Post by: RSL on September 04, 2018, 08:41:42 am
Post by: Ivo_B on September 04, 2018, 03:08:25 pm
One: There is a street in it. That's good.
Two: It is on a flee market, That's good as well
Three: It is Maniërisme, Again good
Damn. It is a street Photo!
8)
oho, wait! It is not converted to Black and White. O No, Russ, You can't get away with this one. You obviously didn't study the Masters enough to understand color is a nono.
Just joking, Russ; Your point is?
Post by: Alan Klein on September 04, 2018, 03:42:27 pm
Russ: Nice shot but do you need all that stuff on the right?
Post by: RSL on September 04, 2018, 05:19:22 pm
Post by: BobDavid on September 05, 2018, 12:20:35 am
Post by: Ivophoto on September 05, 2018, 01:37:34 am
Probably not, Alan, but I'm not holding this up as a great street shot. I'm showing it so that people like Ivo might learn the difference between reportage and street.
There is no need to explain, Russ. Because I don’t care about the difference. I care about good pictures to my taste. That is another line diametrically on yours.
You can save you the effort, let’s talk about the quality not about the qualification.
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 09:26:52 am
Post by: elliot_n on September 05, 2018, 09:34:23 am
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 09:50:30 am
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 05, 2018, 09:52:55 am
Street photography is as popular, easy to understand, and accessible concept as the deep web.
It must be somewhere out there, granted, but I have yet to encounter it. Over the years, I have participated in a number of photo contests, not once their categories, sometimes going into a dozen different ones, contained “street.” People, yes. Portrait, yes. Documentary, yes. Street? No.
It is a cult. Obscure and occult.
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 10:09:45 am
And yes, there have been museum showings of street photography. The National Gallery of Art, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 2009 and 2010 had a Robert Frank exhibit titled “Looking In: Robert Frank’s The Americans.” Which is street at its best. A few years ago here in Florida one of our nearby universities had a similar exhibit of Walker Evans’s street work.
You need to get out more, Slobodan.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 05, 2018, 10:20:36 am
I don’t buy books about street photography. Same as I don’t buy books about renaissance. Nothing wrong with peoples who want to do so, but I’m not one of them.
I buy a book of an artist or photo books covering social topics or other topics catching my interest.
The only interest I have in genres and styles is in combination with historical, social and economic relation. This is probably the result of my extensive study of Bertrand Russell’s literature when a was younger.
Please understand for some photography is broader than the image itself and that there are peoples amongst myself that believe there is a much richer, more evolved, more mature way of expression in photography than the obsolete limited and if performed poorly utterly boring street style.
Post by: elliot_n on September 05, 2018, 10:23:11 am
So, if I understand what you’re saying, Slobodan, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Andre Kertesz, Chim, Doisneau, Willy Ronis, Walker Evans, Elliott Erwitt, Mark Riboud, Garry Winogrand, Helen Levitt, and Robert Frank , among a multitude I’ve left out, are members of a cult, which is obscure and occult.
But none of them called themselves 'Street Photographers'.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 05, 2018, 10:48:17 am
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 11:34:00 am
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 11:34:57 am
But none of them called themselves 'Street Photographers'.
Hi, Elliot, How about explaining what that has to do with anything.
Post by: Ivo_B on September 05, 2018, 11:42:56 am
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o ;D
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 11:45:42 am
I buy a book of an artist or photo books covering social topics or other topics catching my interest.
Please explain what you think "social topics" means?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 05, 2018, 11:46:42 am
And so you'd say there's nothing like "landscape," and there's nothing like "portraiture," or "photojournalism?"...
No, those ARE genres that everyone understands what they are without having to read an essay on it (and still end up scratching one's head).
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 11:49:12 am
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 05, 2018, 11:51:20 am
Really? Please explain what you understand these genres to be. "are."
Russ, you are engaging in sophisms. Ask Bill Clinton for help. He wanted to know what the definition of "is" is. ;)
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 12:00:16 pm
Post by: Ivophoto on September 05, 2018, 12:03:05 pm
Please explain what you think "social topics" means?
Did you lost to many time studying the same over en over en forgot to study the obvious?
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 12:06:10 pm
Post by: Ivo_B on September 05, 2018, 12:22:43 pm
Unfortunately, Ivo, that doesn't explain it.
Hm, even not a little bit, Russ?
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 12:24:58 pm
Post by: Ivo_B on September 05, 2018, 12:28:45 pm
Not even an infinitesimal bit, Ivo.
Maybe if you step back a bit, let's say 1/4 mile. Then you can see where your nose is poked in now and I will be in the possibility to point to what I want to explain
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 12:34:17 pm
Post by: elliot_n on September 05, 2018, 12:36:50 pm
Russ, you are engaging in sophisms. Ask Bill Clinton for help. He wanted to know what the definition of "is" is. ;)
As did Martin Heidegger. Spent a life time working on it. Quite fruitfully.
Post by: Ivo_B on September 05, 2018, 12:45:50 pm
I don't think you can explain what you want to explain, Ivo, even if I step back a mile. Problem is that you don't understand what it is you want to explain.
It is difficult to explain a fish how fun it is to fly.
I tried to find something in your native language, Russ: Check this, it is only the tip of the iceberg (https://www.theoryofknowledge.net/areas-of-knowledge/the-arts/what-is-the-relationship-between-art-and-society/)
And this (https://www.quora.com/How-does-society-influence-art-And-can-art-change-society)
Post by: elliot_n on September 05, 2018, 12:46:53 pm
Hi, Elliot, How about explaining what that has to do with anything.
'Street Photography', as set up by Colin Westerbeck in the early 90s, was a very broad church incorporating wildly divergent photographic practices. It was not a movement with a manifesto or a rulebook. The rulebooks have only appeared in the last 20 years.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 05, 2018, 01:12:21 pm
As did Martin Heidegger. Spent a life time working on it. Quite fruitfully.
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on September 05, 2018, 01:16:17 pm
Brilliant.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 05, 2018, 01:52:44 pm
Hehe.
Post by: Chris Kern on September 05, 2018, 01:55:05 pm
[Aristotle, et. al.]
Awww, you left out Lewis Carroll:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 03:00:49 pm
'Street Photography', as set up by Colin Westerbeck in the early 90s, was a very broad church incorporating wildly divergent photographic practices. It was not a movement with a manifesto or a rulebook. The rulebooks have only appeared in the last 20 years.
Hi Elliot, How about pointing me to one of your "rulebooks." As far as I know the genre was defined by photographs, not by words in a book. And I'm quite familiar with Westerbeck's book. It's been by favorite since it came out. You'll see it listed in my bibliography at http://www.pkinfo.com//Bib/Bib.html.
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 03:12:08 pm
It is difficult to explain a fish how fun it is to fly.
I tried to find something in your native language, Russ: Check this, it is only the tip of the iceberg (https://www.theoryofknowledge.net/areas-of-knowledge/the-arts/what-is-the-relationship-between-art-and-society/)
And this (https://www.quora.com/How-does-society-influence-art-And-can-art-change-society)
Oh. Wow, Ivo! “How does society influence Art? And can art change society?” We should have had that quorum on line when I was in high school and my buddies and I were discussing that kind of stuff over beer before we were old enough to drink. And “TheoryofKnowledge.net.” That site would have been a big help when I took philosophy 101 at University of Michigan in 1949.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 05, 2018, 03:40:22 pm
Oh. Wow, Ivo! “How does society influence Art? And can art change society?” We should have had that quorum on line when I was in high school and my buddies and I were discussing that kind of stuff over beer before we were old enough to drink. And “TheoryofKnowledge.net.” That site would have been a big help when I took philosophy 101 at University of Michigan in 1949.
I didn’t expect something else than an arrogantly reaction.
Then, Russ, when did you loose your ability to be open for other viewpoints? Or why do you pretend not to understand what is not in line with your stubbornness?
I guess Slobodan nailed it. It is only semantics isn’t it?
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 04:09:29 pm
Sooner or later, if you want to make your case (whatever it is?) you're going to have to get beyond generalities and deal with facts. The fact is: there's a photographic genre called "street photography." It deals with interactions between humans, other humans, and their environment, and as OmerV put it in another thread: ". . .street photography is not a hunt. It is a benign exploration of life in an effort to create a meaningful statement or poem." I especially like the "poem" part of that statement because I've written about the relationship between street photography and poetry, as has Tod Papageorge (whoever that is, right, Ivo?). It's obvious from your statements on the subject, and, I have to add, from your photography that that's a relationship you fail to grasp. So I guess it's not too strange that you don't understand street photography.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 05, 2018, 04:34:00 pm
It is ok you don’t agree and you don’t see it. It is also ok you bail out every discussion where your opinion is at stake and it is ok you choose to stay in your mental safe house.
It is ok, Russ. It is ok.
Just one more thing, I guess you will bail out of this discussion if I remember you to an earlier topic where I tried to explain photography was not necessarily a hunt but in the right hands it could be an observation. You laughed at me, Russ. Strange how you turn you jacket inside out.
But also this is ok to me.
So. Are you satisfied with the reactions on your sparring partner seeking topic? Let’s face it, you are not interested in a debate, you only want to stuff your mantra in the goose neck. Also this is ok.
Kind regards.
Ivo
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 04:40:09 pm
Post by: elliot_n on September 05, 2018, 04:45:11 pm
Post by: Ivo_B on September 05, 2018, 05:09:36 pm
I'm happy to hear everything is okay, Ivo.
Just in case you forgot:
Really? Please explain why you think shooting pictures with a camera is not a hunt -- or as you put it, "predation?" Whether you're out there with a camera or in here -- in the studio -- with a camera, you're after a subject.
What premise is that, Evo?
In other words, you can't come up with a quote that supports your earlier contention that this section started with the idea that street is the only reason to raise a camera.
Sorry, Evo. What I see is bluster and sentiment rather than facts.
Quote from: Ivo
Ok Ross, I'll try to stick to the content of the discussion.
The subject of a picture is not necessarily a prey and a picture is not necessarily a hunting trophy. A picture can be an observation, it can be documentation, it can be a report, a report can be subjective or objective, full of emotion or emotionless, but in all these forms, it isn't a prey or a trophy, the subject is not hunted, only observed. A picture can be a gift from the subject to the photographer. Even further, with the attitude to hunt with your camera, you have no chance at all to make good portraits.
So what did you want to say about 'all photography' is hunting. A camera is not a gun, it is much more powerful than a gun, not because its precision or stopping power, but because the ability to observe and document in the hands of an observer.
Remember? But please, answer Eliot's question.
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 05:26:28 pm
Russ, to steer back to your original post, you claim that the fact the two actors in the image are interacting transforms the image from 'reportage' into 'street'. Why?
It's a fair question, Elliot. About all I can do is go back to this statement from an earlier post: "It deals with interactions between humans, other humans, and their environment, and as OmerV put it in another thread: ". . .street photography is not a hunt. It is a benign exploration of life in an effort to create a meaningful statement or poem."
Most street is also reportage. If the vendor in that first post had been working on his inventory and the bystander had been standing there looking at what he was doing that would be reportage, which is exactly the kind of thing most photographers on the street would shoot and call a street shot. But in this shot, something more is going on. I haven't the foggiest idea what it is, but there's a kind of relationship between these two guys that's intensely human.
I don’t know how to explain it more specifically than that. Which always is the problem when you try to talk about street photography in the abstract. The other part is that good street goes beyond reportage. It always is a poem. I have no idea how many people in this thread actually have looked at https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/. From the tenor of the discussion I’d guess almost none. But here’s an example from that article of what Omer was talking about. It’s not an interaction between people. It’s an interaction between a human and her environment. More importantly, it’s a poem about a little girl deep inside her questing humanity. The best street photography always is a poem.
Post by: elliot_n on September 05, 2018, 07:06:41 pm
I can't say the same for 'And Then'. The interaction between the two old chaps doesn't create any sparks for me. And on a purely visual level, I find nothing to get excited about.
But we all get off on different things.
Post by: RSL on September 05, 2018, 07:45:48 pm
Post by: elliot_n on September 05, 2018, 08:13:50 pm
To me, both pictures are snapshots taken at street markets.
Humans are in both pictures, and hence there is humanity. In one picture, an artist works intently, observed by a bystander. In the other, two old boys shoot the breeze.
They are very similar pictures. Documents of activity in a street market. Neither are 'reportage' (which depicts newsworthy events). Both are 'snapshots', 'documentary', and 'street'.
I do understand what you're getting at. But I'm not really feeling it.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 06, 2018, 05:16:38 am
I know this image is in high regards by some. I don’t agree. It is a not really good composed back shot image of a girl fiddling with something. The rest is projection. The poem is in the romanticism of the genre, not in the photo.
And this is exactly my major comment on the majority of the so called street photography. It suffers from the photographers neurosis to feel comfortable in the entrapment of the definition.
Post by: RSL on September 06, 2018, 07:22:52 am
Chris Kern's picture is here: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126633.0
To me, both pictures are snapshots taken at street markets.
Humans are in both pictures, and hence there is humanity. In one picture, an artist works intently, observed by a bystander. In the other, two old boys shoot the breeze.
They are very similar pictures. Documents of activity in a street market. Neither are 'reportage' (which depicts newsworthy events). Both are 'snapshots', 'documentary', and 'street'.
I do understand what you're getting at. But I'm not really feeling it.
That's okay, Elliot. Sorry to hear you don't feel it. I think most good artists: painters, photographers, poets, etc., are good because they feel it.
Post by: RSL on September 06, 2018, 07:24:16 am
The girl photo:
I know this image is in high regards by some. I don’t agree. It is a not really good composed back shot image of a girl fiddling with something. The rest is projection. The poem is in the romanticism of the genre, not in the photo.
And this is exactly my major comment on the majority of the so called street photography. It suffers from the photographers neurosis to feel comfortable in the entrapment of the definition.
Well, then that explains your problem, Ivo.
Post by: elliot_n on September 06, 2018, 07:59:59 am
That's okay, Elliot. Sorry to hear you don't feel it. I think most good artists: painters, photographers, poets, etc., are good because they feel it.
For sure. But they have to communicate that feeling to the viewer. And I'm not getting it from your market picture. That is all.
Post by: RSL on September 06, 2018, 08:05:47 am
Post by: elliot_n on September 06, 2018, 08:22:25 am
https://in-public.com/photographers/david-gibson/
His work depends on humour - the surreal visual gag. The images are as much about him, and the cleverness of his seeing, as they are about the world out there.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 06, 2018, 08:29:34 am
Well, I agree that it doesn't knock you down, but it's there. It's a long way from being one of my favorite street pictures, but it illustrates the point I was making.
It surely illustrates a point, not sure if it is yours.
Apart from that, I do appreciate your pitbulliness, I hope I will be so competitive at your age. And I mean this in a respectful way.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 06, 2018, 08:31:43 am
What do you make of contemporary street photography? Take, for example, the work of the Brit, David Gibson:
https://in-public.com/photographers/david-gibson/
His work depends on humour - the surreal visual gag. The images are as much about him, and the cleverness of his seeing, as they are about the world out there.
This is street photography with a good humoristique and intellectuel level. I like this a lot.
And you mention a nasty word here: contemporary. I tried to show and discuss this approach earlier but got served out with the: “you obviously didn’t study enough”
Post by: RSL on September 06, 2018, 09:11:36 am
This is street photography with a good humoristique and intellectuel level. I like this a lot.
If this is your idea of good and humorous and "intellectual" street photography, Ivo, be my guest. Go with it. You've made the depth of your understanding of the genre clear.
Post by: elliot_n on September 06, 2018, 09:32:42 am
Is it street?
Is it good?
Post by: Ivophoto on September 06, 2018, 10:54:33 am
If this is your idea of good and humorous and "intellectual" street photography, Ivo, be my guest. Go with it. You've made the depth of your understanding of the genre clear.
Don’t fall in the canyon.
Post by: RSL on September 06, 2018, 11:01:15 am
I'm curious to know what you think of it, Russ.
Is it street?
Is it good?
Some of it's good. Some not so good. It's obvious he learned a lot from Helen Levitt, which is good. On balance I wouldn't knock it. What I would do is quote what I wrote in https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/: "Fact is that even when you get good at street photography, you’ll shoot bags and bags of bloopers, a smaller number of not too bad shots, and the rare picture you should be willing to show. Beyond that, there’s the kind of picture upon which you’d be willing to hang your reputation. If you can average one of those a year you’re getting pretty good." Were I Gibson I'd have culled a lot of the stuff he posted, but, what the hey, we're all guilty of over-posting. And, yes, I wouldn't hesitate to call it street.
Post by: RSL on September 06, 2018, 11:01:52 am
Don’t fall in the canyon.
Do you really want to dig yourself in any deeper, Ivo?
Post by: Ivo_B on September 06, 2018, 11:42:20 am
Do you really want to dig yourself in any deeper, Ivo?
I think you had enough attention, Russ.
Post by: RSL on September 06, 2018, 11:49:33 am
I think you had enough attention, Russ.
;D ;D ;D 8) :o Due largely to your inability to grasp the material I've been presenting, Ivo. But I used to run into that problem sometimes when I was teaching computer science. There's really no way around it. All you can do is keep working on it, Ivo.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 06, 2018, 12:29:15 pm
Due largely to your inability to grasp the material I've been presenting, Ivo. But I used to run into that problem sometimes when I was teaching computer science. There's really no way around it. All you can do is keep working on it, Ivo.
All the material you are presenting.
You mean the iteration of that one picture and that single article?
Enough navel gazing for you today, Russ. Talk to you later.
Haha, you are priceless.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 06, 2018, 12:37:35 pm
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126367.msg1066421#msg1066421
Post by: Ivophoto on September 06, 2018, 01:12:32 pm
Russ, please stop! Ivo is about to hang himself ;D
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126367.msg1066421#msg1066421
Hahaha. Yeah.
Post by: RSL on September 06, 2018, 02:07:27 pm
Russ, please stop! Ivo is about to hang himself ;D
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126367.msg1066421#msg1066421
No Slobodan. He's not "about to." He did that several posts back. But he just can't keep from jerking himself up higher and higher.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 06, 2018, 02:47:12 pm
No Slobodan. He's not "about to." He did that several posts back. But he just can't keep from jerking himself up higher and higher.
It would be good if your vivid imagination reflected in your photos.
Jerking, he said. Hahaha
Post by: RSL on September 06, 2018, 03:41:26 pm
Jerking, he said. Hahaha
Exactly, Ivo. Glad you got my drift.
Post by: elliot_n on September 07, 2018, 08:20:25 am
Some of it's good. Some not so good. It's obvious he learned a lot from Helen Levitt, which is good. On balance I wouldn't knock it. What I would do is quote what I wrote in https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/: "Fact is that even when you get good at street photography, you’ll shoot bags and bags of bloopers, a smaller number of not too bad shots, and the rare picture you should be willing to show. Beyond that, there’s the kind of picture upon which you’d be willing to hang your reputation. If you can average one of those a year you’re getting pretty good." Were I Gibson I'd have culled a lot of the stuff he posted, but, what the hey, we're all guilty of over-posting. And, yes, I wouldn't hesitate to call it street.
I'm glad you acknowledge his work as street photography, as I thought it might lie outside your definitions of the genre.
I think it's a strong portfolio. It's a style that a lot of younger street photographers are trying to achieve.
Some of the images take a while to sink in. There are a couple of images that seem out of place (e.g. the second image, of the doll - there doesn't seem to be much going on there).
Post by: Rob C on September 07, 2018, 11:33:13 am
Nothing much needs to go on: the ambiguity is sufficient. In fact ambiguity is far more potent than any obvious event, I think; it makes you bring your own mind to the party rather than just accept another's gift.
I do see the odd Saul Leiter rip-off, but who doesn't try? I sure do!
Why? Well, it comes down to the old one from Terence Donovan about the most difficult thing for the amateur being finding a reason to make a photograph. The pro always has a reason: his client provides it. So, sans clients post-retirement, the closest I can come to it is in giving myself a specific exercise just to see if I can do it. This works - briefly - but fades when there is no real judgement day.
Examples of mine have been Leiter (and I hope to return to that at some stage), the titles for Braquo, the Miss Coke thing. But inevitably, playing pretend games bores.
And then people think buying a new camera will resolve all those deeper factors.
Rob
Post by: RSL on September 07, 2018, 12:11:42 pm
I certainly agree about Leiter, though my all-time favorites are HCB, of course, and beyond him, Walker Evans, Winogrand, and above all, Robert Frank. I think I’d like to have known Elliott Erwitt, because his sense of humor strikes a particular bell with me.
Of course people think success is in the camera. They’re told that at every turn. There doesn’t seem to be even one photo magazine any longer that deals with photographs -- with the kind of criticism I remember Pop Photo giving The Americans. The criticism was wrong, but it was a discussion of what matters: the photographs. Then there’s this morning’s ad from Panasonic about a camera “built for camera enthusiasts.” Yeah. They actually admitted the thing is for people interested in gadgetry.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 07, 2018, 12:37:55 pm
If this is your idea of good and humorous and "intellectual" street photography, Ivo, be my guest. Go with it. You've made the depth of your understanding of the genre clear.
Wel, a few post ago you found my appreciation of this work a prove that I didn’t understand a thing.
Strange.
Post by: Rob C on September 07, 2018, 12:53:45 pm
Thanks, Rob. I finally got enough time this morning to spend some of it with Gibson’s work. I like it better the more I look at it. He understands what street photography is all about. There’s plenty of ambiguity in a lot of those pictures, and ambiguity is part of what makes both good street photography and good poetry work.
I certainly agree about Leiter, though my all-time favorites are HCB, of course, and beyond him, Walker Evans, Winogrand, and above all, Robert Frank. I think I’d like to have known Elliott Erwitt, because his sense of humor strikes a particular bell with me.
Of course people think success is in the camera. They’re told that at every turn. There doesn’t seem to be even one photo magazine any longer that deals with photographs -- with the kind of criticism I remember Pop Photo giving The Americans. The criticism was wrong, but it was a discussion of what matters: the photographs. Then there’s this morning’s ad from Panasonic about a camera “built for camera enthusiasts.” Yeah. They actually admitted the thing is for people interested in gadgetry.
I didn't get to see many Pop Phot monthly mags, but over several years I did manage to collect a nice set of the Pop Phot Annuals and Color Annuals. It's where I met Leiter, W. Eugene Smith and many more. In Britain, there used to be Photography, edited by Norman Hall, where I picked up on lots of the European photographers. It was also were I had my very first picture published. Made my year!
Those magazines and Annuals were an education in photographic culture, and nothing to do with processing or that kind of thing which was well-covered in Britain (during the 50s) by Amateur Photographer. Needless to say, Photography vanished as, I think, the PP Annuals and, recently, the magazine too. Whether it's symptomatic of the decline in interest in photography per se and a swing to GAS I'm not sure, but it leaves quite a void. No, the Internet doesn't do all that great a job filling the space because there is no good editor, unfortunately.
Rob
Post by: Ivo_B on September 07, 2018, 01:06:12 pm
I understand this way of visual communication and I like it, see one of my images:
Post by: RSL on September 07, 2018, 02:36:38 pm
Post by: Ivophoto on September 07, 2018, 03:09:51 pm
And this is the equivalent of the doll picture, Ivo?
This one is better Russ. You can not judge it, you don’t feel and see it.
Post by: RSL on September 07, 2018, 03:34:41 pm
Post by: elliot_n on September 07, 2018, 03:40:11 pm
Ivo, I think your picture is equivalent to the doll picture. Something somewhat out of place.
Post by: elliot_n on September 07, 2018, 03:52:30 pm
I do see the odd Saul Leiter rip-off...
Image 13 is a nice riff on HCB's Gare St. Lazare
Post by: Rob C on September 07, 2018, 03:55:37 pm
The doll is a (1) tired trope in street photography (2) (as is its cousin, the mannequin). I don't think Gibson is doing much with it here. (3) Ambiguity? I don't see it. He does much better with the mannequin's legs in the 6th picture. That one is properly ambiguous (on a visual level) - as are many of his best pictures.
Ivo, I think your picture is equivalent to the doll picture. Something somewhat out of place.
1. Well there you are: street accepted as genre!
2. Heartbroken! I thought my snaps of plastic window girls were all my own work.
3. Ambiguity is like jazz: if you gotta ask what it is you won't understand it.
Ivo's pot is not ambiguous, just out in the corridor whilst the owner is cleaning the passage. The doll in the colour photo is ambiguous because you are left wondering why it's there, and as that question can have many answers you are left puzzling over which might be correct.
Anyone not left puzzling about the doll is lacking in visual curiosity; the purchase of a new camera or lens will fix that immediately.
;-)
Post by: elliot_n on September 07, 2018, 04:04:37 pm
Post by: Ivophoto on September 07, 2018, 04:11:19 pm
Ivo, I think your picture is equivalent to the doll picture. Something somewhat out of place.
It is all about projection of the viewer.
Rob C pulls in the assumption there is someone cleaning a corridor. This is purely projection.
A doll is more projection inducing than a plant, it is a reasonably easy one, photographing an abandoned doll. Looking at a doll, the association with little kids and how that doll got left behind is obvious.
A plant is more abstract to projection, that makes the image less to read in terms of romantisme. For me, it makes the images more interesting.
Maybe romantic souls will be more attracted to the doll picture, cynical or sarcastic minds will like the plant photo.
The subject I want to introduce is the viewers projection.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 07, 2018, 04:12:48 pm
I live in London, near Brick Lane market, and there is nothing puzzling about the sight of that doll. Similarly, Ivo's plant pot is a commonplace sight in Japan.
Absolutely, as said, it’s all in the viewers projection.
Post by: RSL on September 07, 2018, 04:14:36 pm
Post by: Ivo_B on September 07, 2018, 04:28:54 pm
Here you go, Ivo. Project on this one.
I guess you have a whole Netflix full of projection on this one, Russ. This thirteen in a dozen picture is a rather poor composition and the content is not strong enough to justify. What does not mean the photo doesn't have it's merit, let that be clear.
I will tell what I like in this picture: I like the rhythm, the three angles and the color setting. And that is already a lot, isn't it?
Post by: RSL on September 07, 2018, 04:33:08 pm
Post by: Ivo_B on September 07, 2018, 04:43:26 pm
Says the guy with the very badly composed and badly exposed pot in a corridor. That's some projection.
Yes. Thats the guy. The one with the crappy pictures.
In French we say:
Petites gens, petits esprits.
We can disagree, Russ, no problem.
Post by: Rob C on September 07, 2018, 05:15:25 pm
C'mon, you two guys, this is getting nobody anywhere fast.
...............
Living in London and seeing abandoned dolls shouldn't make them less interesting. I live in a tiny town in Mallorca and there's the abandoned doll there too, sometimes, and even another type, much more ambiguous because of where it/she is: inside the cabin of a massive boat hoist; Macho meets Humbert Humbert?
Any old abandoned doll doesn't cut it; the doll and its milieu have to resonate in acute discord for any impact. Just as any old model won't make the cover of Vogue, it all depends on the look.
Rob
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 07, 2018, 05:24:25 pm
Post by: RSL on September 07, 2018, 07:50:20 pm
C'mon, you two guys, this is getting nobody anywhere fast.
...............
Living in London and seeing abandoned dolls shouldn't make them less interesting. I live in a tiny town in Mallorca and there's the abandoned doll there too, sometimes, and even another type, much more ambiguous because of where it/she is: inside the cabin of a massive boat hoist; Macho meets Humbert Humbert?
Any old abandoned doll doesn't cut it; the doll and its milieu have to resonate in acute discord for any impact. Just as any old model won't make the cover of Vogue, it all depends on the look.
Rob
Okay, Ivo. It's been fun, but I'll shake on that.
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on September 07, 2018, 08:38:44 pm
If anyone had any remote interest in street photography, you guys are nipping it in the bud, discussing crappy examples.+1.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 08, 2018, 12:31:52 am
If anyone had any remote interest in street photography, you guys are nipping it in the bud, discussing crappy examples.
Yep. Crappy examples. Correct.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 08, 2018, 01:04:22 am
C'mon, you two guys, this is getting nobody anywhere fast.
...............
Living in London and seeing abandoned dolls shouldn't make them less interesting. I live in a tiny town in Mallorca and there's the abandoned doll there too, sometimes, and even another type, much more ambiguous because of where it/she is: inside the cabin of a massive boat hoist; Macho meets Humbert Humbert?
Any old abandoned doll doesn't cut it; the doll and its milieu have to resonate in acute discord for any impact. Just as any old model won't make the cover of Vogue, it all depends on the look.
Rob
And the viewers projection.
I know this is an annoying to discuss concept but I will try to explain why I find it valuable to explore.
The more a picture is stripped from information there is more room for projection. Some find this interesting some not.
I find it comparable with reading a book vs going to the movies.
I don’t have a quality judgement on both, they live on it’s own merits.
Narrative images have to fall back on visual eloquence. If this is not strong, hopefully the narrative makes the picture. The viewers projection is boxed in. Only top work does both.
As found pictures (I call them ‘as found’) require a cerebral exercise of the viewer. Only carefully composed images, graphically and color wise, are strong enough to invite the viewer to do the effort. The viewers projection is part of the image. Also in this case, only top work will do the job.
What the two styles have in common is the requirement of the biased viewer to be open to read the image. Also an nearly empty page can be read and provocative.
The reason I bring up the pot plant is because this picture becomes interesting depending on the viewers projection.
Rob C sees it as a practical situation during household, Eliot recognize Japanese common sight and a Tumblr connection sent me a message to tell me she was emotional touched because she found the plant was brutally kicked out the door after years of serving and Russ doesn’t see any of it because he sees Ivo behind the picture. All valid and fine impression of that pot picture.
So, that is how powerful a only registering (as found) picture can be. It depends on the viewers projection.
Post by: Ivo_B on September 08, 2018, 04:29:50 am
If anyone had any remote interest in street photography, you guys are nipping it in the bud, discussing crappy examples.
When I was at Art academy, i complained why we always spent so much time discussing the crappy pictures. Why not discussing the great ones. I thought it was because breaking down shitty images is easy.
The teacher said it was the other way around. It was about finding the good elements in the crappy pictures and encourage the student to build on that.
In general, I'm not a big fan anymore of the obvious street work but I do take the time to find the strong elements (to my taste) when looking at a worthwhile image.
The example of Russ, the smoking blurred guy, The picture doesn't make me warm or cold but I admit that my first reaction was just to tease Russ, ok a bit childish, but that was the spiral we where in :-).
The image, as said does have it's own merits. And I will explain further, see picture below.
The yellow line is the main direction of the Picture's plain. the red lines are the lines that give the image dept and rhythm and the third line is the axis of the cigarette smoker. Images gain visual attraction when three lines are used to give dept and structure.
The reason I actually like the image is far away from the genre and for me the only important reason to like or dislike an image. If the scenery was of any interest, the photo would elevate above the average .
The image is actually good composed.
So, it is not so hard to give positive feedback on someones image, even if you don't have a positive vibe with the person.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 08, 2018, 09:37:49 am
...So, it is not so hard to give positive feedback on someones image, even if you don't have a positive vibe with the person.
You are trying too hard, Ivo ;)
It is actually much harder to give negative feedback when you have a positive vibe with the person.
Post by: RSL on September 08, 2018, 09:40:39 am
And the viewers projection.
I know this is an annoying to discuss concept but I will try to explain why I find it valuable to explore.
The more a picture is stripped from information there is more room for projection. Some find this interesting some not.
I find it comparable with reading a book vs going to the movies.
I don’t have a quality judgement on both, they live on it’s own merits.
Narrative images have to fall back on visual eloquence. If this is not strong, hopefully the narrative makes the picture. The viewers projection is boxed in. Only top work does both.
As found pictures (I call them ‘as found’) require a cerebral exercise of the viewer. Only carefully composed images, graphically and color wise, are strong enough to invite the viewer to do the effort. The viewers projection is part of the image. Also in this case, only top work will do the job.
What the two styles have in common is the requirement of the biased viewer to be open to read the image. Also an nearly empty page can be read and provocative.
The reason I bring up the pot plant is because this picture becomes interesting depending on the viewers projection.
Rob C sees it as a practical situation during household, Eliot recognize Japanese common sight and a Tumblr connection sent me a message to tell me she was emotional touched because she found the plant was brutally kicked out the door after years of serving and Russ doesn’t see any of it because he sees Ivo behind the picture. All valid and fine impression of that pot picture.
So, that is how powerful a only registering (as found) picture can be. It depends on the viewers projection.
Ivo, you’ve given an interesting picture of how you approach art. I agree with a lot of it, but I’d disagree a bit in places. I don’t know why you feel this is annoying to discuss. It’s important.
First off, I don’t agree that stripping a picture of information leaves more room for projection. With the pot in the hall there’s no more room for projection than there was with the three blank canvases that won first prize in a long-ago art show in which I once had a couple pictures. The important thing isn’t the lack of information. The important thing, especially in street photography, is ambiguity. With a blank canvas or an underexposed pot in a blank hallway there’s no trigger for projection. You’re not starting with anything. But with a picture like the one I posted with this response, the scene and the people are the trigger. Neither the scene nor the people give you “closure” (I hate that word). Your mind completes the gestalt.
It’s not just “found” pictures that require an internal response on the part of the viewer in order to be appreciated. I’d hesitate to call the response “cerebral” because cerebral implies that the viewer uses his mind to provide the response. I think the response is more like that involuntary response of something much deeper than mind I wrote about in “Touching the Seer. (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/TouchingTheSeer.html)”
But I think Ivo’s right on the money when he says that narrative images require visual eloquence in order to be effective. This applies to reportage and to inanimate things like landscape.
I won’t comment on the rest of Ivo’s post, especially not on the response of the hysterical woman who felt Ivo’s plant was being abused.
Post by: RSL on September 08, 2018, 09:52:06 am
When I was at Art academy, i complained why we always spent so much time discussing the crappy pictures. Why not discussing the great ones. I thought it was because breaking down shitty images is easy.
The teacher said it was the other way around. It was about finding the good elements in the crappy pictures and encourage the student to build on that.
In general, I'm not a big fan anymore of the obvious street work but I do take the time to find the strong elements (to my taste) when looking at a worthwhile image.
The example of Russ, the smoking blurred guy, The picture doesn't make me warm or cold but I admit that my first reaction was just to tease Russ, ok a bit childish, but that was the spiral we where in :-).
The image, as said does have it's own merits. And I will explain further, see picture below.
The yellow line is the main direction of the Picture's plain. the red lines are the lines that give the image dept and rhythm and the third line is the axis of the cigarette smoker. Images gain visual attraction when three lines are used to give dept and structure.
The reason I actually like the image is far away from the genre and for me the only important reason to like or dislike an image. If the scenery was of any interest, the photo would elevate above the average .
The image is actually good composed.
So, it is not so hard to give positive feedback on someones image, even if you don't have a positive vibe with the person.
Thanks, Ivo. I'll take this response as your handshake. But unfortunately, this is the kind of over-analysis that leads people to ponder and lose the shot when they try to do street. I had less than a second to make that picture, so I certainly didn't have time to analyze how it fit art theory. Again, I'd refer you to https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/, and, specifically the part about practicing composition. By the way, I didn't post that picture as a good example of street photography. I posted it as a response to one of Ivo's remarks. I think the picture I posted with my last response is pretty good street photography, if anyone's interested in that kind of opinion.
Post by: Rob C on September 08, 2018, 09:52:29 am
I wonder if there are people who really do not feel any such emotional triggers/passports to anywhere?
Rob
Post by: Ivophoto on September 08, 2018, 10:20:29 am
Thanks, Ivo. I'll take this response as your handshake. But unfortunately, this is the kind of over-analysis that leads people to ponder and lose the shot when they try to do street. I had less than a second to make that picture, so I certainly didn't have time to analyze how it fit art theory. Again, I'd refer you to https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/, and, specifically the part about practicing composition. By the way, I didn't post that picture as a good example of street photography. I posted it as a response to one of Ivo's remarks. I think the picture I posted with my last response is pretty good street photography, if anyone's interested in that kind of opinion.Sure it is an over analyzation.
Over analyzing is not wrong afterwards. It doesn’t work on forehand.
The reason I over analyzed is to stop the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ discussion.
Post by: Ivophoto on September 08, 2018, 10:25:28 am
Your "Touching the Seer" is a beautiful piece of writing.
I wonder if there are people who really do not feel any such emotional triggers/passports to anywhere?
Rob
Back to my Academy docent. He claimed not able to project due to a kind of autism. I’m not sure if he played it or if it was genuine. I reckon the latter.
He was always hard on any work on the table and in his comments he stripped the projection from the image. That was very learning.
We had a lot of good discussions, after all, why should the ability of a viewer to project not be taken in account in the making of an image?
For me it is an extra element to play with.
Post by: Rob C on September 08, 2018, 10:49:58 am
Sure it is an over analyzation.
1. Over analyzing is not wrong afterwards. 2. It doesn’t work on forehand.
The reason I over analyzed is to stop the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ discussion.
1. Not "wrong" but pointlessly too late!
2. When about to shoot, I agree with you. But because there should be reaction to whatever you see, not thought. Thought is too slow. You can think once you've found something static that you dig - hence my separate slot for street art - but otherwise, I think you'll miss the boat.
Even with famous photographs one knows well, such as Leiter's shot from behind of the girl with the loose ponytail (Joanna, c.1947) it can come as a bit of a shock to discover the truth behind the image. I first saw the picture, untitled, online in various collections of the Leiter oeuvre; then, I bought the Steidl two-volume edition called Saul Leiter, early black and white (one book of his interior work, and the other of his outdoor photography). To some surprise, the shot is to be found in the indoor book, whereas the truth is that it's an outdoor picture. There are several such errors. But the biggie is this: having thought it to be a good representation of the decisive shot, if not moment, it turns out to be a snap of a family friend. Bang! goes the thought of a great street capture! A similar disappointment comes from other snaps of friends previously assumed to have been nothing but total strangers to the photographer.
Sometimes, too much information is destructive.
Post by: Ivo_B on September 08, 2018, 10:50:06 am
You are trying too hard, Ivo ;)
It is actually much harder to give negative feedback when you have a positive vibe with the person.
Yeah, that's the photo-forum, photo club syndrome.
Post by: degrub on September 08, 2018, 10:50:36 am
When I was at Art academy, i complained why we always spent so much time discussing the crappy pictures. Why not discussing the great ones. I thought it was because breaking down shitty images is easy.
The teacher said it was the other way around. It was about finding the good elements in the crappy pictures and encourage the student to build on that.
In general, I'm not a big fan anymore of the obvious street work but I do take the time to find the strong elements (to my taste) when looking at a worthwhile image.
The example of Russ, the smoking blurred guy, The picture doesn't make me warm or cold but I admit that my first reaction was just to tease Russ, ok a bit childish, but that was the spiral we where in :-).
The image, as said does have it's own merits. And I will explain further, see picture below.
The yellow line is the main direction of the Picture's plain. the red lines are the lines that give the image dept and rhythm and the third line is the axis of the cigarette smoker. Images gain visual attraction when three lines are used to give dept and structure.
The reason I actually like the image is far away from the genre and for me the only important reason to like or dislike an image. If the scenery was of any interest, the photo would elevate above the average .
The image is actually good composed.
So, it is not so hard to give positive feedback on someones image, even if you don't have a positive vibe with the person.
Clearly the man and the doll are in their respective glass cages.
A good metaphor for much of this discussion.
Post by: Ivo_B on September 08, 2018, 10:52:15 am
Sometimes, too much information is destructive.
Because it ruins that cosy projection, the one that gives you the warm and fuzzy feeling
Post by: Rob C on September 08, 2018, 10:58:10 am
Back to my Academy docent. He claimed not able to project due to a kind of autism. I’m not sure if he played it or if it was genuine. I reckon the latter.
He was always hard on any work on the table and in his comments he stripped the projection from the image. That was very learning.
We had a lot of good discussions, after all, why should the ability of a viewer to project not be taken in account in the making of an image?
For me it is an extra element to play with.
You do that all the time in professional photography: you have to, or starve. The client's opinion is paymaster.
For your own personal, non-commissioned work, you have no idea who your "client" - in the sense of some eventual viewer - might turn out to be, and so you should always please the author - yourself. Trying to be all things to all men is creative suicide.
Post by: Rob C on September 08, 2018, 10:59:06 am
Because it ruins that cosy projection, the one that gives you the warm and fuzzy feeling
Yes.
Post by: drmike on September 08, 2018, 11:55:41 am
Over analyzing is not wrong afterwards. It doesn’t work on forehand.
So, is it the case that the successful greats have this analysis hard wired in their brain so that it is instinctive and their shots are more often well composed as well as having street characteristics?
We know that not all 'great' street shots from the past are quite what they seem but surely many are instinctive reactions to what they see - and are they just able to see faster than me?
Mike
Post by: Ivophoto on September 08, 2018, 12:01:04 pm
So, is it the case that the successful greats have this analysis hard wired in their brain so that it is instinctive and their shots are more often well composed as well as having street characteristics?
We know that not all 'great' street shots from the past are quite what they seem but surely many are instinctive reactions to what they see - and are they just able to see faster than me?
Mike
Talent is one and training the other I guess.
Post by: Rob C on September 08, 2018, 01:33:41 pm
Talent is one and training the other I guess.
Who trained HC-B? HC-B did.
;-)
Post by: RSL on September 08, 2018, 01:54:56 pm
Post by: drmike on September 08, 2018, 02:14:19 pm
It's been said many times on LuLa, but I'll say it again. It's like music. You either have it or you don't have it. I might add that the same thing applies to computer programming and a number of other things.
However this is muddied as many people can attain a great degree of competence through training and application - some to the extent they'll give the best a fair run for their money. But for goodness sake don't ask me for examples!It does of course also depend on the audience.
Mike
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 08, 2018, 02:31:31 pm
Who trained HC-B? HC-B did.
Nice try, Rob. HCB got a training in painting.
Post by: Ivo_B on September 08, 2018, 02:57:42 pm
It's been said many times on LuLa, but I'll say it again. It's like music. You either have it or you don't have it. I might add that the same thing applies to computer programming and a number of other things.
Having it is a condition, one of the conditions. If Bach didn't master writing music, if he didn't learn it, he would only be able to whistle his music.
And programming is a very bad example. You can't put any code together if you don't learn the syntax.
Post by: RSL on September 08, 2018, 03:17:20 pm
Post by: Ivo_B on September 08, 2018, 03:22:21 pm
Not quite, Ivo. "Syntax" in code is very limited. Once you learn to deal with yes/no questions, you're in business.
Class based programming is really something more than yes and no and Fuzy logic even doesn't have a yes and no. Programming evolved a bit since Fortran.
Post by: RSL on September 08, 2018, 03:22:57 pm
However this is muddied as many people can attain a great degree of competence through training and application - some to the extent they'll give the best a fair run for their money. But for goodness sake don't ask me for examples!It does of course also depend on the audience.
Mike
I'll give you an example, Mike. I used to have a friend -- she actually was a friend of my wife. She was an "accomplished" pianist. She had achiever a great deal of competence through training and application, and she gave the piano a fair run for its money. But she played a lot like a player piano.
In the end, it's not a question of training, though obviously that's necessary before you can be a virtuoso. But if you don't have it; if you don't feel it, you'll be like that lady. Oscar Levant used to make mistakes when he played Gershwin, but it didn't really matter much, because the man was IN that music. His soul was in it. You could feel it.
Post by: Ivo_B on September 08, 2018, 03:24:26 pm
I'll give you an example, Mike. I used to have a friend -- she actually was a friend of my wife. She was an "accomplished" pianist. She had achiever a great deal of competence through training and application, and she gave the piano a fair run for its money. But she played a lot like a player piano.He didn't shake the play out of is sleeves.
In the end, it's not a question of training, though obviously that's necessary before you can be a virtuoso. But if you don't have it; if you don't feel it, you'll be like that lady. Oscar Levant used to make mistakes when he played Gershwin, but it didn't really matter much, because the man was IN that music. His soul was in it. You could feel it.
Post by: RSL on September 08, 2018, 03:28:30 pm
Class based programming is really something more than yes and no and Fuzy logic even doesn't have a yes and no. Programming evolved a bit since Fortran.
So tell me how much programming you've done, Ivo, and in what languages did you do it? I don't give a damn what language you do it in, the principles always are the same. Yes the process has progressed, and we now have a lot of stuff canned in libraries that we don't have to keep re-doing. But at bottom it's still the same thing. I no longer do full-scale software engineering, but I do occasionally still do a bit of programming in C#.
Post by: RSL on September 08, 2018, 03:29:28 pm
He didn't shake the play out of is sleeves.
Can you explain what you think that means, Ivo?
Post by: Ivo_B on September 08, 2018, 03:50:31 pm
So tell me how much programming you've done, Ivo, and in what languages did you do it? I don't give a damn what language you do it in, the principles always are the same. Yes the process has progressed, and we now have a lot of stuff canned in libraries that we don't have to keep re-doing. But at bottom it's still the same thing. I no longer do full-scale software engineering, but I do occasionally still do a bit of programming in C#.
I was in a part of my industrial career a PLC programmer, Russ. I programmed Allen and Bradley's, Modicon's, Siemens and GE PLC's and others. I used Fuzzy logic in the control engineering. In fuzzy logic, things are not only true or not true, but they can be a bit true or a lot true. Modern programmable control systems don't allow to program boolean or in machine code.
At the bottom everything is the same, but if you don't understand how classes work in C, you are not going to get a snippet working. Don't tell me you had not to learn the language, at least a start of it, before you was able to code in C.
Post by: Ivo_B on September 08, 2018, 03:52:40 pm
Can you explain what you think that means, Ivo?
That he didn't play it virtuoso from the first attempt but did some practice. (Training)
Post by: RSL on September 08, 2018, 03:59:28 pm
Post by: RSL on September 08, 2018, 04:04:14 pm
That he didn't play it virtuoso from the first attempt but did some practice. (Training)
If you go back and actually read what I wrote in that post you'll notice that I covered that.
Have you ever heard Levant play? He can break your heart.
Post by: Ivo_B on September 08, 2018, 04:09:33 pm
Ivo, I taught C at Colorado Technical College, and I taught C++ to the Cirrus Logic R&D division in Colorado. I might add that when I was teaching these things I learned that you either had it or you didn't. When I taught C, within a couple weeks I knew who in the class was going to make it and who wasn't. There were people there who'd decided to study computer science because they'd been told they could make a lot of money in the field. But they were like tone deaf people trying to learn to be concert pianists.
You taught programming, I made car industrie running on it. So I think I have some background here as well. ;-)
In bold is another story than what you said initially. What is the purpose to teach programming language if it doesn't need training. (Your initial argument) You say now exactly the same as I do and what you started counter-speaking (not sure why) => It takes talent (that what you recognize after two weeks) and training or education.
Post by: Ivo_B on September 08, 2018, 04:11:42 pm
If you go back and actually read what I wrote in that post you'll notice that I covered that.
Have you ever heard Levant play? He can break your heart.
Same as Chet Baker can do this on his trumpet or Emma Kirby can do it vocally, Russ, we don't need to argue on everything.
Post by: Rob C on September 08, 2018, 05:33:18 pm
Nice try, Rob. HCB got a training in painting.
That's not photography: that's a neon red herring.
No score.
Post by: RSL on September 08, 2018, 05:54:18 pm
You taught programming, I made car industrie running on it. So I think I have some background here as well. ;-)
In bold is another story than what you said initially. What is the purpose to teach programming language if it doesn't need training. (Your initial argument) You say now exactly the same as I do and what you started counter-speaking (not sure why) => It takes talent (that what you recognize after two weeks) and training or education.
Ivo. Knock it off. I did software engineering for thirty years. You're not paying attention. I've never suggested you don't need to learn how to use your tools. It's how you use them that matters. But that's after you've learned how they work.
Post by: drmike on September 09, 2018, 02:51:34 am
I'll give you an example, Mike. I used to have a friend -- she actually was a friend of my wife. She was an "accomplished" pianist. She had achiever a great deal of competence through training and application, and she gave the piano a fair run for its money. But she played a lot like a player piano.
Which I thought was what I was saying :)