RE: [Leica] Leica Pornographers of the world Unite!

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Hey, Paul....From a technical standpoint, I think these photos ARE better
than the vast majority of stuff that gets posted and, as you point out,
about which we make pleasant meaningless comments. I am often astounded by
the mediocre stuff that people put up for public display - and I'm sure
there are those who feel that way about what I post ;-).

And I also agree with you about the fact that these are at least "up front"
about what they are, rather than being coy, etc.

But as to the direct comments from people - including myself, the
photographer did, among other things, ask if they qualify as "art," which is
a far cry from asking, "aren't these wonderful photos of my beloved
grandchildren?"

It would be great if folks recognized that at 72 dpi we will never be able
to compare lenses, judge the "razor sharpness" of that ASPHAPOSHARPILUX, or
in any other way judge much more than  composition and subject choice. It
would also be great if folks could look at what they are about to put up,
then step back and take a look at a photo book or two, a magazine or three,
and some of the work posted by folks who earn their living in photography,
as reconsider posting.

But the above isn't going to happen, as this is, in essence, a "club"
comprised of people who, for one reason or another, either use Leicas or
lust after them. Some of us are "amateurs," some are "pros," and there is a
vast middle ground. So we will undoubtedly go on asking for comment on work
which we would be smarter not exposing to public view...:-)

B. D.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Paul
> Chefurka
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 9:38 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Pornographers of the world Unite!
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:47:16 -0400, "B. D. Colen"
> <bdcolen@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >For the simple reason, since you ask, is that all they show me are two
> >faceless people having sex in shadows. "Arty," maybe, but they
> don't tell me
> >anything other than that. And, yes, I would ask the same question about
> >many, many, many landscapes, and many street scenes.As in, yah, that's a
> >mountain, so what's your point? Or, yah, there are a lot of
> people on that
> >crowded street, and there's a woman smoking, so?
> >
> >Further, I would suggest that someone does not post shots of a
> couple having
> >intercourse simply to get us to comment on f stops, etc....
>
> Sorry if it seemed as though I was picking on you, B.D. - I'm really
> not.  Your comments simply provided a convenient entry point for these
> thoughts.
>
> What bothers me is that so many banal photos are exposed for comment
> on the LUG, and seem to slide by with gentle pats on the head.  Then
> along come some pictures that happen to involve (heaven forfend) sex,
> and the supportive (or at least restrained) attitudes we take for
> granted here seem to go out the window.
>
> I also don't recall Michael asking us to comment on technical issues
> per se.  He asked for comments and critiques, no qualifiers attached.
> You may impute whatever motives you wish, of course, but for me there
> is little difference in asking for critiques for this kind of work or
> critiques of any other genre - especially when the request for
> criticism is phrased so open-endedly.
>
> It's interesting to me that we are so much more prepared to forgive
> artistically or technically clumsy pictures when the subject makes us
> say "Awww" than when it makes us say "Ewww".  While I understand that
> this is a result of cultural conditioning, it is still - to me - a
> disappointing indication that we are letting our subjective reactions
> colour our objective responses.
>
> Lastly, I must admit that I'm much more at ease with the frankness of
> these photos than the coy "boudoir" stuff that has been displayed to
> the LUG in the past.  There is, for me, less of a sense that a sly
> photographer is trying to slip something past my defenses, or that a
> timid photographer is too nervous to reach out and touch his subject
> matter directly - relying instead on innuendo to convey the message.
>
> Of course, those are my very personal reactions.  The pictures made me
> feel uncomfortable, but then I like that.  At least they didn't leave
> me feeling indifferent, and for me that is one essential quality of
> good communication.
>
> Paul Chefurka
>
>