Re: [Leica] It's baaaaaaaaaaaack--and frooooont

[Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>]

Donna-Lee Phillips wrote:
> 
> Ted Grant wrote:
> 
> > That's all well and good Guy, but tell us the truth now, what are you
> on?
> > ;-)
> > ted
> 
> I guess you are as confused as I am.
> 
> > P.S. In Muslim countries with strict laws, a woman is likely to get
> >  stoned if she commits adultery. In Indonesia it's the other way
> around!
> 
>                             =====
> > Ray,
> 
> >  are you saying she will be stoned if she doesn't commit ;-)
> 
> I think things are becoming clearer now...
> 
> > To stretch an analogy to its limits, how would you feel if you were
> > strolling down the street past the local tailor shop, and the tailor
> > dashed out and took your inside leg measurement without permission.
> > After all, he must be allowed the freedom to practice his profession.
> 
> In order to commit adultery in some Muslim countries, a woman has to be
> stoned. In others, the man has to be stoned. Personally, I've had times
> when committing fidelity went better if either partner or both were a
> little stoned, but what do I know?
> 
> Sorry... I've just ruined my whole argument because I keep picturing
> Alan's stretched analogy. Damned difficult to stroll down a street
> without exposing one's inseam to any randy local tailor. Did I say
> randy? I meant random.
> 
> Not having committed adultery OR being stoned, I'll return to a subject
> I've been following with some interest--the turf war between
> "photojournalists" and "street photographers". I think Alan's comparison
> of the compulsive photographer as a 'territory marker' is close to the
> mark.
> 
> But even closer, IMHO, is the fact that photography requires placing a
> barrier--the camera--between the photographer and the event--or life. To
> me the usefulness of the Leica has always been that it interposed the
> least intrusive or distancing barrier, since at least as I used it
> putting the tool in front of my face wasn't usually required to make a
> photograph. Photographing often replaces seeing in the moment, as we can
> always look at what was there when we get home and develop the film.
> 
> If you doubt me, trying taking a trip somewhere you are certain you will
> not ever be able to visit again, and going without a camera.
> Cold-turkey. It's an extremely interesting discipline. No, framing
> everything with your fingers doesn't count. I have a friend who isn't a
> photographer, but who constantly 'frames things' as we trek, telling me
> what would make a good photograph. He finally stopped when I threatened
> to commit bodily harm, but I can still see his eye darting around
> mentally composing the real world into 'shots'.
> 
> No doubt everyone has heard the old joke about the proud grandmother
> wheeling the pram who replies, when the neighbor says "Oh.... what a
> beautiful baby!"... "That's nothing. You should see his photograph."
> 
> It is amusing to listen to Photojournalists posture as though their
> profession was one for which ordination was usual, and Street
> Photographers respond like guerillas. I have never been comfortable
> photographing strangers, as I have always felt that it was an invasion
> of their private space, although this was how photography was taught me.
> I realize that the legal argument about whether someone is likely to be
> newsworthy or not is where the line is drawn on photographing people in
> public places... to the individual, his/her life IS newsworthy, whether
> star or stumblebum.
> 
> In those 'primitive' cultures which resist being photographed because
> the image captures a piece of the subject's soul, there is an argument
> worth hearing, even though it is far too late to apply in most of the
> world.
> 
> For decades I, like most of you, required a camera to 'capture the
> moment'. When I could no longer use a camera--a situation which may
> change soon-- imagine my surprise when I discovered that the moments
> happened anyway?
> 
> I'm tranquil.
> 
> DL

Donna everyone including myself are takin by your breezy writing style but I'm
going to make an  "emperor with new clothes" point because in your long post
there is not one single point you made which i happen agree with.
Sorry that friend of yours drove you nuts framing everything with his fingers
but I am aware of living life from out behind my camera and am not about to go
on a "trip somewhere you are certain you will not ever be able to visit again"
and not bring a camera. I find that concept weird and not at all cute.
For some reason i just don't find having a camera on my person or even taking
pictures with it as a barrier between myself and my surroundings and it does not
keep me from experiencing things fully.
And a causal look at the body of great photography will find half of it of
people unaware they are being photographed. Unposed.
To find this an invasion of their private space is just plain weird is my strong opinion.

If i go to the bookstore or gallery and find a photo of myself in the bathroom
doing private functions I'd certainly find that an invasion of my personal space.
If i go to the bookstore or gallery and find a photo of myself walking down the
street I think
"gee that photographer did a good job at being unobtrusive  I never saw them i
wish i was thinner and richer"

When I'm very concerned with my personal space i stay home, i don't go out.
But welcome to the LUG anyway maybe next time we'll agree on somthing.

Mark Rabiner

Portland, Oregon
USA

http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/