Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RedwoodGuy on February 14, 2013, 03:51:27 pm

Title: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 14, 2013, 03:51:27 pm
Attached
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: Randy Carone on February 14, 2013, 05:18:23 pm
Bravo. My favorite post in recent memory.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: kencameron on February 14, 2013, 05:35:32 pm
Nice.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: amolitor on February 15, 2013, 06:55:40 am
I don't get it. The car looks like it might be interesting, but there's not enough of it in the frame for this to be a picture of the car. The guy is mostly obscured, so I don't think it's a picture of him.

If there's a larger gestalt here, if this isn't a picture of some thing at all, I'm not still getting it. There are several points of interest, but nothing of very much interest. My first reaction was "oh, a cabbie" and the upon inspection "no, I don't think so. Maybe a hot-rodder?" and that was pretty much where I stopped.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 15, 2013, 08:42:42 am
Thanks Randy and Ken - - you brave souls.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 15, 2013, 08:45:56 am
I do not get it either. How is it "untitled", when the title says "Attached"?
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 15, 2013, 09:02:33 am
I do not get it either. How is it "untitled", when the title says "Attached"?
"Attached" means, there is a file attached to the post. In most forum software (I assumed this one too), you can not "post" an empty message box - one that has no typing in it. Thus, to be sure the post goes through, I simply type "Attached" to the message box so that it is no longer empty. I hope that helps answer your question.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RSL on February 15, 2013, 09:36:10 am
You guys fell for it. He posted this nothing snapshot just to see if anyone here would take it seriously. Pretty funny, RG. And you actually got some takers.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 15, 2013, 09:48:25 am
I don't get it. The car looks like it might be interesting, but there's not enough of it in the frame for this to be a picture of the car. The guy is mostly obscured, so I don't think it's a picture of him.

If there's a larger gestalt here, if this isn't a picture of some thing at all, I'm not still getting it. There are several points of interest, but nothing of very much interest. My first reaction was "oh, a cabbie" and the upon inspection "no, I don't think so. Maybe a hot-rodder?" and that was pretty much where I stopped.

I normally wouldn't comment on someone's critique. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - works for me. However, your post presents an opportunity to talk about something important which doesn't come up much here in this particular section of the forum.

I posted that photograph as a bit of an experiment, because most (not all) of the photographs here are traditional landscape with traditional references. And of course, that's just a smattering of what is going on in the general photographic world at large. So, I tossed this into the mix with some purpose.

The point of discussion, which was demonstrated in your critique, was that of the photograph existing as a whole, and not existing as a named thing or set of named things. Notice how you processed this in your critique -- is it a car? Is it a guy? Is it a cabbie? Is it a hot-rodder? And in the end, when you couldn't satisfy the naming convention, you gave up that it must be nothing of interest. What you didn't come to, is that it is a "just a photograph" all contained within the edges, and needs no name, or no named thing. That's why I purposely left it "untitled" so as to NOT suggest any type of named thing at all.

Photographs of named things - canyons, mountains, rivers, rocks, puppies, strollers, snails, beaches suit very well our internal drive to categorize and recognize the world. In a strict sense (not photo genre) they are documentary. But cameras don't care what the name of anything might be. They record what you point them at without prejudice. And that, as it turns out is an incredibly powerful feature of photography that is useful in art. It means the product can be "the photograph" itself, of itself, and by itself with no named reference within. The 'thing' then, doesn't have to be a mountain, car, cabbie, door or dog, but it's "just a photograph." Neither does that mean it is "nothing." It is obviously something.

Stopping our minds from naming, is a different way of seeing the world. Names carry assumptions, bias, prejudice and all the rest. That's the reason we name - to fit the world into our expectations so that each moment of vision is not an alarming scene. When you say "cabby" to anyone in the world, they will have a set of biases about that word. But seeing without naming, is a different view all together, that can bring different kinds of communication between artist and viewer. Painters often used abstraction to attempt this view. That's one way to do it. But photography has the really unique ability to abstract without being intentionally abstract. Abstract can mean "expressing a quality apart from the object." This happens to be a major capability of photographs, which is incredibly hard in painting.

A photograph can be "just a photograph" it is its own named thing. Thanks again for your critique, I found it useful.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 15, 2013, 09:48:43 am
"Attached" means, there is a file attached to the post. In most forum software (I assumed this one too), you can not "post" an empty message box - one that has no typing in it. Thus, to be sure the post goes through, I simply type "Attached" to the message box so that it is no longer empty. I hope that helps answer your question.

You must have had sense of humor surgically removed at birth?
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 15, 2013, 10:12:10 am
I, too, didn't get it at first. But with the explanation, I think I do now. It seems to be sort of a Jerry Seinfeld photo: A photo about Nothing.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: amolitor on February 15, 2013, 10:13:41 am
You have mis-interpreted my discussion of my reaction to your image.

Certainly I looked at it to see if there was a distinct subject. There often is. In this case, I could not identify one.

At that point I stepped back to see if I could make sense of it holistically, and I was unable to. I didn't simply give up when I couldn't fit it into some predetermined notion of what a photograph is. I don't like you, but I made an honest effort to make sense of this photograph in several different ways and simply wasn't able to, no matter how I approached it.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 15, 2013, 10:18:59 am
I normally ...

Blah, blah, blah...
Blah, blah, blah...
Blah, blah, blah...

The lesser the photograph, the more bloated the justification?
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 15, 2013, 10:24:40 am
I, too, didn't get it at first. But with the explanation, I think I do now. It seems to be sort of a Jerry Seinfeld photo: A photo about Nothing.

Thanks. That close - but it's actually "just a photograph." It's not "about nothing" or "about something." It is "just a photograph." If I appear to be pedantic, that's not my point at all. It makes a difference to say that it is "about nothing" or to just realize it is about itself as a photograph. It has its own intrinsic characteristics that are unique to "photographs."

This would be more obvious if we were passing around actual paper photographs instead of looking at pixels on the screen. No offense meant here, I am just attempting to make myself clear.

EDIT: Sometimes I forget the obvious. So, let me add this. Photographs are amazing, fascinating objects. And here, I particularly mean paper photographs that we handle or hang or in any way observe directly as an artifact. They have unbelievable powers that we too often take for granted. Photographs are nothing at all like paintings. You can pickup an old photograph you find in a junk store bin, and be spellbound by it. It could even be a simple "snapshot" (those things so ludicrously disdained here by the gang.) The power in an old found photograph is very different than an old found painting. And that power is the recognition that one is looking at a truthful moment in time and place. Paintings? Who knows? They have their own special powers.

So, when I say it is "just a photograph" I mean it is one of those amazing artifacts that can exist as a truth all on its own.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 15, 2013, 10:37:11 am
In which case, everything and anything that comes out of a camera is "just a photograph." Can't wait to see further examples.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: amolitor on February 15, 2013, 11:14:50 am
Sontag made pretty much that same point in the 1970s. The print is a fascinating artifact, not because of what it depicts, but because it depicts. Her point is exactly what Slobodan suggests, literally everything out of the camera (when committed to print) carries the same fascination if only you wait a little while. A print from yesterday isn't all that interesting. A print of an instant of time from ten years ago, twenty, fifty years ago, an instant frozen in amber, gains mystique and power precisely because it contains that frozen instant of the past. What's actually in the picture hardly matters at all.

This was true then, and remains true now. Arguably less so, for complex reasons.

There are two relevant counterpoints:

- most of us here on LuLa aspire to more than this minimal standard which literally every print meets
- it is not at all clear that a digital rendering of a photograph carries the same power of fascination as a print

Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: michswiss on February 15, 2013, 11:27:28 am
It's a crap shot.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: michswiss on February 15, 2013, 11:33:58 am
Just to expand on my previous comment.  No matter the taxonomy, it's still a crap shot.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 15, 2013, 11:52:15 am
Sontag made pretty much that same point in the 1970s. The print is a fascinating artifact, not because of what it depicts, but because it depicts. Her point is exactly what Slobodan suggests, literally everything out of the camera (when committed to print) carries the same fascination if only you wait a little while. A print from yesterday isn't all that interesting. A print of an instant of time from ten years ago, twenty, fifty years ago, an instant frozen in amber, gains mystique and power precisely because it contains that frozen instant of the past. What's actually in the picture hardly matters at all.

This was true then, and remains true now. Arguably less so, for complex reasons.

There are two relevant counterpoints:

- most of us here on LuLa aspire to more than this minimal standard which literally every print meets
- it is not at all clear that a digital rendering of a photograph carries the same power of fascination as a print


The word 'just' in "just a photograph," as I wrote it earlier, wasn't intended to mean "merely," as it appears you might be suggesting here by the use of the words "minimal standards." It would be better to read that as, "only a photograph". Which means it is not acting as an instrument of documentation, or evidence or narrative, or other purpose. It contains it's own purpose. 

The idea of "only a photograph" contains no quality vector within. It might be a horrible photograph, or a great one, and still be "only a photograph." Quality being a wholly separate, and variable aspect of the thing. 

I grant you that this idea of the intrinsic power of photography doesn't set well with most people who use cameras. It's not a popular idea. And this is largely due, once more, to our preference for naming things. I have nothing against Sontag's writing on this, it was an ok book, but in fact a better way to get a handle on this idea is through Buddhist philosophy.

So, it can be that far from being a minimum standard, it might be the maximum achievement - a way to transcend the normal naming culture. Again, quality is an independent variable not expressed within idea itself.

As to what most people here (or anywhere else) do----I don't take great concern for that in my own work. If I followed what most people do I wouldn't be expressing my self, I'd be making prints of other people's ideas, thoughts, expressions, experiences. It's a kind of plagiaristic approach to art that wouldn't suit me very well.  Grabbing another person's soul. I have my own ideas and no concerns about expressing them. On the other hand, if there is a rule here in this forum, about what kind of photographs can be shown, or what kind of ideas can be expressed, please make me aware of that. I am operating under the assumption that the forum is open for all to freely express their own ideas about photography through photographs and commentary. No?
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: amolitor on February 15, 2013, 12:12:53 pm
Expressing yourself is all very well.

Communicating with others is strictly a subset of expressing yourself, it's expressing yourself using shared modes of expression. If you're not much interested in that, then the world of possibilities certainly agllalalaflalla blah frongnap schpeEEE! FLOOOOO! FLOOO!! Jangnaps carsint ba soy begnit, exfalla fo bashop nah. Floo? Shabnazap.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 15, 2013, 12:42:54 pm
Expressing yourself is all very well.

Communicating with others is strictly a subset of expressing yourself, it's expressing yourself using shared modes of expression. If you're not much interested in that, then the world of possibilities certainly agllalalaflalla blah frongnap schpeEEE! FLOOOOO! FLOOO!! Jangnaps carsint ba soy begnit, exfalla fo bashop nah. Floo? Shabnazap.


I'm happy to see I have your permission to express myself. I was beginning to wonder here. This forum is a communications mechanism. When I post a photograph here, I am sending out the communication for whomever wants to receive it. How can you imply I am not interested in "communicating with others"? My interest is directly expressed by the act of posting it here. Certainly, I can't make someone view a photograph. I am deeply interested in communicating with others, which is why I write in the language of this forum - English.  I don't type random letters, do I? I am receiving messages back from other people, so I have to assume they are not being blocked from my communications in any way.

What is the "shared mode of expression?" A mode is a method. Our shared method of expression is to post photographs on the Internet. Since everyone is familiar with what a photograph is, the mode is successful and common. I doubt you meant to say we have to "share the same expression" - that would be laughable on the surface.

Now, maybe you mean my photographs don't communicate anything? Maybe you mean you don't understand them? Maybe you are claiming no one understands them? It's hard to tell what you are claiming when you type random letters. But, if you meant "no one understand them," I'd like to suggest that what you might mean is "not everyone understands them." And that could be very true. Not everyone understands certain plays, or poems or novels, or paintings, or sculptures, or religious doctrines either. Does this mean that those artists have "no interest in communicating?"

In the end, my read on your many posts involving me, is that you want a certain conformity of thought and expression. That was absolutely paramount in the "street photography" thread. It must contain thus and so on, or it isn't this or that. That's a drive to conformity. I don't find it useful in art. If you find conformity of expression useful, I say good for you, carry on as you will and prefer in your works. But explain how you think it is best to make others conform? What is driving that big push here?

Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: amolitor on February 15, 2013, 12:59:24 pm
Shoboz. Blat.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 15, 2013, 02:31:47 pm
The word 'just' in "just a photograph," as I wrote it earlier, wasn't intended to mean "merely," as it appears you might be suggesting here by the use of the words "minimal standards." It would be better to read that as, "only a photograph". Which means it is not acting as an instrument of documentation, or evidence or narrative, or other purpose. It contains it's own purpose. 

Leaving aside the errors in punctuation and grammar, what on earth is this supposed to mean? It's English, in the sense that the words are recognisable by an English speaker, but they don't form a coherent whole. The supposed distinction it draws between "just", "merely" and "only" is simply false.

Are you a fan of Chomsky, perhaps? Colourless green ideas sleep furiously?

Jeremy
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: amolitor on February 15, 2013, 02:38:53 pm
We are simply not sophisticated enough to understand RG's ideas. It's a shame, but I am resigned to struggling through life a dunce.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 15, 2013, 03:07:27 pm
Leaving aside the errors in punctuation and grammar, what on earth is this supposed to mean? It's English, in the sense that the words are recognisable by an English speaker, but they don't form a coherent whole. The supposed distinction it draws between "just", "merely" and "only" is simply false.

Are you a fan of Chomsky, perhaps? Colourless green ideas sleep furiously?

Jeremy
I didn't see anything in your post regarding the subject of photography, which is my interest, and my purpose for being here. It looks like you have proposed a very intense question along with some claims about language, and with references to linguists of note. This branch of the forum is called "user critiques." I really don't know if there is a section for "Grammar and Language" or not.

I do the best I can to put language in service to my photographic interests here, but at the end of the day, my interest is photography, not so much language, even though I am sure that's fascinating too.

There's an old Eastern proverb about mistaking the finger which points to the moon, for the moon itself. Do you know of it? 

Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: kencameron on February 15, 2013, 05:53:48 pm
I think what is going on here is that Lula's immune system is working to expel what it regards as a foreign organism. I can see what it means - coherent thought is not the organism's strong point, and neither is brevity of expression - but after reading all the weighty denunciation, I looked again at the photograph and still quite like it. Why? For the same sort of "moment in time" reasons as I remember quite liking a shot of a rock and some grass by I think it was amolitor, and which was similarly denounced. Nothing in particular is going on. I feel mild curiosity. Is the cabby happy with his life, etcetera? No particular hook, I won't remember it. I quite like the colors. Faint praise, sure, but damning with it only if you want to jump on top of anything that isn't a masterpiece, and in that case, who should scape hanging?
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 15, 2013, 07:54:46 pm
I quite like the colors. Faint praise, sure, but damning with it only if you want to jump on top of anything that isn't a masterpiece, and in that case, who should scape hanging?
I don't especially like the colors. I wonder if it would be better in black and white. Or perhaps just in black. Or white.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 15, 2013, 09:29:14 pm
I think what is going on here is that Lula's immune system is working to expel what it regards as a foreign organism...

Whatever we might have against (or for) RedwoodGuy's style of forum communication, it should not reflect, and i think it doesn't, on our opinion about his pictures. I personally did not like most pictures he posted so far, but when I did like one, I clearly said so.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 15, 2013, 09:35:59 pm
I don't especially like the colors. I wonder if it would be better in black and white. Or perhaps just in black. Or white.

This is brilliant!  ;D

P.S. I am not saying it out of malice toward RedwoodGuy, but in appreciation of an intelligent rhetorical device.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: kencameron on February 15, 2013, 10:18:19 pm
Whatever we might have against (or for) RedwoodGuy's style of forum communication, it should not reflect, and i think it doesn't, on our opinion about his pictures.

Indeed, that was my point, not directed at you personally but rather at what I saw as a tendency in the thread as a whole to bring sledgehammers to bear on the cracking of a nut.

Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 15, 2013, 11:36:38 pm
Whatever we might have against (or for) RedwoodGuy's style of forum communication, it should not reflect, and i think it doesn't, on our opinion about his pictures.
I agree.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 16, 2013, 01:39:16 am

Indeed, that was my point, not directed at you personally but rather at what I saw as a tendency in the thread as a whole to bring sledgehammers to bear on the cracking of a nut.



That's one reading of this thread. Another more honest summary would be obtained by looking at the actual objectionable comments as posted. Let's remember this is a "user critique" forum. Critique is a style of analysis, and differs from criticism in important ways (http://www.beedictionary.com/common-errors/critique_vs_criticize).  And of course it differs from personal ridicule too, right?

Here are the comments:

1. I do not get it either. How is it "untitled", when the title says "Attached"?

  
2. You guys fell for it. He posted this nothing snapshot just to see if anyone here would take it seriously. Pretty funny, RG. And you actually got some takers.

3. You must have had sense of humor surgically removed at birth?

4. I, too, didn't get it at first. But with the explanation, I think I do now. It seems to be sort of a Jerry Seinfeld photo: A photo about Nothing.

5. The lesser the photograph, the more bloated the justification?

6. In which case, everything and anything that comes out of a camera is "just a photograph." Can't wait to see further examples.

7. Communicating with others is strictly a subset of expressing yourself, it's expressing yourself using shared modes of expression. If you're not much interested in that, then the world of possibilities certainly agllalalaflalla blah frongnap schpeEEE! FLOOOOO! FLOOO!! Jangnaps carsint ba soy begnit, exfalla fo bashop nah. Floo? Shabnazap.

8. hoboz. Blat.

9. Leaving aside the errors in punctuation and grammar, what on earth is this supposed to mean? It's English, in the sense that the words are recognisable by an English speaker, but they don't form a coherent whole. The supposed distinction it draws between "just", "merely" and "only" is simply false.

Are you a fan of Chomsky, perhaps? Colourless green ideas sleep furiously?

10. We are simply not sophisticated enough to understand RG's ideas. It's a shame, but I am resigned to struggling through life a dunce.

11. coherent thought is not the organism's strong point

12. I don't especially like the colors. I wonder if it would be better in black and white. Or perhaps just in black. Or white.
13. "Brilliant!"

Here's what an honest assessment of this thread reveals: None of these comments are a critique of the photograph. More than half are comments expressly intended to insult the poster. The rest are intended as disguised insults. Three of them are not even about photography. This collection of comments is made from an originating post which contained one word and one photograph. So no, this is not a case of 'sledgehammers brought to bear on a nut,' as you have said here. It is something rather different in tenor, tone and intention.

This is not the meaning of critique. Most of it doesn't even conform to criticism. This isn't even about photography.  It's called personal ridicule. Your summary of this is entirely in error. It's not all that unusual for groups like this to totally disrespect other people in this way. So that wasn't surprising. What I did find very remarkable here was the total disrespect for photography. This form of berating photographic ideas isn't even found on FLICKR groups that are often filled with teenagers.  
 
Now, I'll bet someone is going to say I brought this on myself. Let me post this - my first introduction to the guy named RSL. This was on Feb 3, after I had enthusiastically posted my first few photographs in the "real street photography thread."

RSL: "Guy, Sorry, but what I see is one high-school type snapshot and two environmental portraits -- no street photography. You need to go to a library or bookstore, pick up a book of Cartier-Bresson's photographs, and study it."  

Welcome to LuLa. Yes, very sophisticated bunch here. I evaluate people's talent and integrity by what they post, and nothing but their posts. If this is how you want to look on the pages here - have at it. But, I am not going anywhere.


Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 16, 2013, 02:16:32 am
You forgot reply #16: "It's a crap shot."

Or perhaps you do consider it the only genuine critique, thus did not include it in your laundry list?
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: amolitor on February 16, 2013, 07:34:38 am
I posted a genuine critique, which you replied to in what I understood to be a pretty dismissive tone. You said, essentially, that I wasn't sophisticated enough to understand your photograph.

This isn't a strategy likely to get a lot more serious critique out of people. It's a strategy pretty much guaranteed to get you roundly mocked.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 16, 2013, 09:14:44 am
I posted a genuine critique, which you replied to in what I understood to be a pretty dismissive tone. You said, essentially, that I wasn't sophisticated enough to understand your photograph.

This isn't a strategy likely to get a lot more serious critique out of people. It's a strategy pretty much guaranteed to get you roundly mocked.

There's no reason here for you to be misleading with these innocent claims of offense about my tone. You are one of the nastiest toned individuals I've met on any forum, next to RSL. Your comments to me have been foul-toned since you started with them. And if I want to be dismissive of your nasty gibberish, I will be so at my pleasure.

I am under no obligation to sit back here and take nastygrams from you or anyone else. If you are not able to follow such simple arguments about art and photography as you attempted to engage here yesterday before stomping off into gibberishland, then maybe you really are too unsophisticated to keep up. You've said it twice now, and who would know better than you?

I found nothing insightful or informative in your so-called critique. It was carelessly constructed and salted with what you assumed would be a great put down, but still "look like" a legitimate critique (Eddie Haskell ring a bell?). When I saw right through it, you then embarrassed your self trying to make some kind of an argument about self expression that was laughable, just laughable. Even I felt sorry for you. And now you want to complain about my tone?

So let's get it said here. I do not take nasty toned rubbish from you or anyone else because "you were here first." I will respond in a suitable way - as I did yesterday. And, if you are going to engage me in some argument, you better have all your ducks lined up, because I do not acquiesce to blustering poseurs and pompous blowhards who simply don't have the goods. Your photography, as best I can tell, is common and banal, and therefore your posing as an expert in the art of photography is just preposterous. I don't mind leaving you alone to do what you do here. I'll stay very clear of you. But do not think I will put up with your nasty tone for any reason. On your best day you are not ready for me, so my advice is accept the offer to steer clear, and let it be.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 16, 2013, 09:19:30 am
You forgot reply #16: "It's a crap shot."

Or perhaps you do consider it the only genuine critique, thus did not include it in your laundry list?
Really? You're going to start this again? My advice? Use this time to go out and improve your photography and don't waste it here trying to insult me. I know you think you are clever and peevish in that little bad boy way, but learn to know when you've crossed over into being a bore. A little bit of your crap goes a long, long way.
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 16, 2013, 09:53:22 am
I think what is going on here is that Lula's immune system is working to expel what it regards as a foreign organism. I can see what it means - coherent thought is not the organism's strong point, and neither is brevity of expression - etc...etc....
I know you thought that was ever so clever, didn't you? You enjoy thinking you are above it all. But in the end, it's just another nasty insult for no reason. I think you were also the one to be offended by my "tone" the other day, no? Explain to me why I owe you deference? 

Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 16, 2013, 10:25:40 am
You guys fell for it. He posted this nothing snapshot just to see if anyone here would take it seriously. Pretty funny, RG. And you actually got some takers.
Actually, the joke is on you RSL, but we can get to that later. I am giving you fair warning to steer clear of me, lest I have to school you again about contemporary street photography, or the next subject you attempt to bluff and bluster your way through with me. I owe you no deference here, and you will be treated as you treat me. (I don't care if you are 120 years old. The older you are, the less excuse you have for being an ass.)

You're quite welcome to not like my photography - that's part of a group dynamic. You are also quite welcome to comment on it as you please or not. You are not however, welcome to insult me using that as an excuse. Are we perfectly clear on this? I have looked at your photography too, and I am sorry to report that I was not in any way impressed by it. But I didn't consider that a reason to hector, hound and insult you, did I? You are accustomed to bullying your way around this forum, I can see that from your history. How that has become acceptable, I do not know, and that's not really my business. But, it will not be acceptable to me henceforth. Mind your manners, or discover them, whichever fits you best.   
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 16, 2013, 10:32:20 am
Just to expand on my previous comment.  No matter the taxonomy, it's still a crap shot.
I have no objection to your objections here. No one has to like a photograph, and comments are always welcome. But please take note of your tone here - because when that tone comes back to bite you sometime in the future, I don't want to see you crying and whining that I used a dismissive tone or some other nonsense.  When you sling shite like this, you better have a suit of armor on, ok? Are we clear on what I am saying to you?
Title: Re: Untitled Photograph
Post by: RedwoodGuy on February 16, 2013, 10:37:05 am
I think I've made myself clear enough to all. Bad manners will be met in kind. I owe no person here special deference. Everyone is entitled to like and dislike whatever photography they choose, and make whatever comments they like. But comments that are simply nasty hectoring, or personality attacks, will not be tolerated by me. You are all old geezers and should by now have developed some level of decorum. Civility is not hard to understand. I seek nothing beyond that.