1</p>

<p>Also, Elmo, you don't need to go to battle to know how deceptive photography can be. The other day this very pleasant Irish family was on their way to Boston's very pleasant Saint Patrick's parade, and I took a photo of them on the subway. One little girl came out looking like a Diane Arbus freak. Meanwhile, she was a rather cute, normal little kid with nothing existential about her.</p>

<p>Ton, about "conspiracy theories"... the mainstream media's intent is to slant the news in a certain angle. This may not speak of an overarching, sinister conspiracy, per se, but it's intent is not merely to report the news. The intent is to sway public opinion, support certain actions of the government (or oppose them), and, basically, play on people's emotions and fears (rather than reason).</p>

<p>The cannonball incident is important because it speaks of a certain inclination we all have to enhance reality, whether in wartime or the home front.</p>

<p>Hey Ton, great link... well worth the wait...</p>

<p>All legality aside, Jeremy, using a photo (especially one taken under protest) and then posting it in public with your contact information may not have been the best idea. But don't worry about it... learn from this error and forge on to greater things. You're young yet and Stony Brook (I know the place well) will regret this someday. So, dust off your sandals and keep shooting!</p>

<p>John Elder, that dog shot's a good one... don't exactly see the relationships between the one I posted and your reply to it, though... (I could be missing something, though... like coffee)...</p>

<p>Barry... the worm's eye...</p><div></div>

<p>Ton... <em>what we have here is a failure to communicate</em> (pretty sure that's from Cool Hand Luke)... anyhow, every medium has its pitfalls and because this medium is words without inflection, people tend to focus on the Word rather than the spirit in which those words were written.</p>

<p>McLuhan was right in that the medium of communication dictates how we communicate. Sometimes the communication is spot on, other times clumsy, other times vituperative or messy... all in a day's work. But you can't force something to be more than what it is... The S&D forum has taken on a life of its own but there's plenty of room for it to evolve...</p>

<p>I don't really see an "in crowd" here... whenever anyone new posts something that catches the eye, oftentimes there'll be a positive reaction. (Although, if all you're looking for is a positive reaction then you best send the picture to your Mom.)</p>

<p>Fred, courage comes in many varieties and perhaps you hit upon possibly the most courageous act in life and art... the courage to recognize one's emotional vulnerability. That can happen on the street or face to face with the subject of your choice. Nice nuance.</p>