Re: [Leica] Today's Great Photographers (Values Question)

[Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>]

Maybe I haven't followed this, but it seems to me this has little to do
with Leica photography and a lot to do with Leon's personal passion. It
sure does occupy a lot of bandwidth and, from the LUGgers I know, most are
nuts and bolts kind of people.

<<<<<George Huczek responded:

What a pity indeed!  I await the outcome with great anticipation, longing
to see what core values make up the "value vision" of relatively
"successful photographers"!  (Yawn)>>>>>>>

I'm certainly not going to tell you folks out there to not participate in
this because this is NOT a moderated list and even if it were, I wouldn't
be (and wouldn't want to be) the moderator. However, after reading the
following post by Leon, I've got to say that perhaps one or two LUGgers
might have a chance of understanding what was said. But more important...
Does anyone want to. Just read the following sentences:

<<<This is the middle level of valuation or mesovaluation.  In the value
cascade there is yet another refinement of valuation into more narrowly
focused attitudinal valuation.  Thus we have a cascade of value structures in
"cognitive space" begining with broad band valuation  (I, E, S valuation), to
highly focused attitudinal valuation.>>>

Could someone please come back to the 20th century and explain to me the
relevance of all of this. Maybe if I can understand what this has to do
with the LUG (Leica USER Group) I could understand it better. As I said,
there's a lot of us that are the "nuts and bolts" type. Maybe even all of us.

Jim

ps... I figure if someone can post their kind of stuff, I can post my kind
of stuff. R, M, tripods, 15mm, 280mm ASPH, winder, DOF, E200, Velvia,
Ilfochrome, soft release, frame lines, HM, cable release, incident, spot,
goggles, Adox KB14 (ah yes), Rodinal, diffusion, CC10M, E6, lines,
contrast, gamma, LTM...

Hang in there George. Stay awake!

Leon, please pardon my attitude, this just seems way more than slightly off
topic. But if you truly have interest, and can find LUGgers who can decrypt
the message, go for it. Did you try using a spell checker?

Jim again


>
>Slightly Off Topic Discussion Follows:  Apologize for word count.  I know the
>delete key is merciful and use it abundantly myself and trust others will
vote
>with this key as well; but, for those having an interest in values and
>photography I offer the following:  
>
>You ask whether an identification of "differences in core values" might then

>result in the equivalent of aptitude testing applicable to one's work world
>and/or personal world.  The answer is yes, if a special effort is made.  This
>is far more than I'm proposing here.  It is something I've done in another
>time and place.  
>
>For present purposes our valuemetric goal is to identify  how "successful"
>photographers value making use of our ability to measure the three core
>dimensions of value.
>
>What are the three core dimensions of value: 
>
>   They are Intrinsic (I), Extrinsic (E) and Systemic (S).  The three make up
>protovaluation.  From this base or foundation of broad valuation, belief
>system modulation and focusing produces more sharply defined means/ends
>values.  This is the middle level of valuation or mesovaluation.  In the
value
>cascade there is yet another refinement of valuation into more narrowly
>focused attitudinal valuation.  Thus we have a cascade of value structures in
>"cognitive space" begining with broad band valuation  (I, E, S valuation), to
>highly focused attitudinal valuation.  My work is at the level of I, E, S
>valuation.  I'm asking the question what are the I, E, S patterns or
>signatures of successful photographers.  
>
>What are I, E, and S:
>
>When looking at the "world".... Intrinsic value vision (I) centers on
persons;
>Extrinsic value visions (E) centers on the practical and social and S value
>vision centers on concepts, thought, patterns, composition, systems and
order.
>When looking at the "self" these value lenses of the "mind" mean something
>different, which doesn't concern us here.  
>
>I would hypothesize that photographic skill should correlate with a
>hierarchically ordering of these dimensions as follows:   I > E > S.  We
might
>also expect them to be in relative blance (as to absolute values), with one
>among them standing out as slightly stronger than the rest giving some
measure
>of individuality and unjiqueness to the photographer.  Testing twenty
>photographers would give us as least the outlines of  the I, E, and S
profiles
>of photographic success.  We would have in hand  some measure of the
>valuemetric signature of the right stuff, so to speak!   In the real world,
>however, all we'd have is a  relative deepening of our understanding and at
>best only an approximation of the value vison of a good photographer!
>(Remember, a good photographer is more of the expert at  concept selection
and
>one who finds it easier to fulfill his or her concept of a good picture where
>the image captured correlates highly with his or her concept more  often than
>the less skillful photographer.  

>
>So much for this introduction to value vision and photography,  If others
have
>questions why, then, I'd be pleased to hear from you.  However, I will be
away
>from my computer Wednesday through Sunday attendling to other matters.
>
>Leon
>LP6@aol.com
>
>Axiology6@aol.com
>