Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/08/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Unfortunately the show and tell of pix on the LUG is done on a very very low level. I find it amazing that so many of us are experts on financial areas of photography but have never taken a class in photography of any kind ever. Never had a portfolio or "tray". I think people who have other hobbies take them more seriously. Leisure time is 10X more valuable than work time. But it would seem that photography is for very lazy people who like to shuffle around an area of their personal total net worth. In any photography class I ever took at any level a teacher would lay out a framework of how criticism was done in class. It was not a mindless pat on the back thing of people showing each other their kids and their flowers in their garden or the cute girls in the neighborhood. That gets dealt with after the first class and never seen again. We need to disenthrall ourselves. See the big picture. Get with the program. Work it. -------------------- Mark William Rabiner Photography mark at rabinergroup.com > From: Philippe Amard <philippe.amard at sfr.fr> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:55:29 +0200 (CEST) > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Searching? > > Message du : 27/08/2010 De : "kyle cassidy " <leicaslacker at gmail.com> A : > "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> Copie ? : Sujet : Re: [Leica] > Searching? Richard is correct "any good image should be good without > words". The idea it is that it's possible, probably, likely that at some > point if your image survives, it will not survive in context -- images will be > viewed by people who don't speak the language any writing was written in, > images may be removed from context and reproduced, we have museums filled with > medieval and ancient paintings depicting things art historians can only > speculate about -- they're either good paintings or they're not. Good for > whom? To what intent? Seen with which century's eyes? Just think that in the > middle ages people first focused on the background and then only then > looked > at the center of an image. and there was no perspective as such. It is all > about conventions. I'm not sure we're talking about the same things, share > the same concepts: in my eyes, IMHO as the Lug will have it put, George's > last > offerings are real art, surpassing in that most of the photographs I've > seen > on the LUG over the years. This is not a defence of George's talents, which > are certain to me. It is a defense of another artistic form where words and > images are intimately intermingled, which requires two sets of skills, > those > of a photographer, and those of a poet. Not meant to offense anyone > here. The gear, the document, the pixels and/or the subject are irrelevant > if there's no soul. George's posts (and of course other Luggers') do own one, > or more ;-) Most respectfully. Philippe Your photographs need to be > good photographs -- Dorthea Lang's "Migrant Mother" comes to mind -- it > doesn't need any text to tell it's story, you can tell by looking at it -- > eyes, expressions, the destitute context.... Imagine instead the photo looked > like this: http://northshorecollaborativelaw.com/images/two_kids_w_mom.jpg > and had the caption "this mother and her children are part of the great exodus > caused by the dust bowl, they are seeking work in a migrant camp, their life > is very difficult" -- one tells the story by itself, the other needs to be > propped up with text to convey the story. This isn't to say that images and > text can't go together, or else national geographic would have no words -- but > your photos have to be able to still tell their story if the words are > stripped away. On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:10 PM, George Lottermoser wrote: > > and twice the chance of being on as well. > > On Aug 27, 2010, at 2:16 AM, > Mark Rabiner wrote: > >> To me a person can be in danger of having a > delusional ideal of the value >> of >> their images. >> Its also possible they > can have great images but be delusional about the >> value of their writing > that goes along side these images. >> So that's twice the chance of being > off. >> >> -------------------- >> Mark William Rabiner >>> From: Lottermoser > George >>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group >>> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:13:27 > -0500 >>> To: Leica Users Group >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Searching? >>> >>> > Perhaps I received Kyle's message "wrong." >>> >>> I certainly agree with your > interpretation. >>> >>> >>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Richard Man > wrote: >>> >>>> I think what you say below is different from what Kyle means. > If I may: >>>> any >>>> good image should be good without words, but some > images become more >>>> powerful, and perhaps a DIFFERENT image, when paired > with the right >>>> > words. _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See > http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > information _______________________________________________ Leica Users > Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information