Re: [Leica] lower classes don't use leicas?

["Steve LeHuray" <icommag@toad.net>]

Anthony replies to Brian:


> I tend to value the quality of discussion more highly than the number of
people
> I can keep subscribed to a list; after all, if all one wants is numbers, it's
> pretty easy to build a list that will have tens of thousands of members, but
no
> worthwhile discussion at all (cf. Usenet).  However, you may have different
> priorities, and perhaps having thousands of people calmly echoing each other's
> opinions on liquors, lizard-skin camera bodies, and the bokeh of 55-year-old
> lenses is more important and interesting to you than discussions of real-world
> Leica-based photography involving include actual differences of opinion among
> smaller numbers of more tolerant and individual participants who occasionally
> take real pictures.
>
> For what it's worth, I note that out of 1200 people, only a dozen or so post
> with any frequency.  Personal attacks directed at me attract attention only
> because so little else of substance passes over the list for weeks at a time,
> and most of it is small talk and people patting each other on the back.
> Virtually none of the active participants seems to be a real photographer, and
> very few of the examples of Leica photography I've seen here seem to be much
> more than test shots intended solely to redistribute the lubricants in
someone's
> Leica gear.  In fact, I think that the overwhelming impression the average
> person might get from reading this list and its many off-topic or extremely
> esoteric threads is that Leica owners as a whole are indeed crusty old codgers
> with money but no talent who fiddle with Leica equipment because they can
afford
> it and because they really don't know how to take decent pictures with it (or
> with any other brand of gear).  I'd almost say that the conversations I see
here
> are doing more damage than good to the reputation of Leica and Leica owners,
as
> they seem to involve just about everything except _Leica photography_.
>
> The only reason I've participated here at all is that I really do take
> photography seriously and I happen to own some Leica equipment that I like to
> use in that pursuit for a number of reasons (all of which are relevant to the
> art and science of photography, and not to status symbols, investments,
> collections of rare objects, scotch, obscure camera bags, the D-Day invasion,
or
> anything of that sort).  There aren't too many Leica lists around, and very
few
> people actually own Leicas, so my choices are limited, unfortunately.  I keep
> hoping that Leicas might become interesting to a more varied and cosmopolitan
> population of photographers, but I am not optimistic, and some of the drivel I
> see here would probably scare off a lot of prospects, anyway, as it reinforces
> the worst stereotypes of Leica owners.
>
> In any case, just remember that you often don't know what you've got until
it's
> gone.  If you want a thousand dilletantes discussing how many angels can dance
> on the shutter-speed dial of an M4 over cognac and cigars in the lodge, you're
> on the right path; if you want any number of real photographers using Leicas
> discussing photography and Leica equipment, I think the train left the rails
> quite a while ago, and tossing anyone who doesn't want to follow the rules of
> the old boys' club will only make it worse.
>
What is so interesting about this whole sorry thread is that several critics
of Anthony with whom I have had off-list discussions about the
state-of-the-LUG have said the very same thing privately that Anthony has
just said above.

sl