The Shadow

Not interested in joining your league, Phil, or your team or division. By the way, AI might not be able to create a cat video like that. Did someone here say or suggest that AI will do everything humans can do. I thought some of us were just saying AI will produce art. It likely won’t produce Monet’s water lilies ... thankfully. It will likely be much more innovative than repeating tropes of the past and of humans.

I can’t and won’t speak for Ludmilla, but I understand what you’re saying about amalgam of meaning and street photography not being about visual puns or a distillation of superficial serendipitous facts. I understand these to be your rules or preferences, just as Turpin and Jorgensen have their rules and preferences and Brad has his judgments and preferences many times stated about surreptitious street shooting and sneaking shots. What bothers me is the hypocrisy of laughing at and judging others for the very same kind behavior and attitudes that those doing the judging display. Those doing the judging simply think their rules, preferences, restrictions and judgments are better than everyone else’s.

It’s obvious you’re pretty positive about that. Being positive about something doesn’t make you right about it, though. At the time, I may not have. Yes, when I have no arguments to make I may very well check out ... instead of ranting about unrelated-to-the-subject-at-hand echo chambers and using other deflective tactics. After checking out, something new may be said that I want to address or further arguments may get formed and I’ll return, still not going on inexplicable, thoughtless, knee-jerk rants about political echo chambers having nothing to do with the discussion.

Philosophy and science don’t fit your black and white political categories easily. We’re talking AI and art, not politics. Yes, everything, including AI and art, have political dimensions, but no need to go off on one of your typical political rants just to deflect from your poor reasoning and lack of understanding about the potential of AI for making great art.

You’re a peer, who was invited to discuss and flesh out a point you made.

On AI, reading academic and scientific articles on the subject and talking to a couple of friends who are involved with it as well as a fairly good working knowledge of the philosophy of mind and consciousness. In science and in philosophy, I try to read both more conservative and more liberal authors to get both sides of the story. In the philosophy of mind, I as often agree with the more conservative thinkers like Searle as with more liberal thinkers.

As you have noticed, I’m talking about your writings beyond this thread. So it ought to be obvious “often” wasn’t based on this thread alone. It was based on my having read many of your posts over the years. I didn’t say I hold them dear, but I do read and digest what you say. We’ve sparred enough over the last several years and I’ve often read you carefully as an aid in formulating opposing thoughts, which I often have. Not agreeing with you doesn’t lead to my not paying attention to you and none of this should translate to my holding your thoughts dear, though I understand that characterization is just another means of snark condescension. In any case your condescension hasn’t actually addressed my points about restriction in street photography not primarily being due to wanting a comfort zone, but I just assume you shot from the hip on saying that and have no intellectual justification for it other than, of course, condescension, the seeming comfort zone you, yourself, have settled into.

There’s little left of the old days of PN!

You’re not hard to read, Brad.

You get amused often. It’s how you started the thread and you return to it often. But it’s really condescension in a not very good disguise. Anyway, some of the more self-impressed and vocal street photographers on PN, even ones with good eyes and street photo instincts, show repeated content-oriented and aesthetic restrictions in their very unchanging bodies of work. Those may be cases where your suggestion of comfort as the raison d’etre of restriction in street photography could apply. On the other hand, there have been and still are street photographers on PN (I’m remembering Billy K. very fondly and I think Phil’s street work is a good example of this) who seem committed to and empowered by their own visions without falling into aesthetic and visual traps and habits.

Isn’t that ultimately what Ian is probably asking. I took him to be asking to get personal input from each of us. He’s not writing the Street Photographer’s Bible. He’s seeking out fellow photographers’ thoughts. It’s not impossible to answer the OP. Just talk about your own impression of street photography. By doing that and looking at the work of others and hearing the thoughts of others maybe your own thinking about street photography will be affected.

There’s plenty of great street photos taken inside restaurants, shops, churches ...

Hahaha. Doublespeak. They were obviously not naturally imposed since photography existed through Pictorialism long before these supposedly natural rules were recognized and exists long after the f64 rules became a memory. What the f64 group recognized was that photography didn’t have to mimic painting to be a legitimate art form and they did think it was a less artificial and more natural way to use a camera. They weren’t right or wrong. It was a belief that motivated some great photography. Not much about using a camera is natural so I don’t buy theories of what’s more natural in photography or art. Manipulation is manipulation and it’s quite natural for humans to practice it in art. There’s nothing more inherently natural about practicing straight or manipulated photography. The f64 group came up with an approach to photography based on a passionate set of beliefs (not truths) just as the Pictorialists who they were reacting to. Neither way is more naturally imposed by the medium of photography.

Let’s look at it this way, Brad, so as not to be obtuse for others reading who aren’t familiar with your prior writing. You introduced this discussion by laughing at two photographers who created drama by insisting on particular restrictions for a group and then you went on to suggest that such restrictions are made out of a desire for comfort. I presented examples of cases where your suggested motivation doesn’t hold. One of my examples points directly at your own often talked about restrictive use of a cell phone camera for a period of time. Now, you want to arbitrarily eliminate what you’ve chosen as your own restriction from the discussion and don’t even address the motivations of an important historical photographic group. These undermine what you claim is the motivation for restrictions.

I don’t think I did miss your point. Choice of camera was not my only example, but it’s something to think about when judging others as restricting photographic practices and approaches for themselves to be doing it out of a desire for comfort. Why would we arbitrarily exclude restrictive temporary choices of camera from the discussion?

I think there can be more to it when it’s practiced by someone wanting to explore rather than feel comfort. Limiting oneself, for instance, by shooting with only an iPhone for a period of time, doesn’t have to mean resting in a comfort zone, though it might. The f64 group wasn’t formed for comfort, mostly the opposite. It was a reaction to what Weston and other photographers considered the disguise of Pictorialism that photography had been wearing and grown comfortable with. Their self-imposed rules arose out of thoughtfulness, commitment, aesthetics and passion, not the desire for comfort.

the intersection of drama queen and street photography ...

I love movies but don’t rely on them for as much of my thinking as some others. AI without the input of data does not remain mute. AI without the input of data is not AI. It’s not like there’s some shell or body waiting around for data to give it life. This isn’t the movies. A bicycle is a vehicle, not a tool.

DEGREE is the key for me. I don’t think the degree of sophistication and independence of a camera is comparable to an AI system and I don’t see AI as a tool. That’s because it’s programmed to process information in ways much faster than humans and in ways that allow for countless permutations to be dealt with almost instantaneously. No, this is not a tool by any means. It’s a new form of technology that doesn’t easily fit into old paradigms. Of course, while an AI system may not be as independent as a human (and humans aren’t always as independent as we like to think), it’s far more independent than a camera once the programmer lets it rip. As I said, no comparison. Well, except for one, neither a camera nor AI has a soul. That’s the only point of comparison and irrelevant to my thinking about art. Again, the concept of soul is relevant to a lot of art. The existence of souls is not!

Maybe a nothingburger ... unless you’re into gossip. Like I said, there might be some substantive issues here as well, like looking at all the content and stylistic “rules” or practices photographers often follow even while standing by the cliché that “there are no rules.” First, it’s worth noting again that such practices as Turpin and Jorgensen insist on have an important place in photographic history. Why shouldn’t there be a group dedicated to this particular approach to street photography? Our own Monday in Nature group is quite strict about what can qualify as Nature (a Friday thread was added for those who didn’t like the restrictions). At first, I was put off by the Monday rules, until I realized how certain self-imposed restrictions can actually develop a kind of discipline and eye that can inspire and foster creativity. Members of a specific group are free to start another group when the rules or practices of the first group no longer work for them, just like was done in forming the Friday Nature group and just like was done as people left the f64 group. Second, what sometimes is said and what photos show can be very different, and it’s always good to be a little more self aware in evolving as a photographer, if evolving is what we want. Why is the author of a given photo often easy to recognize? Because there are particular content and stylistic choices that seem to recur, sometimes with uncanny lack of deviation. Those might not be such overt practices as Turpin and Jorgensen are insisting on. But they can sometimes be more insidious than what Turpin and Jorgensen are doing with more self awareness. In short, the kinds of out-in-the-open and consciously-adhered-to rules being observed by Turpin and Jorgensen seem less of an issue to me than the kinds of unconscious and habitual practices many photographers fall into without ever realizing it ...

Ian, the farm in New Hampshire is a small residential community for people with emotional and developmental challenges. Following is the jacket text and Intro copy of a book I produced a few years back. I guess it can serve as a response to both your request for my commentary on the farm and for my thoughts on the place of people with disabilities in society. BOOK JACKET This book is about a lifesharing community nestled in the idyllic countryside of southern New Hampshire. Its residents are co-workers and their families, people in need of care due to disabilities, volunteers, and other household members. I’ve visited many times in all seasons over a period of almost ten years. I come with the express purpose of taking photos which serve as a document of this thriving community and hopefully provide a glimpse into the spirit of sharing and support that a group of people living, working, and loving together can create and sustain. And I come away, gratefully, with much more than photographs. I’ve been given an appreciation for what each of us has to offer to others and to a group as a whole, and a very tangible understanding of how much grace and ability there is in disability. I think of the community with optimism and a sense of possibility. From the simple tasks of environmentally-savvy farming, caring for farm animals, daily chores and friendly encounters grows intimacy, connectedness and light. Even simple conversations take on a different aura, sometimes more like poetry than prose. It can be the tone and rhythms that are as engaging and persuasive as the actual words spoken, having a sense and meaning beyond those words. Together, we hum a familiar tune. I am amazed by the practical groundedness of life on the farm. And I see how that’s balanced by being able to lead with feelings and by embracing unabashed expressions and gestures of delight and wonder. I am swept into the kind of genuineness and spontaneity that is so present and moving here as I, too, am welcomed and loved. INTRODUCTION There’s a quiet, crisp beauty in winter light. A cabin stands next to us in the woods. Brisk winds nip at fingers and mittens provide warmth. Helping hands work. Tea brews on an outdoor fire and the fresh smell of mint rises with the smoke. Trees are felled, branches cut, wood is split, gathered, and stacked for colder nights. Shoulder to shoulder, tasks are undertaken and challenges met, all with good cheer . . . and a few very rosy cheeks. Work gets done with focus and purposefulness made more special by smiles, camaraderie and satisfaction. Lunch is being prepared in a homey, oven-warmed kitchen, the chopping and dicing punctuated by laughter, the vegetables having made their way directly from the biodynamically-farmed gardens to the colorful crocks and bowls that hold hearty soups and crunchy salads. Bakers next door mix and knead dough for bread served fresh and hot, while oatmeal-raisin cookies still bake for snacks and desserts. A group gathers in the garden room for making pottery, their hands modeling clay, working side-by-side, their surroundings earthy and colorful. Others enjoy a morning retreat into Eurythmy, the art of expression through movement. The gestures mirroring sounds and rhythms of speech, the practice of Eurythmy is a kind of music made visual, a rejuvenating harmony. Watching it taught, I am taken by its calming effect, the emotional centering and grounding it elicits, the physicality it seems to enhance, as if allowing people more access to their bodies as instruments and as means to a deeper sense of self and well-being in the world. One can’t help but feel the bond everyone’s developed with the animals. On any given day, P is found sweeping or shoveling in the stalls of the barn, working, cleaning and sorting supplies, never failing to show off his wide and joyful grin. J seems to be forever relocating cows and J Jr. carries buckets of water and feed to the pigs. M collects eggs from the chicken coop and presents them, with such panache, to the cooks in the kitchen. E and D help groom the horses with great love and care. Home life and togetherness are at the core of the farm and the life-affirming community it fosters. Whether it’s a quiet moment between E and T at Sunday brunch or D rapt in conversation with D2 in anticipation of an afternoon of sports or N and K chopping vegetables in the kitchen down the hall while J and V cheerfully set the table for supper, the interconnections are like the enchanting spider webs just outside, dotted with morning dewdrops catching rays of sunlight. Four houses provide warmth, coziness, cooperation, and add several adorable kids to the community. Long before breakfast, co-workers and volunteers are brewing coffee, simmering oatmeal, scrambling eggs, and organizing the day’s schedules. We come to the table as a family, rested and thankful for good food and friends to share it with. Houses are made of wood and other materials, a fact well known at the farm because these houses are personally maintained and built, often from the ground up. So there’s an intimacy with boards and paint and studs and flooring, with the energy-efficient flow of electricity, water, and heat. But homes are made of the people living in the houses, reading, making crafts together, folding laundry, sharing music, and relaxing in quiet times. A home at Plowshare provides privacy and a protective space and the knowledge and comfort that someone is always nearby. The seasons at the farm are a constant reminder of both continuity and change. The coziness of fireplaces and the quiet of fresh blankets of snow give way to budding green fields and the brightness of flowers in the gardens. The joy and longer days of summer give way to the waning vibrancy and more muted passions of fall. Life is simple and rich, grounded in practice and transcendent in spirit. To all of you in the community . . . you’ve invited me into your homes, made me welcome, fed me, talked with me, sang and danced with me, worked beside me, and smiled for my camera. Thank you!

Are you talking about quality of screen images or prints? That would be crucial information, I think.

I’m thinking of some of the greats who formed and then left the f64 group, which began with very distinct and restrictive notions of what photography was or should be. Restrictions aren’t necessarily a problem, especially when accompanied by thoughtfulness, passion and talent. And then what so often happens is a bit of contentiousness and people move on. Even the richest groups disband, sometimes with heapfuls of temperament. Drama queens? Hmmm ... Van Gogh, Tchaikovsky. Hey, even some of my best friends are. I think I may even have dabbled in it once or twice. No one else here?

Thanks for posting. I had just seen this earlier in my morning romp through the WP. What’s interesting to me, photographically, about this is the uninterestingness of the photo itself. It could be almost anything that gives off or reflects a bit of colored light. The photo, to me, gets all its interest (which is CONSIDERABLE) from the story behind it and from knowledge of what it is. A case, to me, of a photo that doesn’t stand on its own and yet is a strong and meaningful photo in context and with knowledge. It’s an evidentiary photo and one that, with the accompanying info of what it is, sparks the human imagination and ties a scientific phenomenon to the imagination in powerful ways by making tangible something seemingly so intangible. Daniel Marone says a mouthful when comparing the amount of data collected by the telescopes to the “entire selfie collection over a lifetime for 40,000 people.” I’m sure many would amusedly think of such a selfie collection as a black hole in and of itself! But selfies may just be a phenomenon rich with potential information about the human condition not necessarily to be dismissed. Will future generations learn as much about our times and culture from our collective selfies as they will from the many much better photos hanging in galleries and museums?