Personal investment in photos

[RSL]

I seem to remember that Beethoven at one point was preparing to rewrite the 9th symphony and dump the choral part.  This, after rave reviews of the 9th in early performances.  Darby Crash of the Germs was quite a poet, yet his penchant for self-flagellation did him in eventually.

So, introspect away, you can't do worse than many of the great masters.

Dale, Thanks for your penetrating response. I'm sure all the classical musicians and fans of Darby Crash of the Germs' poetry on the thread will be happy you've cleared all that up.

[dalethorn]

Dale, Thanks for your penetrating response. I'm sure all the classical musicians and fans of Darby Crash of the Germs' poetry on the thread will be happy you've cleared all that up.

I'm almost certain some of the great painters have gone that route, but maybe (!) we don't have that problem in photography because we're not real artists (ouch, did I say that, sorry).

[RSL]

we don't have that problem in photography because we're not real artists (ouch, did I say that, sorry).

That's certainly true in some cases.

[RSL]

This is a misinterpretation.  I certainly can learn from the "masters".  But that depends on who the masters really are.  Russ convinced me that HCB and others were good and talented photographers, and quite popular with their followers.  But with Russ' dismissal of Ansel Adams on several points, he lost credibility with me.  I know about art having been closely associated with award winning artists for many years.

So Russ has his feelings, but that's all they are after all, just feelings.

Christian, I was going to pass on this one, but I finally decided it needs an answer. Dale's idea that Henri Cartier-Bresson was "popular with his followers," can only come from complete ignorance of who HCB was. His "followers" are virtually all serious photographers from the late thirties on. He certainly was the most influential photographer of the twentieth century. Dale misunderstands because he obviously knows nothing about HCB's photographs. As I've said before on these threads, my favorite photographers probably are Walker Evans and Elliott Erwitt, but both of these guys were heavily influenced by HCB. If you're not familiar with why HCB was so influential, read Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art by Jean-Pierre Montier. I don't find the book an easy read, but Jean-Pierre pretty much lays out the answer.

Evidently Dale isn't a careful reader. If he were, he'd know that I never "dismissed" Ansel Adams. I've pointed out several times that I learned a great deal from Ansel's prints and from his books. At one time I was a "follower" of Ansel. What I "dismissed" is the idea that landscape photography can be as powerful as photographs that deal with and include people -- street photography in its broadest sense.

Dale claims he can learn from the masters, but in order to do that you first have to learn something about the masters and their work.

[dalethorn]

Dale claims he can learn from the masters, but in order to do that you first have to learn something about the masters and their work.

Yadda yadda.  Logic 101 - who are the masters, and who is telling me who they are?  After a lot of years in this biz, and a lot more hanging out with real artists (painters), I can find the masters easy enough.  I've got LLVJ for that, and I've got books.  I'm not going to describe what books, since I'm humble enough to acknowledge that I'm not the expert on all things art.  I don't even acknowledge that Russ here is an artist, although he does seem to follow along with some artists.

So why all the criticism of individuals here based on their level of knowledge or appreciation of art or the art of photography?  Better for Russ to post his own stuff for critique.  Look at Russ' website?  Yeah - when I don't have a hundred other *really* important things to do.

[dalethorn]

Evidently Dale isn't a careful reader. If he were, he'd know that I never "dismissed" Ansel Adams. I've pointed out several times that I learned a great deal from Ansel's prints and from his books. At one time I was a "follower" of Ansel. What I "dismissed" is the idea that landscape photography can be as powerful as photographs that deal with and include people -- street photography in its broadest sense.

Sorry I forgot this in the previous post.  Yes, I was a careful reader, and noted this.  And yes, I consider the dismissal of landscape photography as less powerful (or whatever) than photos of people to be the more important issue.  The dismissal of AA is just a symptom of the greater problem.

[cmi]

Russ, I agree. Asking questions about yourself at the point of shooting is bad. I think the only rule for self-critique is to strictly avoid beeing negative to yourself, i.e., mentally punish yourself for anything, and the rest is open. And to complement what you said, what certainly can happen if you think hard enough about the motivation behind your work is, that you might no longer be able to do this kind of work you where thinking about. Speaking bluntly, many artists or showstars are essentially living from their neurosis, so these should very strictly avoid reflection by any means, because it could kill their income. So in this regard I consider the warning about self-reflection valid. I believe Dale said that to a point when he mentioned Darby Crash, dont know him. By the way I also liked his  remark about Beethoven, is tells all about the problem ^^

All the best


Christian

//edit: Now as Im seeing like the discussion has "advanced" I'll paste in back from history the last block I first deleted before posting:

About the discussion you Russ and Dale seem to have...: For me, you both have original ideas, you only seem to climb the horse from different sides. I know I said this before. I wonder why you are wasting time seemingly trying to misunderstand each other. At least Im sure its only a misunderstanding. I say this because for me it seems to pollute an otherwise very good and productive discussion where you BOTH make strong statements. Maybe you should deal with it with some PMs, tends to help  Now I will shut up on this!

[RSL]

For me, you both have original ideas, you only seem to climb the horse from different sides.

Christian, You may not remember, but one of Dale's "original ideas" was that you can learn more about photography from Minnesota Fats than you can from someone like HCB. That's not climbing the horse from a different side. It's missing the horse altogether.

[dalethorn]

Christian, You may not remember, but one of Dale's "original ideas" was that you can learn more about photography from Minnesota Fats than you can from someone like HCB. That's not climbing the horse from a different side. It's missing the horse altogether.

This is the kind of nonsense that doesn't help, as the other person said.

My comments about Fats were explained in great detail at one point, and if you misunderstood them, and need more explanation, perhaps I can help.  But I can't help when you misunderstand and then rant on with this and that based on your misunderstanding.

The other person did say, why do you waste so much time on misunderstandings?  See, I understand your convictions about street photography etc. compared to landscape.  If that's not apples and oranges, what is anyway?  Not to mention, Russ, this is Luminous Landscape, not Luminous Street.

I can't (and didn't) comment on Fats' expertise in photography, but he understood people and human nature much better than most photographers, including the famous street guys.  And his understanding of those things would enable him to be a better street photog than the other guys, if he chose to do so.

[RSL]

My comments about Fats were explained in great detail at one point, and if you misunderstood them, and need more explanation, perhaps I can help.  But I can't help when you misunderstand and then rant on with this and that based on your misunderstanding.

Dale, You may have forgotten that your explanations "in great detail" are still extant on this forum. Anyone can check back and see exactly what you said.

[dalethorn]

Dale, You may have forgotten that your explanations "in great detail" are still extant on this forum. Anyone can check back and see exactly what you said.

The key word in your phrasing is "exactly".  Now to you, who nit-pick and split hairs all the time, an exact word conveys meaning beyond the mere context of the discussion, or the breadth and depth of the subject.  To you it's precise, like a mathematical truth table, i.e. 1 and 1 are 1, 1 and 0 are 0, etc.  I know people like that - conspiracy theorists, Larouchies, etc.

I'd advise you to relax a little, and try to understand what a person means, beyond the individual words and your dictionary.

Perhaps to you, I was out there trying to impress a bunch of strangers on this forum with my vast knowledge of Minnesota Fats, and in your view, it's some kind of ego or Narcissistic thing.  Actually, I don't know anyone here personally, nor do I have an expectation of knowing anyone.  I'm not trying to impress people here, obviously, since my photographic results are nowhere near the quality of the work the VIP's of LL turn out.  But then, neither are yours.

So what is it, what do you think I'm doing?  Believe it or not, I try to help people - those who appreciate it.  But I don't think there's any possible way I can help you with anything of any kind, here or anywhere else, now or in the future.  You can put me on ignore with the click of one little button.  Unless, of course, you're obsessed.

[RSL]

Dale, I'm going to drop it right here. I've run back through the whole thread and looked at your comments. They make my case extensively. There's nothing more that needs to be said.

[dalethorn]

Dale, I'm going to drop it right here. I've run back through the whole thread and looked at your comments. They make my case extensively. There's nothing more that needs to be said.

Like your other posts, Russ, you conveniently forgot to mention one little thing - how you just have to have the last word, even (or especially) when it adds *nothing whatever* to the topic.