Say Goodnight, Gracie

[Rob C]

Michael

First of all, we all know and accept that this is not only a wonderful resource, a great place for the exchange of ideas (not only photographic) and that it is YOUR site, and by virtue of posting here, I think we display that appreciation.

Pulling the plug on that thread was, in my view, somewhat premature because nobody really became too offensive - a little heated, yes, but doesn´t everybody now and again, particularly when they hold strong views about something?

Now Ray, as I see him, is not a prude, as his photography of Far Eastern nightlife shows; perhaps he is less prudish than many others here - I don´t know and it doesn´t affect me one way or another - and whilst symbolism of a sexual nature was not the first thing to strike me on seeing James´s picture, there is little doubt that once one has been made aware of such a connection, it can be seen, as with anything else that falls within similar shape parameters. If you choose to look for it.

If I interpret James´s references to blocking a certain poster, I suspect he refers to Ray; if I am mistaken, then apologies all round, and please spell it out for me.

Ray has strong views on MF digital capture as he has on other easily accepted reports of various cameras and their popularly claimed superiority over others, claims that are not always definitively substantiated. More power to his elbow - perhaps more critical or skeptical minds all round would put some perspective into the crazy world of camera evolution and supposed progress. I might be falling into the Luddite trap, if so, then fair enough, but I am personally far from thrilled by all the shiny new toys thrust onto the photographic marketplace, not least because I fail to see photography getting any better because of them, than it was many years ago. On the professional level, in fashion and beauty of which I do know something, the reverse might well be claimed, with reality becoming ever more distant and, with it, soul, the essence of communication.

James is not a baby - he has walked the walk for quite some time and has the proof on his site; if he chooses to block somebody then fine, but that does not invalidate the blockee´s (neologism?) point of view nor, I would have thought, his right to express it, particularly when he can do so so well.

Finally, I´m a little disappointed too that you didn´t get into this thread yourself. You have a gallery and are well versed in the material that other galleries present - some input about contemporary art and its norms might have been of considerable interest within this subject, commercial art and artist´s art being ever more the same damn thing. A lost opportunity?

Again, thank you for this site - it helps me keep my sanity as I pass my days on this rock, in Napoleonic, if self-imposed, exile!

Rob C

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

I have two issues with Ray's comments. One is that they are off topic. I think that this is a forum for information, help and exchange of ideas. It is not a a place for chat. If you are interested in the topic all the off topic stuff is just noise. People do put effort in writing good stuff, but it will be very hard to find their writing if the topic is contaminated with a lot of off topic issues.

The other thing is that I think that folks have the right to publish pictures without being jumped on. I certainly thing that JR can take some beating, but that is not the issue.

A final comment is that James Russel is a commercial photographer, and a very good one at that, I think after seeing his pictures. No one would in sane mind would deny that "sex sells" but from that to extrapolate to "every oblong object is a phallic symbol" is an ... extrapolation.

Best regards
Erik

Michael

First of all, we all know and accept that this is not only a wonderful resource, a great place for the exchange of ideas (not only photographic) and that it is YOUR site, and by virtue of posting here, I think we display that appreciation.

Pulling the plug on that thread was, in my view, somewhat premature because nobody really became too offensive - a little heated, yes, but doesn´t everybody now and again, particularly when they hold strong views about something?

Now Ray, as I see him, is not a prude, as his photography of Far Eastern nightlife shows; perhaps he is less prudish than many others here - I don´t know and it doesn´t affect me one way or another - and whilst symbolism of a sexual nature was not the first thing to strike me on seeing James´s picture, there is little doubt that once one has been made aware of such a connection, it can be seen, as with anything else that falls within similar shape parameters. If you choose to look for it.

If I interpret James´s references to blocking a certain poster, I suspect he refers to Ray; if I am mistaken, then apologies all round, and please spell it out for me.

Ray has strong views on MF digital capture as he has on other easily accepted reports of various cameras and their popularly claimed superiority over others, claims that are not always definitively substantiated. More power to his elbow - perhaps more critical or skeptical minds all round would put some perspective into the crazy world of camera evolution and supposed progress. I might be falling into the Luddite trap, if so, then fair enough, but I am personally far from thrilled by all the shiny new toys thrust onto the photographic marketplace, not least because I fail to see photography getting any better because of them, than it was many years ago. On the professional level, in fashion and beauty of which I do know something, the reverse might well be claimed, with reality becoming ever more distant and, with it, soul, the essence of communication.

James is not a baby - he has walked the walk for quite some time and has the proof on his site; if he chooses to block somebody then fine, but that does not invalidate the blockee´s (neologism?) point of view nor, I would have thought, his right to express it, particularly when he can do so so well.

Finally, I´m a little disappointed too that you didn´t get into this thread yourself. You have a gallery and are well versed in the material that other galleries present - some input about contemporary art and its norms might have been of considerable interest within this subject, commercial art and artist´s art being ever more the same damn thing. A lost opportunity?

Again, thank you for this site - it helps me keep my sanity as I pass my days on this rock, in Napoleonic, if self-imposed, exile!

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215431\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[witz]

subjective criticism is pointless.

[Rob C]

subjective criticism is pointless.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There´s another kind? Or would you suggest group thinking as the way to fly?


Rob C

[witz]

There´s another kind? Or would you suggest group thinking as the way to fly?
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

yes .... objective criticism ( anecdotal factual data )

[Rob C]

I have two issues with Ray's comments. One is that they are off topic. I think that this is a forum for information, help and exchange of ideas. It is not a a place for chat. If you are interested in the topic all the off topic stuff is just noise. People do put effort in writing good stuff, but it will be very hard to find their writing if the topic is contaminated with a lot of off topic issues.

The other thing is that I think that folks have the right to publish pictures without being jumped on. I certainly thing that JR can take some beating, but that is not the issue.

With respect, Erik, his comments are usually very much ON topic; his problem is that many just do not like to read what he has to say, even though he usually manages to justify his position. Fan-boyism or not, the vested interests in personal spending carry a lot of subliminal baggage with them. Sometimes, not even subliminal, but very open, as in the Nikon/Canon fight. I, too, would hate to think I´d bought into the wrong system, something I have done twice, the first time with Bronica 67 and the last time Pentax 67. But you have to get over those things, accept a major boob for what it is/was and do what you can to make your current situation better.

As for the right to publish without being jumped on - such a right has never existed outwith a political dictatorship where the dictator is doing the publishing, and neither is it possibly a healthy concept. If anything, it is totally counterproductive for the person doing the publishing. You have to KNOW what the world out there is really thinking, not just read a lot of billets doux. It helps you, it really does. Further, I think that those who are good know their own value; those not so hot might want to learn.

Sex sells. Interesting that so many people still believe that so unquestioningly. I can tell you the opposite. I made most of my living in my latter pro days from bespoke company calendars, most of which featured girls distinclty unlike the one next door, and wearing considerably less than she might normally do in her waking moments. That worked like a charm for enough years to allow me to move to a better country yet, almost overnight, the thing imploded with the onset of political correctness. I never did porn; my glamour was pretty much what you would expect from someone whose earlier genre had been fashion: I did what I thought was elegant exposure. But it was killed off because clients were made to imagine their secretary would be upset by the sight of a picture of one of her own kind up on the wall. I have never met such a secretary, but I am assured they existed - possibly still do.

It might be more accurate to state that porn sells, and porn ain´t much about sex. But nobody here, that I know of, has published that - at least not on the site.

Anyway, we are in danger of turning this new thread into the old one, so that´s it from me on the topic, unless Michael finds time to write something from his point of view.

Rob C

[Rob C]

yes .... objective criticism ( anecdotal factual data )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One can be more objective, within the real limits of such a concept´s possibility to exist, than by using the experience/evidence of your own eyes?

Rob C

[Ray]

Actually, Rob, I didn't know that 'Good night Gracie' was Michael's polite way of closing the thread, although I was puzzled by the comment, and thought it might be.

I have to say , from the perspective of my years of wisdom, that there's an awful lot of immaturity on this site, and also disrespect for the point of view of older and perhaps wiser contributors.

Although Michael claims he is not into commercialism, one cannot expect him to be completely objective. He must have a lot of pressures from other people with their own agendas, people like James Russell.

That's the reality of commercial life. I understand it. I'm just grateful I've managed to (largely) escape from that scenario.

The rantings of James Russell and others who are his followers, are like water off a duck's back to me,

I tell things as I see them and I hope other do also. But I hate hypocrosy and deception.

[Anthony R]

You have chosen to ignore Ray. View this post · Un-ignore Ray

[mikeseb]

There´s another kind? Or would you suggest group thinking as the way to fly?
Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Edited: rendered obsolete by further posts.

Off topic: Rob, upon what "rock" are you currently exiled? You surely do not mean Her Majesty's Splendid Kingdom of Truth and Justice up there across the Channel...

[dseelig]

George Burns in his act on tv use to say Goodnite Gracie when his wife was rambling on with no point to make. Some people love to be negative. It is sad.

[Ray]

George Burns in his act on tv use to say Goodnite Gracie when his wife was rambling on with no point to make. Some people love to be negative. It is sad.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215493\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 

Sorry, this is not quite clear. Are you equating me with George Burn's wife with no point to make?

[Ray]

With respect, Erik, his comments are usually very much ON topic; his problem is that many just do not like to read what he has to say, even though he usually manages to justify his position. Fan-boyism or not, the vested interests in personal spending carry a lot of subliminal baggage with them. Sometimes, not even subliminal, but very open, as in the Nikon/Canon fight. I, too, would hate to think I´d bought into the wrong system, something I have done twice, the first time with Bronica 67 and the last time Pentax 67. But you have to get over those things, accept a major boob for what it is/was and do what you can to make your current situation better.

As for the right to publish without being jumped on - such a right has never existed outwith a political dictatorship where the dictator is doing the publishing, and neither is it possibly a healthy concept. If anything, it is totally counterproductive for the person doing the publishing. You have to KNOW what the world out there is really thinking, not just read a lot of billets doux. It helps you, it really does. Further, I think that those who are good know their own value; those not so hot might want to learn.

Sex sells. Interesting that so many people still believe that so unquestioningly. I can tell you the opposite. I made most of my living in my latter pro days from bespoke company calendars, most of which featured girls distinclty unlike the one next door, and wearing considerably less than she might normally do in her waking moments. That worked like a charm for enough years to allow me to move to a better country yet, almost overnight, the thing imploded with the onset of political correctness. I never did porn; my glamour was pretty much what you would expect from someone whose earlier genre had been fashion: I did what I thought was elegant exposure. But it was killed off because clients were made to imagine their secretary would be upset by the sight of a picture of one of her own kind up on the wall. I have never met such a secretary, but I am assured they existed - possibly still do.

It might be more accurate to state that porn sells, and porn ain´t much about sex. But nobody here, that I know of, has published that - at least not on the site.

Anyway, we are in danger of turning this new thread into the old one, so that´s it from me on the topic, unless Michael find time to write something from his point of view.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rob,
I thank you for your suppport and I think you understand me well.

The bottom line is, it's Michael's site. He's under no obligation to abide by rules of objectivity, impartiality and fairness. He can do want he wants, and he probably will. It's sad but true. I think commercial issues will prevail.

[Ray]

You have chosen to ignore Ray. View this post · Un-ignore Ray
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215490\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks also for your support. I've always found it rather weird why anyone would use those ignore buttons. It's totally against all the artistic precepts that I understand. Why would artists want to insulate themselves from uncomfortable ideas. Dosen't make sense to me. Perhaps James Russell would like to respond.

Unfortunately, he probably can't, because of the 'ignore' button.

What a farce!

[kaelaria]

LOL - older and wiser huh

He was telling you just set you to ignore, not the other way around!  ROTF

I don't ignore you (yet) - you are far too entertaining to watch!

[Anthony R]

View this post

Thanks also for your support. I've always found it rather weird why anyone would use those ignore buttons. It's totally against all the artistic precepts that I understand. Why would artists want to insulate themselves from uncomfortable ideas. Dosen't make sense to me. Perhaps James Russell would like to respond.

Unfortunately, he probably can't, because of the 'ignore' button.

What a farce!

Now we're talking about art and artists? Insulation not from uncomfortable ideas, rather those that troll through offering up their 'opinions' with no actual basis in facts and which have no bearing from a professional standpoint and whose sole intent is to stir shit up. Face it Ray, you aren't getting enough attention in life and spend your time on the internet trying to get any that you can whether good or bad. Your posts are not constructive, you don't have any concrete knowledge nor experience, tact or general social skills. I utilize the ignore function because I'd rather not be distracted nor drawn in to your manufactured drama seemingly put forth for your sole entertainment. Now if you would kindly piss off and go find another hobby we'd all be much happier - yourself most likely included.

I will not be posting a reply if you chose to reply to this. So either give it your best shot and hope that more attention comes your way or get up from the computer and go read up on Bridge or Bird Watching, something..

[Ray]

I will not be posting a reply if you chose to reply to this. So either give it your best shot and hope that more attention comes your way or get up from the computer and go read up on Bridge or Bird Watching, something..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No need to give this my best shot. By your own admission you are not capable of giving a reply. There's obviously no conversation here. You might as well have hit the ignore button. What's the point?

[vandevanterSH]

For the uninformed..What is this all about??

Steve

[DarkPenguin]

For the uninformed..What is this all about??

Steve
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[vandevanterSH]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Got it!!

Steve