Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: stamper on August 21, 2015, 04:05:12 am
-
I don't know if this link has been posted on here before? If so then I think it is worth repeating.
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/08/20/10-things-garry-winogrand-can-teach-you-about-street-photography/
quote
why photographs don’t tell stories, and how photographers mistake emotion for what makes great photographs.
unquote
Two very interesting statements and a few more to be read. An eye opener for me. :)
-
I've just been posting on my Facebook page how I miss my editors.
Garry Winogrand!
Cheers,
-
This is a nice clip of the man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RM9KcYEYXs
I realise this thread won't be new for many on here but it is new to me. 8)
-
An interesting couple of links, Stamper. Thank you.
I was interested in the comment
Szarkowski wrote quite eloquently how Winogrand was less interested in photography, and more interested about living and capturing life.
It reminded me immediately of a similar comment by Thomas Shahan who turns out some stunning macros of jumping spiders using an old Pentax K3 and home made flash rigs. He said that photographic gear doesn't interest him at all, it is merely a tool to capture the images and share the wonders of the world very few see.
Perhaps too many of us have our priorities wrong (including me at times).
-
Yup. It is all a learning curve.....or at least it should be.
-
i dont think the blogger understands Winnograd and his street photography AT ALL.
-
Have you looked at "the blogger's" pictures? I think he understands it quite well.
-
Last time I checked in on Eric Kim he was doing front and center portraits of street characters. Diane Arbus style but more ordinary.
Has he updated his style again? He's always struck me as a thoughtful but kind of clueless guy.
But if you're thoughtful for long enough, sometimes you figure some things out.
-
I assume that by "blogger" you're talking about Stamper.
-
Have you looked at "the blogger's" pictures? I think he understands it quite well.
Let Winnograd speak for himself instead.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5461/8898558211_c5f984edd7_z.jpg)
Now back to my early statement. Does he really understand Winnograd?
-
Yes, Garry had a lot of problems and his was not a particularly happy life.
-
Yes, Garry had a lot of problems and his was not a particularly happy life.
If one wants to be creative, he must remain unhappy. Unhappiness is the first requirement for any creative career. A corn-fed hog enjoys a much better life than a creative writer, painter or musician.
Zizek famously says, "Happiness was never important. The problem is that we don’t know what we really want. What makes us happy is not to get what we want. But to dream about it. Happiness is for opportunists. So I think that the only life of deep satisfaction is a life of eternal struggle, especially struggle with oneself. We all remember Gordon Gekko, the role played by Michael Douglas in Wall Street. What he says, breakfast is for wimps, or if you need a friend buy yourself a dog, I think we should say something similar about happiness. If you want to remain happy, just remain stupid. Authentic masters are never happy; happiness is a category of slaves."
-
If one wants to be creative, he must remain unhappy. Unhappiness is the first requirement for any creative career. A corn-fed hog enjoys a much better life than a creative writer, painter or musician.
That doesn't even make sense.
-
That doesn't even make sense.
Of course it doesn't make any sense to any decorators.
-
Of course it doesn't make any sense to any decorators.
People are creative for all sorts of reasons. Anyone who tries to pin it down to something singular like unhappiness is the one who does not understand creativity.
And very probably conflating themselves/their way of working, with everyone else's.
-
+1. Glad we agree on something, Jeremy.
-
People are creative for all sorts of reasons. Anyone who tries to pin it down to something singular like unhappiness is the one who does not understand creativity.
And very probably conflating themselves/their way of working, with everyone else's.
Andy Warhol famously said "Making money is the best art" and his painted soup cans and dollor signs can be sold at millions a piece. After all market confirms his creativity, why any creativity must come from misery, suffering and unhappiness? So I guess we live in an epoch in which creativity can only be measured by its exchange value.
On the other hand, I do understand for most people happiness is beyond reach. Fulfillment is found not from daily life but in escaping from it. Since happiness is unavailable, the mass of mankind seeks pleasure. Please pass me more Soma.
-
Eeeww…the dogma in this thread's air is so thick it's starting to condense on the walls. :)
-Dave-
-
If one wants to be creative, he must remain unhappy. Unhappiness is the first requirement for any creative career...
Does Neuroticism Give Rise To Creativity? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/08/27/does-neuroticism-breed-creativity/)
There’s evidence to suggest that people who score higher on measures of neuroticism also score higher in creativity... And now, say a team of researchers who study it, there’s now good brain science to back the theory up.
-
Does Neuroticism Give Rise To Creativity? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/08/27/does-neuroticism-breed-creativity/)
That's a very good link you gave us, Slobodan. I certainly recognize a lot of the symptoms within the self, even if I don't feel I'm actually that creative; more do I feel I have an ability to take something pretty from the moment, assuming always that the moment allows me that. It's why I was ever drawn to model work, and why I saw the huge importance of the right model from the very beginning of my photographic life. Success in making those kinds of pictures comes from (for me) the interplay of the two minds; having a third party present at a shoot is, again just for me, similar to what I imagine it must be like to go on honeymoon with friends. I'd rather pass! In contrast, standing alone before a scene means there is nothing human with which to interact, backing up again my feeling that all my landcape attempts have been nothing more than sets for absent models. A mindset, no doubt.
It seems to suggest to me why I now find, starting off at home with an idea to go out and shoot a specific thing, seldom brings any reward.
Happiness? My philosophy is this: life is a straigh-line graph, and the moments of up are happiness, and the dips sadness. I don't believe it's possibe to live normally, permanently, in one or the other of the blips: to do so would remove your ability to realise that you were, in fact, on either a crest or deep in a ditch; you would then, deprived of relativity, believe that what the majority enjoys as normal is, actually, one of the extremes. Perhaps that actually explains a lot of what goes on around one.
Beyond that, I also believe that a lot of the thing has to do with roots. Not for a moment do I believe that the very noticeable abundance of very talented Jews in the art world is accidental, any more than that it's as simple as a plot by the art world to keep the rest of us out. I think it stems from something to do with genes, from generations of life experiences and possible avenues of escape from some of the same. Adversity makes you feel.
Rob
-
Some years back The New Yorker had a nice piece on inspiration. That is, the process by which the right answer just comes to you, apparently in an instant, and for no immediate reason.
This is, it turns out, a quite manageable process.
You need lots of relevant knowledge.
You need to brood on the problem at hand, intensely. Try solutions. Fail.
Then you need to take a break. Take a walk or a shower. Think about other things and let your subconscious try to match a solution, built from your brooding and your failed attempts, and your deep knowledge.
If you're lucky, the answer simply pops out of nowhere, mid-shower.
Being neurotic probably helps with several of these things, but you can also just do them on purpose.
-
Damn... I've been taking those showers frequently and only managed to end up with... a dry skin ;D
-
It's unreliable!
Also, Hi Rob!
-
It's unreliable!
Also, Hi Rob!
And Hi to you, too!
I touched on the unhappiness thing in another thread, the one about 'Street', when I posted an interview with Frank Horvat. In case some don't follow that thread, here is the link again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKOrtXBJ8MQ
As I'd imagined, in his case it's to do with the uncertainty in Jewish life, and uncertainty can do many different things to different folks.
I'm not Jewish, but have often wished that I was, in the fond hope that it might have given me a greater ability in the path I chose. Let's face it: so many wonderful artists across different genres are Jewish, so it can't be accident alone that stacks those genetic cards like that! And yes, I will always believe that it's genetic in the other sense, that you are either born with 'it' or you are not. The real question is about quantity of such a blessing/curse. And it sure can be both at the same time, especially if there's not enough of the 'it' to take you where you want to go!
Rob
-
"Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the overcompensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn’t nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand."
— Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
-
"Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the overcompensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn’t nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand."
— Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
Quite; life seems to seek a permanent state of flux. Boredom is when nothing happens, either way. Sometimes, boredom is the better option.
Rob
-
Quite; life seems to seek a permanent state of flux. Boredom is when nothing happens, either way. Sometimes, boredom is the better option.
Rob
"You never find happiness until you stop looking for it. My greatest happiness consists precisely in doing nothing whatever that is calculated to obtain happiness: and this, in the minds of most people, is the worst possible course.
I will hold to the saying that: “Perfect joy is to be without joy. Perfect praise is to be without prasie.”
— Chuang Tzu, 239 BC
-
"You never find happiness until you stop looking for it. My greatest happiness consists precisely in doing nothing whatever that is calculated to obtain happiness: and this, in the minds of most people, is the worst possible course.
I will hold to the saying that: “Perfect joy is to be without joy. Perfect praise is to be without prasie.”
— Chuang Tzu, 239 BC
Maybe he saw me coming?
;-)
Rob C
-
Interesting article! But I'm a bit puzzled by one of Winogrand's quotes; "Photos have no narrative content. They only describe light on surface."
That's a bit like saying, 'Novels do not have a narrative content. They just contain black smudges on white paper (ie. text)".
Is he trying to say that all narratives exist only in the mind? If that's what he's saying, then of course I agree. ;)
-
Interesting article! But I'm a bit puzzled by one of Winogrand's quotes; "Photos have no narrative content. They only describe light on surface."
That's a bit like saying, 'Novels do not have a narrative content. They just contain black smudges on white paper (ie. text)".
Is he trying to say that all narratives exist only in the mind? If that's what he's saying, then of course I agree. ;)
Perhaps he was just being kind; couldn't bring himself to state outright that, deep, deep inside he felt photography to be a pretty much empty art form - a doodle?
Rob
-
Welcome back, Rob. After your long hiatus, with time to contemplate, we expect great insights. ;)
-
Welcome back, Rob. After your long hiatus, with time to contemplate, we expect great insights. ;)
Thanks, Ray,
Time to contemplate? You think? If only housework and eating didn't have to exist, then yep, there might be time for thought. As it is, it takes me all morning to get to the stage where I am clean, clad and can go out to face the world without being mistaken for a tourist.
Oh, I did get to shoot some snaps, design and submit two books, but they may or may not never see the light of day, which doesn't really matter. The point, actually, isn't economic: it's about getting things out of the system and preparing the self for new departures. I caught a David Bailey interview the other day and forgot to 'favourites' it, so can't rediscover it. However, the point is that he said that none of his books made money; it wasn't about that. If they don't make money, does it make a difference, beyond ego, if they don't get published? Anyway, I think ego is mainly a young person's hang-up.
Even more interestingly, he said that in his opinion, photography had died thirty years ago, and that his interest today (whenever 'today' was) was art in its various forms such as paint, snaps and sculpture. To tell the truth, as he and I are much the same age, I place the death at about the same period. I feign no success parallels between the two of us - if only! - but know that it all began to unfold about then, with money getting hard to find, with clients cutting back and/or buying cheaper/going bust; with the whole discipline being eroded by the shamateur input which, for the first time, found a chink in the wall because of economic toughness making pros unable to compete at some levels. Coupled with the sudden decline in photographers running their own studios, owning their own equipment - once the rule - a mess of for-hire operations came to being and so it went, ever more speedily down the economic sink.
Clearly, it didn't die altogether: what happened was that it polarized, with the top getting thinner (like hair) and the bottom spreading, as some bottoms do. What died was the happy middle ground, especially the mom 'n' pop operations where 'growth' was never the end, but that making a comfortable and fulfilling life for self and family was the name of the game. Now, I think you own either the Ferrari or the Fiesta, or you are a grey rep.
Evolution.
Rob
-
... what happened was that it polarized, with the top getting thinner (like hair) and the bottom spreading, as some bottoms do...
Never again is the mentioning of the term "flat organizational structure" going to connote for me the same image of a dry, bureaucratic term. If I ever go back to corporate meeting rooms, I would never be able to suppress a chuckle every time someone mentions it, nor delete that disturbing image that Rob has now forever etched in my mind ;D
-
Damn... I've been taking those showers frequently and only managed to end up with... a dry skin ;D
You need to moisturise more!
-
"If we think that they may get upset for us taking the shot, we should put away those assumptions and go for the shot anyways. If we are concerned of offending people, take the shot anyways."
Kind of arrogant, no?
-
"If we think that they may get upset for us taking the shot, we should put away those assumptions and go for the shot anyways. If we are concerned of offending people, take the shot anyways."
Kind of arrogant, no?
No it isn't imo. The more negative thoughts a street photographer has then the less successful images he/she will get. Assuming the photographer isn't harassing people then what is the harm? The Amateur Photographer magazine UK stated a while back if people don't like getting their picture taken in public then they should sit in the house. Possibly a bit harsh? I sometimes wish I was a bit bolder because I sometimes miss some good images because of reticence to "offend" people.
-
No it isn't imo. The more negative thoughts a street photographer has then the less successful images he/she will get. Assuming the photographer isn't harassing people then what is the harm? The Amateur Photographer magazine UK stated a while back if people don't like getting their picture taken in public then they should sit in the house. Possibly a bit harsh? I sometimes wish I was a bit bolder because I sometimes miss some good images because of reticence to "offend" people.
I tend to agree, Stamper. However, the problem is not always risking offending the subject photographed, but offending some of the viewers of Luminous Landscape, as I did when posting an image of a Thai Ladyboy a while back. I'm quite sure the Ladyboy would not have been at all offended by the display of her medical transformation on the internet. ;)
-
It happens Ray. You can't second guess people's reactions because some of them aren't sincere.
-
The most offensive word of the 21st century: "offended"
-
"If we think that they may get upset for us taking the shot, we should put away those assumptions and go for the shot anyways. If we are concerned of offending people, take the shot anyways."
Kind of arrogant, no?
Indeed, very much so.
It's invasion of privacy, whether legally defined as such or not. Everybody knows perfectly well when they are screwing somebody up, and as far as I can see, that's very often very much the motivation, mixed up with "gee, look how brave I am!" However, if you ask the 'subject' and they say okay, then no sweat - shoot.
Photographing the socially inept, the down 'n' outs, the maimed and the ugly, the dwarfed, and all the other involutary, disadvantaged eye-magnets that exist isn't terribly nice. Regarding Ray's Ladyboys, well that's a bit different, because I expect that they are looking for attention and feel part of the carnival of the street, so you give 'em some gratification, and in their own country, I expect they could just as easily cut you to bits if they felt annoyed...
In my own case, I have a wish to collect pix of beautiful strangers, but I face two major problems:
a. there are very few walking the streets;
b. those that do seem to be accompanied by husbands etc. and there's little point in getting into 'conversations' for the sake of a silly website picture.
In fact I was mistaken: there are actually three problems, the third being that I wouldn't have taken very kindly to some dickhead with a camera sticking it in my wife's face.
I don't exclude my quest from some level of blame/guilt, only that I feel there's no bad intention or mockery - anything but; it's meant as a compliment, especially in my case, because I have so much past to draw from, filter and compare. Maybe that's why I see so few suitable candidates in the street...
Frankly, the whole damned thing is a bog of moral insecurity and uncertainty best left alone and to history, to a time when 'subjects' didn't know any better.
Actually, I think an overpowering desire to do 'street' is possbily a sense of personal lack. In my own case, were my wife still around, it wouldn't have entered my mind to seek my 'beauts'. (They are) "substitutes, yeah, substitutes; that's all they are," is a quotation from one of our latter-day street philosophers, Bob Dylan. Sums it up beautifully. Maybe it's actually a matter of 'get a life'.
Rob C
-
The most offensive word of the 21st century: "offended"
You are pulling my leg. You can not be serious.
-
Dead serious, Rob.
-
Dead serious, Rob.
Let me see if I got this:
You are saying that nobody has the right to feel 'offended', upset, or bloody annoyed if somebody does something unpleasant to them? Are you a genuine pacifist, a monk, or simply feeling a little crazy today?
;-)
Rob
-
I tend to agree, Stamper. However, the problem is not always risking offending the subject photographed, but offending some of the viewers of Luminous Landscape, as I did when posting an image of a Thai Ladyboy a while back. I'm quite sure the Ladyboy would not have been at all offended by the display of her medical transformation on the internet. ;)
What the hell is a Thai ladyboy? A katoy?
-
You are saying that nobody has the right to feel 'offended', upset, or bloody annoyed if somebody does something unpleasant to them?..
Rob, I am a staunch supporter of freedom and individual liberties. From that perspective, of course you have every right to feel however you want. It is just that that right does not necessarily extend into doing something about it. Especially not turning it into a political movement and ruining people lives in retaliation. Which brings us to the other highlighted words, "does... to them." There is a difference between saying and doing something to somebody. Sticks and stones... etc.
If someone wants to take a picture of my wife or daughter, I'd take that as a compliment. If he, however, does it in such a way to obstruct our movement, I'd push him out of the way.
There is no shortage to all kind of people being "offended" by all kind of things. There is always someone, somewhere, offended by something. Which would be their problem only, until people start losing jobs and careers (and in certain countries freedom or life) for uttering a single word that "offended" someone. You offered a good example of shortening British and Pakistani.
The latest craze here in the States is that certain university professors are lowering grades (http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6770) of their students or failing them for using words like "he, she, male, female, illegal alien," etc.
Or finding a flag "offensive" and "racist." No, not the Confederate flag, a flag denoting POW and MIA (http://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2015/08/powmia_flag_controversy_racist.html) (prisoners of war and missing in action).
-
There is no shortage to all kind of people being "offended" by all kind of things. There is always someone, somewhere, offended by something. Which would be their problem only, until people start losing jobs and careers (and in certain countries freedom or life) for uttering a single word that "offended" someone. You offered a good example of shortening British and Pakistani.
In the UK 'Paki" has always been used as a racist insult. There is no way that it's an innocent shortening of 'Pakistani'. If it's OK for white people in the UK to use the term 'Paki" then it must be OK for white people in the USA to use the term 'Nigger'.
-
... then it must be OK for white people in the USA to use the term 'Nigger'.
And if you followed my logic so far, you'd wouldn't surprised to learn that I do think it is OK. That is, outside of the very narrowly defined (by SCOTUS) exclusion from free speech, known as "fighting words."
Oh, by the way, you just used it. And if you were in the States, you just risked losing your job and your career.
-
In the UK 'Paki" has always been used as a racist insult. There is no way that it's an innocent shortening of 'Pakistani'.
Are you sure? If one said I'm popping to the paki shop - is that an insult? For sure when young (50 years ago) my friends and I would say someone was a Paki if he was, if you see what I mean, and no slur was intended although it was hardly a thoughtful and kind thing to say. As with many things context is king.
-
Rob, I am a staunch supporter of freedom and individual liberties. From that perspective, of course you have every right to feel however you want. It is just that that right does not necessarily extend into doing something about it. Especially not turning it into a political movement and ruining people lives in retaliation. Which brings us to the other highlighted words, "does... to them." There is a difference between saying and doing something to somebody. Sticks and stones... etc.
If someone wants to take a picture of my wife or daughter, I'd take that as a compliment. If he, however, does it in such a way to obstruct our movement, I'd push him out of the way.
There is no shortage to all kind of people being "offended" by all kind of things. There is always someone, somewhere, offended by something. Which would be their problem only, until people start losing jobs and careers (and in certain countries freedom or life) for uttering a single word that "offended" someone. You offered a good example of shortening British and Pakistani.
The latest craze here in the States is that certain university professors are lowering grades (http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6770) of their students or failing them for using words like "he, she, male, female, illegal alien," etc.
Or finding a flag "offensive" and "racist." No, not the Confederate flag, a flag denoting POW and MIA (http://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2015/08/powmia_flag_controversy_racist.html) (prisoners of war and missing in action).
Slobodan, your points are serious ones, and refer to people with crazy agendas.
I am 'offended' if somebody sharing a lift with me wilfully farts as if it was normal to do that in lifts (it's never happend yet, but I bet it starts immediately!); I'd feel 'offended' if somebody dropped his pants in the street just as my granddaughters were a yard away from him; I'd feel 'offended' if somebody poured his booze all over my head because he felt like it. A similar list could go on for ever.
The point is, an 'offence' is a real attack on the person offended. Everybody not slightly insane or very badly brought up understands what is acceptable behaviour in a given society. Exceeding those boundaries to the extent of inflicting some inconvenience or unpleasantness upon another person is not a 'right', it's a transgression of normal, civilized behaviour, to which the natural reaction is to feel offended. A younger, fitter person might simply flatten the aggressor.
If you were referring to Political Correctness, I agree with you: that's not sensible behaviour, it's just another face of the same 'offensive' ethic. I should know: they effed my business with calendars pretty damned efficiently, and I never ever did porn of any type; hated it. Also ruined the earning life of many a model, they did, those ugly sisters. Ironically, you see more semi-porn in fashion glossies these days than anywhere else.
Rob
-
In the UK 'Paki" has always been used as a racist insult. There is no way that it's an innocent shortening of 'Pakistani'. If it's OK for white people in the UK to use the term 'Paki" then it must be OK for white people in the USA to use the term 'Nigger'.
Well, that's news to me: there was no Pakistan, neither west nor eastern until August, 1947, there was only India, and folks from there began to come to Britain soon afterwards because Britain granted people from what had previously been the single, united (but with warring factions of) India, passports.
In the British 50s, which I remember too well, most Brits didn't have a clue that there was a difference between Indians and Pakistanis. They all just came from India, period, and Jamaica was considered the major threat. But Paki was certainly not, in my experience, an insult, any more than calling somebody from Scotland a Scottie, a Scot, or a Jock, which isn't what the Americans think of as a jock.
If you want some real experience of discrimination, hear this: before we returned to Britain we lived in Bombay for six weeks or so. There was a famous swimming pool there called Breach Candy, which during the pre-47 period had been reserved for whites. Now, well after '47, during my stay in the city, I'd go swimming in that pool (two, actually: indoors and outside) every day. One day I went to the Eros cinema to watch a movie. To my surprise and joy, sitting right behind me was an Indian boy who'd been in the same school as myself, hundreds of miles away, down in the south. I suggested we go swimming together the next day, and he told me he couldn't go with me: he wouldn't be allowed in. Now get this: that was years after the Brits had given Independence to India. So what gives with color? Isn't it odd that even in an Independent India, folks could be barred from something within their own land because of colour? I felt totally embarrassed, for both of us.
Pakistani/Paki. An abbreviation ain't an insult; the full title can be a insult if the person saying the word means it to be.
People can find insults everywhere; all they need is imagination, will and agenda.
Rob C
-
Words being offensive rely entirely upon context. Paki in the the UK has become a word only used by bigots and racists therefore it is now just an offensive term here. Then there's different uses of words in say the US and the UK. Someone on here got upset once when IIRC, I used 'Asian' as it seemed that Asian is now a verboten term for Japanese/Chinese in the US. Whereas here in the UK, it simply means someone from India/Pakistan and oddly enough not usually someone who is from other parts of Asia.
The word Nigger in the US is more complex as it is used in wider variety of ways. Both as a nasty racist insult and as a term of endearment for example. The outright horror of using the 'N' word without considering context is a bit OTT, not to mention the phrase 'the N word' draws even more attention to the fact you are saying 'nigger' and may also stop the word being reclaimed and made a positive term. 'Gay' used to be an insult for homosexuals, however not anymore as it got claimed and remade as a positive term.
-
Pakistani/Paki. An abbreviation ain't an insult; the full title can be a insult if the person saying the word means it to be.
Paki: an offensive word for a person from Pakistan Cambridge Dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/paki)
Paki: slang offensive Pocket Oxford Dictionary 1992
Yes, Brit is only an abbreviation of British, a phrase often used by Brits abroad to describe themselves.
No, Paki is not only an abbreviation of Pakistan, not a phrase used by people of Pakistani descent to describe themselves but a phrase used by British racists to mark out the other.
But you knew that. (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=75253.msg601036#msg601036)
-
There is a difference between saying and doing something to somebody. Sticks and stones... etc.
That's a very naive and stupid thing to say. People have killed themselves over bullying that never got physical.
In fact judging by your posting on here, you are the sort of person who enjoys verbal bullying and being nasty to to other people, as well as posting thinly veiled homophobic and less veiled misogynistic views. So I'm not surprised that you would object to that sort of unpleasant behaviour being curbed.
-
What the hell is a Thai ladyboy? A katoy?
You should know, Russ, having lived in Thailand. Yes, Katoey (or Kathoey), but I can't show you any images, although I would say that some of my best 'street photography' contain images of katoeys behaving quite naturally. ;)
-
With regret, I lock this topic since not only it has strayed way off topic but is also causing offence.