Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: feppe on December 15, 2010, 02:02:31 pm
-
Since there has been quite a bit of discussion here recently about the good old days and I'm frankly tired of the whining; this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo&feature=player_embedded) should put things into stark perspective on a global level better than I ever can. Longer TED talk here (http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html), and Prof. Rosling's Gapminder site with much more data here (http://www.gapminder.org).
-
I don't know what was more interesting, the numbers or the presentation.
Thanks for posting this.
Alan
-
Grerat presentation Harri. You're right. It's like when someone tells you that cars aren't built like they used to be. The only reasonable response to that is "thank heaven." I can tell you from personal experience that the "good old days" had a lot of downsides. But they also had some upsides. I guess you have to have been there to understand that.
-
Anyone who talks of the "good old days" has either a faulty memory or an overactive imagination.
-
Well I just yesterday digitally reprocessed a 6 x 11 cm image shot on Tri-X. OMG, the grain! OMG, it's nowhere near as sharp and good looking as my 21MP Canon shots at 4 times the ISO! Sometimes the good old days just let you down.
Of course, those of us who were around for the g.o.d.'s were much better photographers than the kids today, goes without saying.
Interesting to see how the data points animate when you scrub the slider on this (http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.59290322580644;ti=2009$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=295;dataMax=79210$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=19;dataMax=86$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=;example=75) page.
-
Bill. How many good old days can you remember? For a nine-year-old like you to talk about "kids today" seems a bit over the top.
-
Anyone who talks of the "good old days" has either a faulty memory or an overactive imagination.
Hear Hear...ditto!
-
Bill. How many good old days can you remember? For a nine-year-old like you to talk about "kids today" seems a bit over the top.
Well I don't how "9" got inserted in my age record, but after careful consideration it seems appropriate. However, I was PHYSICALLY nine in 1954, definitely the good old days if you can forget a lot of stuff.
Anybody who thinks the old days were better never owned a 1957 Plymouth Savoy. You just have no idea what a dreadful piece of garbage that was!
(http://media.motortopia.com/files/7482/vehicle/469e682b5d2bc/DSC00444.jpg)
-
Anyone who talks of the "good old days" has either a faulty memory or an overactive imagination.
Indeed. It's mostly that we forget all the bad stuff and retain only the good stuff. For every Rolling Stones there are a hundred forgettable bands which have been... forgotten. Just like in fourty years people will have forgotten about Justin Bieber but will remember Lady Gaga (taking bets :) ).
-
When equipment was expensive and exclusive, it probably meant that those few who had access to it was talented and genuinely interested. Not all of them, but a large percentage.
When The Beatles did their recordings, record companies and making a record was still a major thing, and you could not do it unless the people in power really believed in your work. Today, anyone with a CD-burner can make a record, and anyone with an internet connection can spread it to the world. There might be a few geniuses that benefit from the increased availablility of good gear to make fantastic art that they would never have been able to 50 years ago. But I subscribe to the idea that the number of geniuses in each generation is fairly constant, and when you increase the number of artists, most of that increase will be "noise".
-h
-
But I subscribe to the idea that the number of geniuses in each generation is fairly constant, and when you increase the number of artists, most of that increase will be "noise".
Excellent points in your post. There was much less "noise" in the good old days, that's really the difference. There were formidable economic and technical hurdles to getting anything done. Now, the price of admission to creating technically excellent media products has dropped to almost nothing.
I won't bore people with how hard and expensive it was to get any kind of large color print made in ye olden tymes, but man it sure was! My Epson would have seemed right out of over-the-top science fiction back then.
You kids today have it too easy! So try to keep the noise down, OK? :)
-
One undeniable truth about the good old days - we were all young, or at least younger!
-
I can unfortunately not watch the video in the link provided Harry, but none the less feel like adding a garbled thought. I don't think anyone will dispute that equipment/ technology wise ( whether it be cars or ball pens and anything inbetween) we have it rather good at present, and it can only get better.
It is the change in "humanity" that I find makes me think of previous times. The constant quest/ demand for instant gratification, if I can call it that, irritates me. Real friendship seems to not exist anymore, manners and respect are "old fashioned" and everyone seems to be on a road to nowhere, as fast as possible, treading on all and sundry along the way. No one really lives anymore, they just exist.
-
Whenever I hear the phrase 'the good old days' I always think of my grand-dad. He always said "when people talk about the good old days, don't believe them". My Grand-dad was born in London in 1898, he went to school with children who became ill and died, he spent four years in the army during the First World War, then struggled through the depression of the 1920's by going to sea as a steward between Southampton and the USA. He saw mothers who could not afford to feed their children and unemployed men with no dignity left. He lived till he was 96. Lucky man, but he did survive the 'bad old days'.
-
The good old days.
Sigh, roll your eyes or even those easier-to-roll substitute ones kindly provided for you by the management, but you are confusing many things: oranges and apples but backwards, as it were.
There most certainly were hellish old days, but what have they to do with the good ones?
Equipment was sooo expensive only the rich could start up in photography? Bullshit! I started up on next to friggin’ zero, with a second-hand Rollei T (the cheapest model you could get) and an Exakta I bought new as an apprentice engineer! I have often worked out that I could never have afforded to start up today. It isn’t even as simple a matter as buying cameras – how expensive has space become? During the last twenty years, even many of the leading London stars gave up (hardly willingly) their studios and had to hire as required!
Yes, making colour prints wasn’t easy and as with Fred and his flying, I too know of what I speak: I was the bleedin’ colour department in the in-house photo unit where I worked for a while, until I left. And no, it wasn’t cheap out in the commercial world either. But businesses could certainly afford colour prints, though most advertising wanted transparencies.
I remember that I was perfectly free to roam our local park with a simple Voiglander Vito B in hand, then the later ‘blads, and never even thought I’d be rolled. Today, I wouldn’t dream of it. Look at stamper’s moment on that Glasgow bridge: and he was lucky, it didn’t turn into anything. But the worry/fear that it easily can now lives with us all. Was a time you could pat an unknown but attractive kid on the head, or just smile at him; my wife could coo her heart out at some baby doll lying in a pram on the pavement whilst it’s mother was in the shop buying something. Today, any of those three, innocent, actions could get you arrested for assault, sex crimes or neglect!
Heysoos, it’s become better?
Think, for pity’s sake.
Rob C
-
Well I don't how "9" got inserted in my age record, but after careful consideration it seems appropriate. However, I was PHYSICALLY nine in 1954, definitely the good old days if you can forget a lot of stuff.
Anybody who thinks the old days were better never owned a 1957 Plymouth Savoy. You just have no idea what a dreadful piece of garbage that was!
(http://media.motortopia.com/files/7482/vehicle/469e682b5d2bc/DSC00444.jpg)
Bill, there's a moral there: never buy the cheapest brand in the maker's range; shoulda bought a Chrysler.
EDIT: however much of a turkey your Plymouth may have been, you sure can't knock the shape! I also remember the days (automotive goode olde ones) when, from the driving seat, you could see where both front and rear of your car started and ended. Today, you either park by collision sound or doubling the insurance distance. And luxury car makers pretend parking warners are an accessory?
;-)
Rob C
-
Equipment was sooo expensive only the rich could start up in photography?
I remember when I first moved up to the "big time", buying my own first brand new 4x5 view camera from Calumet for $89 (I think shipping cost me another buck or two). The big expense was a new Schneider Something-or-other 150mm lens, also new, which cost another $150. With a few used (and leaky) film holders I was ready to produce masterpieces!
Eric
-
MY father used to say "the good old days were not so good."
-
I remember when I first moved up to the "big time", buying my own first brand new 4x5 view camera from Calumet for $89 (I think shipping cost me another buck or two). The big expense was a new Schneider Something-or-other 150mm lens, also new, which cost another $150. With a few used (and leaky) film holders I was ready to produce masterpieces!
Not only did I also have a Calumet 4x5 in its gray case and 150mm f5.6 Symmar, but I also had a genuine SEI Spot Photometer complete with leather case, leaky D cell and flashlight bulb! Let's see anybody top that combination! And don't forget the black focusing cloth attached with diaper pins. It all simply oozed Zone System mojo!
-
Not only did I also have a Calumet 4x5 in its gray case and 150mm f5.6 Symmar, but I also had a genuine SEI Spot Photometer complete with leather case, leaky D cell and flashlight bulb! Let's see anybody top that combination! And don't forget the black focusing cloth attached with diaper pins. It all simply oozed Zone System mojo!
Wow! The SEI! I thought only Ansel knew how to use one of those. I got my self a lowly Pentax 1-degree spotmeter, and made my own dark cloth (major construction project ;) ) Yes, my lens was also the Symmar. That was a great combination. The camera was so cheap because Calumet bought the dies from Kodak when K decided to stop selling the Kodak view camera. Can't get that much bang (or weight) for the buck these days.
Eric
-
This is an interesting thread to old timers like me.
While I still miss Kodachrome 25 a bit, I love the instant preview, processing control, convience and costs of shooting digital.
But digital technology is a double-edged sword. The best part about being a photographer in the "good old days," was the wide gap between the experienced pro and the average snapshooter. Advanced technology and sophisticated auto everything makes what it took me decades to learn less of an edge and less important with each equipment upgrade. What we once called "idiot cameras" now have become genius cameras.
But I do sorely miss the way it was, the way society was, the general integrety, mutual respect, oath of a firm handshake and a work ethic that seems now like some vague daydream. Most of all I miss a time when democracy wasn't for sale, when most people said what they meant and meant what they said; when nothing had hidden charges and very few business were deceptive. Sad to say, but this isn't the America I grew up in. The American Dream is turning into the American Scream. Unless you are a billionaire, your are "disinfranchised" to some degree.
But my truck always starts and my camera takes good pictures. It ain't all bad, but for an old timer like me, the rest of it seems a little hollow and distant.
-
Another thing I'd like to point out, though many seem to have understood already, is that my own, personal, idea about 'good olde times' refers specifically to photography, professional photography.
For others, even the aftermath of WW2 was a godsend: reconstructiuon, town planning, factories starting to produce domestic products again... it became boom time all over. Many in Britain write about the depressing 50s; well, I was there and it was anything but depressing - I had my first bike (droop handlebars Raleigh Lenton in metallic red!) long before UK cars ever used metallic paints.
I met in school the girl I eventually had the great fortune to marry; magazines abounded and my appetites for art and photography were allowed to grow and flourish.
You want misery? Look at today's people. probably exactly the same ones, cursed with the same mindset, that lived miserable lives as long as there have been people.
So what's different today? I believe that people have been led to believe, and to expect, that there is always going to be, should always be, a state-sponsored security blanket that prevents the feckless from falling victim to their own uselessness. In other words, somebody else is going to do your work for you. The experience of self-employment would be a delightful, short, sharp course from which such minds would benefit greatly.
But hey, it's only 10.38am and the first coffee is getting cold.
Rob C
-
When equipment was expensive and exclusive, it probably meant that those few who had access to it was talented and genuinely interested. Not all of them, but a large percentage.
When The Beatles did their recordings, record companies and making a record was still a major thing, and you could not do it unless the people in power really believed in your work. Today, anyone with a CD-burner can make a record, and anyone with an internet connection can spread it to the world. There might be a few geniuses that benefit from the increased availablility of good gear to make fantastic art that they would never have been able to 50 years ago. But I subscribe to the idea that the number of geniuses in each generation is fairly constant, and when you increase the number of artists, most of that increase will be "noise".
-h
That noise you see and hear is that of ordinary people with an interest or a passion that now have a way of expressing themselves for everyone to see.
Its also the noise of people exchanging ideas, spreading knowledge and exposing us to things we might never have been aware of.
Sorry to be blunt but I say, f**k the geniuses...lets do everything we can to open possibilities to the 99.999% of the rest of us
-
That noise you see and hear is that of ordinary people with an interest or a passion that now have a way of expressing themselves for everyone to see.
Its also the noise of people exchanging ideas, spreading knowledge and exposing us to things we might never have been aware of.
Sorry to be blunt but I say, f**k the geniuses...lets do everything we can to open possibilities to the 99.999% of the rest of us
I'm 100% with Joe here. It's sad to see elitism is still so prevalent in (pro) photography circles. Technology has democratized photography, just like many other industries. You no longer have to spend several months' pay to buy a pro-level camera, years learning the minutiae of exposure, development and printing, and hours upon hours to produce a passable end product. There's no turning back and I'm thrilled that's the case.
Today the barrier to entry into photography is in skill and talent, rather than secondary and peripheral aspects of equipment, capital investment and most technical aspects of the craft. There's still a big factor of cost in some niches of photography, but those are being eroded as sensors and lighting become better and cheaper. If a pro photographer really feels the pressure of competition from the millions of amateurs or snap shooters, they should take a hard look at what level their own photography is.
-
Most consider “the good ol' days” as a entirely personal and 100% subjective view of a better time in their life, their community, or work.
Culture and most industries improve through synergy and time, while people’s lives have ups and downs. Culture has progressed considerably in the US. Due to this there has never been a time when talent has so many opportunities to find success, in nearly every field.
Yet if someone was a productive person 10 years ago and their life changed so that they are no longer productive or *as* productive, no amount of facts about society will ever convince them that today is a better time than some point in the past.
In the end, “the good ol' days” is often a way of expressing a lament due to a personal downward trend.
Photography currently offers far more opportunity to far more people than was possible in the past.
-
Am I allowed to mourn the good old days when we could buy Polaroid T55? :)
-
"If a pro photographer really feels the pressure of competition from the millions of amateurs or snap shooters, they should take a hard look at what level their own photography is."
There may be some truth in this, but from my perspective of freelance photography these are the things that hurt my business the most:
During just the past few years, at least four of the magazines that once bought my images have gone out of business, and one of them was successful for over 50 years.
A couple of publications that once bought cover shots from me, now just run "photo contests," either openly or clandestinely. Even Nat Geo runs photo contests.
One of the designed artists for a magazine that uses a lot of my stuff told me the technology has advanced so much he now can get a usable image from a cell phone.
I personally sold two cover shots this past year from an underwater $150 P&S (the first I've owned in almost four decades of doing this).
Rates for images in my markets haven't risen since the late 1980s/early 1990s.
Twice during the past two months, I have been contacted by established companies (one of them a multi-billion dollar company) wanting to use the images they saw on my website for "direct mail promotions." They sent a contract, which included everything from displays to billboards, before they even mentioned compensation. When I asked what they intended to pay, they went fishing elsewhere. It's just business. Why should they pay a pro, when they know with a little fishing, they can get it for free, without usage restrictions?
None of these things have much, or anything, to do with the level of my photography. Through increased effort at composition tricks and marketing, I sold three times as many images this year as I did just a few years ago, and at least 10 times as many covers, yet my bottom line after expenses has plummeted, while the cost of bread has more than doubled.
We can pat each other on the backs and preach to the each other about our "superior" quality, and while that may be true, it is overkill for most--I stress most--reproduction purposes. When I look at the thousands upon thousands of images posted on the internet, I must admit that many of them are simply stunning. They may have had to shift through a thousand rapid-fire images to get that one stunning, full-auto image, but there are millions of them doing that, and nearly every one of them would gladly give it away just to have their name published.
To ignore all this is to put one's head in the sand, because it is only going to increase with each equipment upgrade.
-
"If a pro photographer really feels the pressure of competition from the millions of amateurs or snap shooters, they should take a hard look at what level their own photography is."
There may be some truth in this, but from my perspective of freelance photography these are the things that hurt my business the most:
During just the past few years, at least four of the magazines that once bought my images have gone out of business, and one of them was successful for over 50 years.
A couple of publications that once bought cover shots from me, now just run "photo contests," either openly or clandestinely. Even Nat Geo runs photo contests.
One of the designed artists for a magazine that uses a lot of my stuff told me the technology has advanced so much he now can get a usable image from a cell phone.
I personally sold two cover shots this past year from an underwater $150 P&S (the first I've owned in almost four decades of doing this).
Rates for images in my markets haven't risen since the late 1980s/early 1990s.
Twice during the past two months, I have been contacted by established companies (one of them a multi-billion dollar company) wanting to use the images they saw on my website for "direct mail promotions." They sent a contract, which included everything from displays to billboards, before they even mentioned compensation. When I asked what they intended to pay, they went fishing elsewhere. It's just business. Why should they pay a pro, when they know with a little fishing, they can get it for free, without usage restrictions?
None of these things have much, or anything, to do with the level of my photography. Through increased effort at composition tricks and marketing, I sold three times as many images this year as I did just a few years ago, and at least 10 times as many covers, yet my bottom line after expenses has plummeted, while the cost of bread has more than doubled.
We can pat each other on the backs and preach to the each other about our "superior" quality, and while that may be true, it is overkill for most--I stress most--reproduction purposes. When I look at the thousands upon thousands of images posted on the internet, I must admit that many of them are simply stunning. They may have had to shift through a thousand rapid-fire images to get that one stunning, full-auto image, but there are millions of them doing that, and nearly every one of them would gladly give it away just to have their name published.
To ignore all this is to put one's head in the sand, because it is only going to increase with each equipment upgrade.
Your views echo that of many others I've seen here over the years: many photographers imply there is some inalienable right for them to make a living out of photography in perpetuity. This is not the case; to use a cliche, when cars came along, buggy whip manufacturers went out of business. There are still a few around, but it's a very different business than it was before technology made them obsolete.
Photographers are experiencing what the hundreds of millions of workers went through who have been replaced by machines, computers and robots. We're not going to turn back time, so it is pointless to lament; the energy would be better spent to find a profitable niche, or move to another vocation.
And I was hoping the thread would limit whining...
-
I'm not whining, just giving a pragmatic reply to an implied slight. And you are exactly right, robotic technology is replacing the need for professional photography. That's really my point.
I'm retiring, but will continue to sell some shots on a part-time basis. I've had a good run for decades, doing the things I love about the things I love. It's never been very lucrative, but I have pursued and combined passionate pastimes into a profession. As a long-time friend put it when being inducted into a Hall Of Fame: I have the best job in the world--I sell fun. It doesn't get much better than that. Money isn't everything. But it's becoming almost impossible to make a full-time living at it these days.
-
Forget it Ron; those who have never been full-time pros simply can't get the meaning of the points you make. I share them all. It has bugger all to do with 'divine rights of pros' and everything to do with running a business, paying taxes on what your camera earns you etc. etc. and the dislike for the shamateur is all within that financial package which the real guy has to suppoort whilst the fake just ignores.
Neither has it anything to do with photographic skill: there are indeed thousands of very talented amateurs just as there are many thousands of dud professional shooters. The difference with the latter group is that they fight their fight on the level playing field of open business; they don't suck the blood out of a market from the shadows of untaxed earnings.
But, I've said all this here before, and it's never taken at face value - if it registers at all; it gets called whining.
A plague on all their houses.
Rob C
-
Most consider “the good ol' days” as a entirely personal and 100% subjective view of a better time in their life, their community, or work.
Culture and most industries improve through synergy and time, while people’s lives have ups and downs. Culture has progressed considerably in the US. Due to this there has never been a time when talent has so many opportunities to find success, in nearly every field.
Yet if someone was a productive person 10 years ago and their life changed so that they are no longer productive or *as* productive, no amount of facts about society will ever convince them that today is a better time than some point in the past.
In the end, “the good ol' days” is often a way of expressing a lament due to a personal downward trend.
Photography currently offers far more opportunity to far more people than was possible in the past.
This will come as a surprise to many pros watching their customer base and business go down the tubes. I would love to see the last sentence expanded into the invisible advantages for pros.
Rob C
-
This will come as a surprise to many pros watching their customer base and business go down the tubes. I would love to see the last sentence expanded into the invisible advantages for pros.
Rob C
Q.E.D.
-
Come back in 30 years and THESE will be the good old days. You know, before the Machines took over.
I clearly remember a high school photo instructor lamenting how those Nikons and Leicas were undermining the impeccable quality of journalistic photography as achieved with 4x5 equipment. If you wanted to be a Pro, 4x5 was mandatory.
Go to a used book store (remember books?) and look through some old US Camera etc annuals. Wow, some pretty schlock stuff there, with the faintest dusting of pearls! It would not take me long to come up with a superior set of new photographs from an internet photo site. So maybe mankind has honed a slightly better eye as the result of photo democratization. Or maybe not.
In ancient times only the scribes knew how to read and write, now everybody's doing it. The written noise level rose a din, especially on those internet forums!
From Wikipedia...A golden age is a period in a field of endeavour when great tasks were accomplished. The term originated from early Greek and Roman poets who used to refer to a time when mankind lived in a better time and was pure.
Purity, that's me all over.
-
Photography currently offers far more opportunity to far more people than was possible in the past.
In a way that is quite correct. Before moving over here I did mainly wedding, school and editorial work and made a reasonable sum of money on the side. I never took up the chance of doing it full time simply because the day job paid so much better. Since then my work has probably been viewed by a lot more people via the web than was the case via print but the money earned has been far far less. So I think it's fair to say that there are many more opportunities for photographers nowdays, it's just that making money isn't one of them.
-
In a way that is quite correct. Before moving over here I did mainly wedding, school and editorial work and made a reasonable sum of money on the side. I never took up the chance of doing it full time simply because the day job paid so much better. Since then my work has probably been viewed by a lot more people via the web than was the case via print but the money earned has been far far less. So I think it's fair to say that there are many more opportunities for photographers nowdays, it's just that making money isn't one of them.
I just love understatement, especially when so focused!
(I ask again, where has Mr P gone these days past? Dark, are you still out there?)
Rob C
-
I have a hunch Steve McCurry isn't going to be out of a job as a professional any time soon. Why? Because his photographs aren't the kind of photographs you see on most magazine covers pitched to "consumers," and they aren't the kind of cliches you see when you peer through the windows of the local photographer's shop: stiff portraits, kids in cute poses, dancers jumping, brides glowing. These are photographs almost any amateur can make nowadays with a point and shoot. But when you look at Steve's pictures you realize he actually sees his subjects as people.
Cartier-Bresson said "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything," and perhaps the reason HCB was the most influential photographer of the twentieth century is that instead of spending his time in a darkroom he spent his time out there looking. He understood that the play of human history unfolding before him was what made photographs with lasting interest, not the range of mid-tones in the shot or the beauty of the hills toward the sun. Leica Users' Forum to the contrary notwithstanding, HCB would have loved digital cameras.
Then there's Gene Smith, whose post-processing was very extensive and who insisted on making his own prints. But if you look carefully at Gene's photographs you realize that somewhere along the line he'd experienced the same revelation HCB and McCurry experienced. People in their environment, acting among their artifacts, are subjects that produce images of lasting value. Gene would have loved digital cameras and, especially, Photoshop.
I don't agree with Ron's statement that robotic technology is replacing the need for professional photography. Robotic technology is only replacing the robotic part of professional photography: the grunt work. Computers have taken over that part, just as they've taken over the kind of robotic assembly work I used to do in the auto plants during my summers when I was in college. The important part, looking, hasn't been taken over by equipment because equipment can't look.
I know it's hard to accept the fact that there's no longer much money in weddings and portraits, but professional photography is a long way from dying.
-
I know it's hard to accept the fact that there's no longer much money in weddings and portraits, but professional photography is a long way from dying.
I won't comment on the "good old days" as I don't think I've had mine yet despite reaching late-middle age and coming to the potential end of my first career. What I am curious about is which aspects of professional photography you think are not in decline or potentially in ascendency.
-
I won't comment on the "good old days" as I don't think I've had mine yet despite reaching late-middle age and coming to the potential end of my first career. What I am curious about is which aspects of professional photography you think are not in decline or potentially in ascendency.
Jennifer,
When people talk about "professional" photographers they usually think of the gal down town with the studio who does portraits, graduation pictures, and weddings, or the guy with a truckload of lights who does fashion shoots for the glossy magazines. They also might include someone like a friend of mine who, (in the good old days, meaning about four years ago) in addition to weddings, shot annual company gatherings at places like Cancun, all expenses paid.
But when people talk about photographers like Cartier-Bresson or Steve McCurry they don't call them "professional photographers," they call them "photojournalists," and when they talk about photographers like Robert Frank they call them "artists." Even though Life and Look magazines are long gone, both of these professional photographic categories still exist and show no signs of dying. Anyone who doesn't believe that needs to go to his local Barnes & Noble and look in the photography section.
But unless you're a member of Magnum you're not going to make much money in photojournalism. Even if you belong to Magnum you'll have to take your cameras to places you'd probably rather not visit. And if you read about the lives of the photographers we call artists you'll find that most of them spent a lot of time as starving artists.
So, my answer to your question is a question: When you talk about aspects of professional photography not in "decline," are you talking about money or are you talking an opportunity to do what you love to do? I suspect there are very few professional photographers making big bucks any more, but there are more than a few making a sometimes marginal living doing what really turns them on.
-
Well, yes and no, Russ.
There are many big names still getting attention and, I would imagine, money from that; but your definition of professional only goes to show how wide or diverse such a definition can be!
I wouldn't count wedding and portrait 'main street' people as professional, even though they make their bread - sometimes a lot of it - via that work I consider them jobbing tradesmen, as I would the local thousand-a-week plumber or electrician: essential people but not within my idea of the word.
Photojournalists: I think they are a hard squeeze too for the definition of pros. I see them far more as journalists with incidental cameras. W. Eugene S, on the other hand, some see as the consumate, addicted pj; I see him as an artist in depth. It's all so subjective a call. So what do I see as professional? Very few groups, and those groups would include advertising people, car and architectural shooters, folks who are actually consulted by clients who are themselves in some form of professional practice. Fashion photographers, if they make their main money with that, I'd allow into the little group, but I sometimes wonder about that too: where would you put the Richardson pair? What about King Mario? Photographer or playboy, or can you possibly be both at the same time?
I suppose the easiest definition is the old one: anyone whose main income is derived from photography. But that is more a legalistic kind of definition, something to offer the IR; but as individuals, I think we probably all have our personal notion of what constitutes professional, whether photographer, painter (artist), painter (of buildings) or most anything else. It's the season to be charitable; I'm having a hard time. Must be all these Christmas songs going down. How about Elvis: Blue, blue, Christmas...
;-(
Rob C
-
This will come as a surprise to many pros watching their customer base and business go down the tubes.
Rob C
Change comes to every profession. Some rise to meet the challenges of the day while others let opportunity, their customers, and their career slip away. . . .
-
Change comes to every profession. Some rise to meet the challenges of the day while others let opportunity, their customers, and their career slip away. . . .
Won't argue with that, but it still doesn't show in any way at all that 'opportunity' in pro photography has grown.
As Justin more or less pointed out, yes opportunity has grown, for the amateur to make better/cheaper pictures, but that doesn't equate with increased earnings for the pro. In fact, regarding stock, it has made it pretty worthless - killed the thing as a business. In areas where an amateur has no chance of competing, there is still a hard time going around; work has fallen away, prices too. Even in the 80s there were students leaving photo colleges/art schools with no prospect of ever getting work in the business. What a monumental waste of time, tax money and young hope. Still in the 80s, I may have recounted a friend's experience: his son left university and voiced an interest in pro phot. His dad took him to London (from Spain) to see a consultant. He was told that in the UK there was a handful of around a dozen or so photographers making big money, the sort of cash Dad was making. The advice was forget it, quickly. The boy went on to do well in PR.
Around that time, the BJP published a profile of a London advertising photographer who's bought a place out in Lincolnshire, I think it was, to where he departed every time he got the chance. From his personal work he developed a line of cards and, I think, calendars. I have a feeling it was a company called Redeye, or something similar with the word red in it. Anyway, his contention was that it was killing him to keep the London studio going, that photography as a business had been going down the tubes for as long as he'd been in it. Remember, this was in the late 70s or the very early 80s. Another big London ad photographer of the period, George Nichols, gave up altogether too...
No, it's not just a digital thing, though that has simply made pro photography much much more expensive (for the photographer) in terms of buying at the top; the entire business is in some sort of decline or change - which may well accelerate its way to a rapid end. Then what? I suppose, motion.
Rob C
-
... He saw... unemployed men with no dignity left...
Ha!… small world…I did not know your granddad knew me.
-
Ha!… small world…I did not know your granddad knew me.
In Nicosia?
Rob C
-
Well, yes and no, Russ.
There are many big names still getting attention and, I would imagine, money from that; but your definition of professional only goes to show how wide or diverse such a definition can be!
I wouldn't count wedding and portrait 'main street' people as professional, even though they make their bread - sometimes a lot of it - via that work I consider them jobbing tradesmen, as I would the local thousand-a-week plumber or electrician: essential people but not within my idea of the word.
Photojournalists: I think they are a hard squeeze too for the definition of pros. I see them far more as journalists with incidental cameras. W. Eugene S, on the other hand, some see as the consumate, addicted pj; I see him as an artist in depth. It's all so subjective a call. So what do I see as professional? Very few groups, and those groups would include advertising people, car and architectural shooters, folks who are actually consulted by clients who are themselves in some form of professional practice. Fashion photographers, if they make their main money with that, I'd allow into the little group, but I sometimes wonder about that too: where would you put the Richardson pair? What about King Mario? Photographer or playboy, or can you possibly be both at the same time?
I suppose the easiest definition is the old one: anyone whose main income is derived from photography. But that is more a legalistic kind of definition, something to offer the IR; but as individuals, I think we probably all have our personal notion of what constitutes professional, whether photographer, painter (artist), painter (of buildings) or most anything else. It's the season to be charitable; I'm having a hard time. Must be all these Christmas songs going down. How about Elvis: Blue, blue, Christmas...
;-(
Rob C
Rob,
I go by what you've called the "old" definition. To me, anyone who makes his living shooting pictures is a "professional" photographer. The term addresses economics, not skill or artistic ability, which, as you point out, many "professional" photographers clearly lack. The same kind of definition applies to "professional" plumbers, where lack of plumbing ability doesn't prevent wrenching a pipe. You and I may agree that the term, "professional photographer" shouldn't apply to the local gal who does weddings, but we have to base our evaluation on esthetics, not income. The people who go to the local photographer for their wedding albums consider her a "professional" or they wouldn't be willing to pay a couple thousand dollars for the job, and the photographer herself will agree that she's a "professional," usually injecting meaning into the term that goes way beyond the fact that she makes her living that way.
To widen the definition even further, consider the guy who does "workshops." The ad in Pop Photography will tell you that for a small fortune you can rub elbows with and be "mentored" by the "professional" conducting a workshop. What that means is that the "mentor' will lead the group out into the hills where everyone can shoot the same postcard-type pictures and have fun discussing equipment. If you check, you find that the "professional" did a magazine article about three years ago, or does portraits of local eminences and has found a new way to make a buck.
As far as photojournalists are concerned: yes, the guy from the local newspaper who calls himself a photojournalist is mostly a journalist with a camera who makes an incidental picture to add its "thousand words" to his half-column story. But you're right, someone like Steve McCurry is an artist, even though, at the same time, he's a professional photographer. I think Gene Smith mostly was a very effective propagandist, and at the same time a professional photographer. Point is, both these guys make or made a living at it.
And when it comes to art as an adjunct of professional photography I think by all means you can let in certain fashion photographers, just as you can let in the occasional downtown wedding and portrait guy who has serious artistic ability. Mike Disfarmer comes to mind.
But a lot of the downtown wedding studio kind of professional photography is dying, not just because people can buy good digital point-and-shoots, but mostly because the market is shrinking. At the moment it's shrunk to midget size because of the economy, though some of that market will come back. But the only people still interested in old-style portraits with hair lights, etc., live in gated communities where they drive around in golf carts, and most young couples nowadays don't need wedding albums. I don't know of any local pros doing "living together" albums because that's the kind of album the couples do themselves with their point-and-shoots.
Hope your Christmas turns out to be less blue than a song by Elvis.
-
Jennifer,
When people talk about "professional" photographers they usually think of the gal down town with the studio who does portraits, graduation pictures, and weddings, or the guy with a truckload of lights who does fashion shoots for the glossy magazines. They also might include someone like a friend of mine who, (in the good old days, meaning about four years ago) in addition to weddings, shot annual company gatherings at places like Cancun, all expenses paid.
But when people talk about photographers like Cartier-Bresson or Steve McCurry they don't call them "professional photographers," they call them "photojournalists," and when they talk about photographers like Robert Frank they call them "artists." Even though Life and Look magazines are long gone, both of these professional photographic categories still exist and show no signs of dying. Anyone who doesn't believe that needs to go to his local Barnes & Noble and look in the photography section.
But unless you're a member of Magnum you're not going to make much money in photojournalism. Even if you belong to Magnum you'll have to take your cameras to places you'd probably rather not visit. And if you read about the lives of the photographers we call artists you'll find that most of them spent a lot of time as starving artists.
So, my answer to your question is a question: When you talk about aspects of professional photography not in "decline," are you talking about money or are you talking an opportunity to do what you love to do? I suspect there are very few professional photographers making big bucks any more, but there are more than a few making a sometimes marginal living doing what really turns them on.
I'm not so much interested in what the average person would consider a "professional photographer." But rather those areas by your definition that are still vibrant and relevant both commercially and societally. That said, I think you've already essentially answered this which is to say; not many. Maybe we are moving back into a period where the important photographic work is returning to those either with the independent wherewithal or willingness to make sacrifices to go places or spend time on developing an idea. I'm fine with that. If the important stuff were easy, well...
-
It may be true, as with most things, that the good old days were not necessarily that good or well recalled, but I am of the opinion that digital processing has made everyone into hyper critics when it comes to images, amateurs and pros alike. Too often I read critiques about fixing images for the littlest things instead focusing on expression and aesthetics. Or completely and radically altering other peoples images, as if that helps the maker improve his image. I certainly never worried about that with slide film. I would never deny that some basic altering of images always existed, but nothing like today. I can tell you from experience in attending many photo clubs and seminars by professionals, that among the best, the differences were hard to see. I would argue that people who considered themselves photographers were actually better in the past because they had to rely mostly on what was on the negative or positive and not on Digital alterations.
It hardly matters today, the process is irreversible; I can only hope, as Joe says, that it will be beneficial to the majority of people, really enthusiasts. But apart from point and shoot imaging and cameras, I find the whole thing rather expensive, if not more so than I when I was simply shooting and showing slides. And I need this computer just to tell you this and assorted expensive software (needed on a regular basis) just to process my images so that I can show them to you! How cheap is that! Time will tell.
-
Won't argue with that, but it still doesn't show in any way at all that 'opportunity' in pro photography has grown.
Rob C
If you want to make a plausible case, start with census information. Pick any 2 10 year intervals over the last 50 years.
Beyond that, your anecdotal comments are just that.
-
It may be true, as with most things, that the good old days were not necessarily that good or well recalled, but I am of the opinion that digital processing has made everyone into hyper critics when it comes to images, amateurs and pros alike. Too often I read critiques about fixing images for the littlest things instead focusing on expression and aesthetics. Or completely and radically altering other peoples images, as if that helps the maker improve his image.
It hardly matters today, the process is irreversible; I can only hope, as Joe says, that it will be beneficial to the majority of people, really enthusiasts.
John,
I like this site, but the truth of the matter is, its dominated by tech talk. There are a number of ways out there that focus more on aesthetics and where you can get a critique on the image rather than the technique. I've known Michael Reichmann for some years and more than once I've proposed that he set up a new discussion topic that would focus strictly on image critique. I've gone so far as to suggest that all metadata be stripped out of the images and that any reference to cameras, lenses, postprocessing or manipulation be banned from the discussions.
I deal with tech matters all day, every day in my job and quite honestly, I would love an escape from it when I talk photo after hours.
Michael, if you're listening and want to take a break from your marguarita (or take a detour as you go to the blender for a fresh one) I'm still happy to moderate the discussion topic.
-
If you want to make a plausible case, start with census information. Pick any 2 10 year intervals over the last 50 years.
Beyond that, your anecdotal comments are just that.
Absolutely; but real life is anecdotal - you don't live and see a theory, though you well might if you don't know better from personal experience.
Rob C
-
John,
I like this site, but the truth of the matter is, its dominated by tech talk. There are a number of ways out there that focus more on aesthetics and where you can get a critique on the image rather than the technique. I've known Michael Reichmann for some years and more than once I've proposed that he set up a new discussion topic that would focus strictly on image critique. I've gone so far as to suggest that all metadata be stripped out of the images and that any reference to cameras, lenses, postprocessing or manipulation be banned from the discussions.
I deal with tech matters all day, every day in my job and quite honestly, I would love an escape from it when I talk photo after hours.
Michael, if you're listening and want to take a break from your marguarita (or take a detour as you go to the blender for a fresh one) I'm still happy to moderate the discussion topic.
That's pretty much why I initiated the Without Prejudice thread... so far, so good.
Rob C
-
I'm not so much interested in what the average person would consider a "professional photographer." But rather those areas by your definition that are still vibrant and relevant both commercially and societally. That said, I think you've already essentially answered this which is to say; not many. Maybe we are moving back into a period where the important photographic work is returning to those either with the independent wherewithal or willingness to make sacrifices to go places or spend time on developing an idea. I'm fine with that. If the important stuff were easy, well...
Jennifer, But what you mean when you say "professional photographer" is all important. Most areas eventually will be "vibrant and relevant" again. There's still a huge market for the kind of work that goes on magazine covers, for instance. And if you're really good at that you can make a living doing it. There's still a huge market for the kind of photography Rob used to do, and, looking at the quality of his work I can't believe he couldn't still make money at it.
But I look at your fine work and wonder whether or not you'd be happy doing the kinds of work at which almost anyone can make a living. Do you want to sit in a downtown studio and do portraits and jumping brides? With your skills you certainly could do that kind of work. Do you want to do photojournalism for a magazine or newspaper where the boss tells you what and where to shoot and owns your files once you've made them? You could do that kind of work. But I suspect you're like me: you want to do what you want to do, not what someone else decides you ought to do. And you don't want to be in a position where you're bound to make the kind of wedding album the bride and her mom are expecting because that's what they've always seen, and that's the only thing they recognize as being a wedding album.
As Rob pointed out, there are still big names getting plenty of attention, and, one would assume, money from their work -- often work they choose to do. But I think being that kind of professional photographer is a lot like being a novelist. Can you make a living writing novels? Sure, if you're reasonably conversant with the English language you can write the kind of potboilers that get on the New York Times bestseller list. But how many novelists are making more than a scratch living? Not many. You can make a living painting if you can swing a brush and have a bit of artistic ability. But you can't make more than a scratch living as a painter unless you paint the kind of crap that gets accepted by the "fine art" marketing community.
I really like the last part of your response. It sounds as if you're ready to give it a go, even recognizing that it's not going to be easy and that you're in for some lean times while you do that. Your work is good. What you need to do is find your own niche. Good luck. I think there may be a time when I'll be able to tell people proudly that "I knew her when."
-
In Nicosia?
Rob, not sure I get the Nicosia reference, but here is what I had in mind:
Jim Pascoe mentioned that his granddad in 1920s:
...saw mothers who could not afford to feed their children and unemployed men with no dignity left...
And I wanted to point out that the situation today is not that much different (for some, at least). The unemployed (myself included) reference is self explanatory. As for the hungry kids, how about today's CNN article: Some impoverished U.S. counties need foreign aid (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/21/child.poverty.report/index.html), and the stark ending of the article:
"This Christmas season, 15.5 million children in America, more than one in five, are living in poverty, a number of them in extreme poverty. This is the highest child poverty rate the nation has experienced since 1959."
-
Watching lunchtime news on Spanish TV today, they showed shots of people being given over-bought merchandise from shops etc., stuff that would otherwise be dumped in the trash. The lady who runs the bar where I often eat remarked about the irony of it: we send millions of euros to make African despots very rich men, and our own people are starving, she said... there's no answering that, particularly when it's the same pretty well throughout Europe. I mumbled something about maybe charity should best start at home, then eat another chip.
You can never get it right. That's one of the messages life sends you, whether you pay attention or not. I've pretty much given up on setting the world right. Somebody else can try in now. Or just blow the damn thing up and finish it.
Rob C
-
. . . the irony of it: we send millions of euros to make African despots very rich men, and our own people are starving, she said... there's no answering that, particularly when it's the same pretty well throughout Europe . . .
Ahhh Rob, at last someone sees African aid for what it is . . . :-\
As an African I really wish other countries would stop sending financial aid to Africa. Little of it helps Africans, in fact just the opposite, it leads to even more hardship as those despots are never held to account, seeing instead the world condoning their theft and mis-management. The aid, however well intended, has in fact led to a downward spiral and the development of a mindset that someone else will solve Africa's problems. Africa is an extremely rich region, it needs no handouts, and if it got off its collective backside and worked it could function perfectly independently without aid of any kind . . . ;)
-
It is the change in "humanity" that I find makes me think of previous times. The constant quest/ demand for instant gratification, if I can call it that, irritates me. Real friendship seems to not exist anymore, manners and respect are "old fashioned" and everyone seems to be on a road to nowhere, as fast as possible, treading on all and sundry along the way. No one really lives anymore, they just exist.
Yes, we won the cold war.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It is the change in "humanity" that I find makes me think of previous times. The constant quest/ demand for instant gratification, if I can call it that, irritates me. Real friendship seems to not exist anymore, manners and respect are "old fashioned" and everyone seems to be on a road to nowhere, as fast as possible, treading on all and sundry along the way. No one really lives anymore, they just exist.
Riaan
I think there are many reasons for this - one important one being mobility of labour. I consider my own life, where I moved from place to place as a young boy, then settled for some years only to move yet again with a wife. Now, without her, there's really nobody in the host country where relationships can have real depth. It isn't anyone's fault, just the way it goes. I look at others I know well who remained in their small towns: they built up relationships in school, turned them into business ones later, married, raised kids - the whole structure exists within their society, their locale. The expat eventually loses it all, and there is no going back, and neither is there the desire, because the relationships back 'there' vanished decades ago. There's just nowhere left but 'here'.
Then, there's the Internet, television, all of those distractions that are so much easier and cheaper alternatives than actually going back out to integrate once again. And to integrate with what? The town drunks? The other lost souls trying to drown out reality and avoid the last step of taking all their saved, combined and inevitable medication along with a final bottle of Scotch?
It can be a lousy time out there - maybe that's why some aspects of the G.O.Ds are indeed imaginary. But not all.
Rob C
-
I think there are many reasons for this - one important one being mobility of labour. I consider my own life, where I moved from place to place as a young boy, then settled for some years only to move yet again with a wife. Now, without her, there's really nobody in the host country where relationships can have real depth. It isn't anyone's fault, just the way it goes. I look at others I know well who remained in their small towns: they built up relationships in school, turned them into business ones later, married, raised kids - the whole structure exists within their society, their locale. The expat eventually loses it all, and there is no going back, and neither is there the desire, because the relationships back 'there' vanished decades ago. There's just nowhere left but 'here'.
Then, there's the Internet, television, all of those distractions that are so much easier and cheaper alternatives than actually going back out to integrate once again. And to integrate with what? The town drunks? The other lost souls trying to drown out reality and avoid the last step of taking all their saved, combined and inevitable medication along with a final bottle of Scotch?
It can be a lousy time out there - maybe that's why some aspects of the G.O.Ds are indeed imaginary. But not all.
Rob C
Yes, it's just one long slow descent into despair and loneliness, as the body ages and suffers before finally giving up, alone in a gutter, penniless, ignored, and broken. But hey, to most people on earth, that would be a step up! :)
(I thought things were becoming a little morose.)
-
Yes, it's just one long slow descent into despair and loneliness, as the body ages and suffers before finally giving up, alone in a gutter, penniless, ignored, and broken. But hey, to most people on earth, that would be a step up! :)
(I thought things were becoming a little morose.)
Robert, now you're being negative. To most people on Earth that wouldn't be a step up - it would be more of the same, just like Christmas presents for the man who has everything.
Now you may feel morose! Even the rich can't win. In fact, I have privately believed that death or terminal illness for a rich man is worse than for a poor one: there's so much more to worry about, so much more to lose and so much more to concern and to prepare for in all manner of ways; he can't just die in peace - he has to leave it tidy and tie up all the knots, keep the family, the accountants and lawyers happy and the governmental highwaymen off his pile. Wealth sucks, but I'd run the risk.
Rob C
-
Wow, look at all the grumpy old men. Don't you guys know that g.o.m.'s almost never get laid? Which was, as I recall, easier back in 60's than now.
-
Wow, look at all the grumpy old men. Don't you guys know that g.o.m.'s almost never get laid? Which was, as I recall, easier back in 60's than now.
What's get laid?
If it was easier in the 60s that's because we were younger and a hell of a lot more attractive to the group we still would like to attract but effing can't in this decade; even the wealthy aren't safe from natural laws: the keys to a Ferrari may vapourise some lingerie, but even then there is that inevitable, bitter little sod of an insistent inner voice telling you that she thinks she's revving the car. Maybe that's why some get grumpy?
I'm reliably informed that though ability may wane, des¡re never fails us. I'm sure he did have something to contribute, but I can't quite think of what Shakespeare had to say on the matter. On the other hand, perhaps most, then, didn't reach that sorry age and so there wasn't any market-driven need for him to work on such illuminating insights...
Rob C
-
Yes, it's just one long slow descent into despair and loneliness, as the body ages and suffers before finally giving up, alone in a gutter, penniless, ignored, and broken...
I felt the same until I read an article in The Economist magazine, titled: "Age and happiness - The U-bend of life - Why, beyond middle age, people get happier as they get older". The whole article is in the December 18th-31st 2010 edition, and here is the link (though not sure if you could access it if not a subscriber): http://www.economist.com/node/17722567.
Here is the gist: "People are least happy in their 40s and early 50s. They reach a nadir at a global average of 46"
And what would economics be without a graph :-)
-
hmmm...corresponds pretty well to getting the kids out of the house. ;)
-
Interesting, but they missed an important point. We just start forgetting that we're not happy.
-
oh yeah, forgot about that.. ;D
-
I wonder what on Earth the graph people were measuring to come up with that result?
Maybe it was based on pension expectations of the professional classes (whatever they are) but I would be amazed if health, sex, job satisfaction or anything much else increases as you get older.
Perhaps they consulted Marshall McLuhan.
Rob C
-
health - it could be worse ???
sex - don't remember - wasn't that BK ::)
job satisfaction - have one, i think. :-\
Frank
-
I wonder what on Earth the graph people were measuring to come up with that result?
Maybe it was based on pension expectations of the professional classes (whatever they are) but I would be amazed if health, sex, job satisfaction or anything much else increases as you get older.
You're looking at happiness from a very different perspective as happiness researchers (yes, that's an entire field of study). You're talking about objective values of health, sex (amount and quality I assume), job satisfaction and other factors, whereas happiness studies generally look at subjective, self-reported happiness, which is an all-encompassing datapoint taking into account all factor's of one's well-being. Just because an investment banker earns millions and has sex with supermodels doesn't mean that he necessarily is happier than a single mother of three living in Belarus.
There are several indices, but almost all of them have very surprising countries in the top 10, examples here (http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/08/gallup-world-happiest-countries-index-dismisses-gdp-as-a-factor/) (Costa Rica) and here (http://thehappinessshow.com/HappiestCountries.htm) (Nigeria). World Values Survey (http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/index_html)is perhaps the most well-known and has a good historical dataset which shows global happiness is increasing despite what the resident curmudgeons would have us believe.
-
You're looking at happiness from a very different perspective as happiness researchers (yes, that's an entire field of study). You're talking about objective values of health, sex (amount and quality I assume), job satisfaction and other factors, whereas happiness studies generally look at subjective, self-reported happiness, which is an all-encompassing datapoint taking into account all factor's of one's well-being. Just because an investment banker earns millions and has sex with supermodels doesn't mean that he necessarily is happier than a single mother of three living in Belarus.
There are several indices, but almost all of them have very surprising countries in the top 10, examples here (http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/08/gallup-world-happiest-countries-index-dismisses-gdp-as-a-factor/) (Costa Rica) and here (http://thehappinessshow.com/HappiestCountries.htm) (Nigeria). World Values Survey (http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/index_html)is perhaps the most well-known and has a good historical dataset which shows global happiness is increasing despite what the resident curmudgeons would have us believe.
This is a great statement.
Happiness has very little to do with the things that we have. It is first and for most an inner feeling, it comes from inside, not from outside. What can come from outside are just limitated temporary satisfactions. But when the "drug" is not disponible any more, we end desperate.
It's from inside-out, and in our culture, we where trained that it is from outside-in. Big mistake...
-
It's from inside-out, and in our culture, we where trained that it is from outside-in. Big mistake...
Fred, You're absolutely right. But in many places that's a fairly recent development. My generation was brought up to believe that although "things" are fun, they don't bring happiness, and that in the end you make your own happiness.
-
Here is the gist: "People are least happy in their 40s and early 50s. They reach a nadir at a global average of 46"
It’s pretty easy to generalize a couple of models to show why some are happy later in life and why some aren’t.
As example, if one were to look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs one would find a hierarchy of behaviors and goals that are typical of many successful people. Successful people are the models upon which Maslow based most of his studies.
In contrast, if one were to look into Adler, one would find a pattern of behaviors that are typical of many who are unhappy. Not surprisingly, as that the types that Adler studied.
Accordingly, both point to a key detail to being happier at any time but particularly later in life, which is to spend a fair amount of time in comfortable and positive social settings. Nearly everyone gets a lot of self-worth by being in and contributing in a positive way to groups. And of course the types of social interaction one participates in, plays a huge role in one’s sense of self.
Of course, most are neither highly successful nor complete failures and due to this (and all things psychological) ymmv.
-
You're looking at happiness from a very different perspective as happiness researchers (yes, that's an entire field of study). You're talking about objective values of health, sex (amount and quality I assume), job satisfaction and other factors, whereas happiness studies generally look at subjective, self-reported happiness, which is an all-encompassing datapoint taking into account all factor's of one's well-being. Just because an investment banker earns millions and has sex with supermodels doesn't mean that he necessarily is happier than a single mother of three living in Belarus.
On the contrary; as I am considering how I feel as the marker, as the measure, that's being as subjective as is possible, and also the only measure that matters a damn to the individual. All else is futile human pixel-peeping, a lucrative game for those highly educated outwith the worthwhile and socially constructive disciplines.
Rob C
-
Let's all take the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (http://www.meaningandhappiness.com/oxford-happiness-questionnaire/214/)!
And how's your felicific calculus (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Happiness)?
-
Happiness is an attitude, mostly based in an attitude of gratitude. It's more of a spiritual than a physical thing.
I do believe this attitude is easier to obtain and maintain as one gets older, simply because you don't sweat the small stuff as much and demands upon you decrease. Living though a lot of escrement teaches you to step around it, instead of smearing it around.
-
It's from inside-out, and in our culture, we where trained that it is from outside-in. Big mistake...
That's exactly it. The Chinese knew over two thousand years ago that material goods don't bring happiness (Tao Te Ching), and this has been reformulated over the ages by numerous philosophers. I'm not exactly sure when, how and why western societies flipped the meaning - and it has already migrated to other cultures, including China itself.
Incidentally, there have been several recent articles and studies on how experiences contribute to happiness vs material goods. It seems that experiences generate more happiness, confirming Lao Tzu's philosophy. Perhaps the most telling point is that experiences increase in value over time (you reminisce about the good, and forget the negative experiences or make fun of them), while goods decrease in value (they break, show wear and tear, and better alternative goods become available).
I wonder how photography and photographs fall into that spectrum. For us as photographers photos themselves are in big portion experiences although they are physical goods. Cameras, on the other hand, are mostly pure goods - but I'm sure everyone here has a camera they feel passionate about even though it might be outdated and does not function properly :)
-
Happiness is an attitude, mostly based in an attitude of gratitude. It's more of a spiritual than a physical thing.
I do believe this attitude is easier to obtain and maintain as one gets older, simply because you don't sweat the small stuff as much and demands upon you decrease. Living though a lot of escrement teaches you to step around it, instead of smearing it around.
I wonder.
Having got to the 'older' part of life, and having known many before me achieve that too, I can't wholeheartedly agree with you. In fact, I believe you tend to worry a lot more because you have developed a sense of responsibility which extends further from yourself than it ever did when you were young; you take on a lot of things that you could simply walk away from when younger. I think you will see it more openly with women: a mother is always a mother, no matter how old the children, a father probably less overtly so.
There is a tendency to equate worry with money, that's only one factor amongst many. I'm not rich but neither am I starving; I worry. I've known multi-millionaires personally (you think I owned those boats featured in my site?) as family friends for many years. They worried as much, if not more than did I.
I do believe that it may be more a matter of predisposition, just as talent is, which Alain isn't sure to accept or refute in his current article.
Rob C
-
I'm not a photography professional. But, I was in business for 20 years and lost it 12 years ago along with whatever assets the lawyers left me. It was hard, and I was angry and more than a little lost. I floundered for a couple of years and then wound up in all places working for the government. It's not so bad. I go home at night and don't worry about making payroll or paying suppliers. I'm busy doing other things - photography for one. I'm retiring soon. And if the Fed doesn't print too much money and make my pension, Social Security and dollars saved worthless, I might actually be able to spend some enjoyable time photographing even more.
What does this have to do with the good old days? Don't know. Just thought I'd share my thoughts. Good luck in whatever you do. Nothing is forever and things have a way of working out. Alan.
-
I'm not a photography professional. But, I was in business for 20 years and lost it 12 years ago along with whatever assets the lawyers left me. It was hard, and I was angry and more than a little lost. I floundered for a couple of years and then wound up in all places working for the government. It's not so bad. I go home at night and don't worry about making payroll or paying suppliers. I'm busy doing other things - photography for one. I'm retiring soon. And if the Fed doesn't print too much money and make my pension, Social Security and dollars saved worthless, I might actually be able to spend some enjoyable time photographing even more.What does this have to do with the good old days? Don't know. Just thought I'd share my thoughts. Good luck in whatever you do. Nothing is forever and things have a way of working out. Alan.
Trouble is, the bankers have alread done it for us - you don't need to wait until retirement. State pension and interest on savings were going to be the magic potions to that secure future; interest is currently an insult whilst banker bonuses are still obscene. It's not amusing to realise that everything you withdraw to keep paying the bills isn't going to be replaced, that even if things do finally improve, you will have lost so much capital that past comforts or certainties have gone forever. In fact, there's then the belief that those who never saved a cent were the ones with the good sense: what you didn't save they can't steal and when you hit the goo-goo stage of life, they keep you in a home for free, whilst if you were dumb enough to save, they then steal your house to keep you in that same playpen as you pay for yourself and your companions too.
Someone here on LuLa wrote something about fairness...
Rob C
-
I was never really taken by the pensions and savings schemes that were always being urged upon me in my earlier years even when good friends absolutely insisted that it was the only responsible thing to do and shook their heads in dismay when I declined their advice. Now the very same people are moaning about all they money they have lost and how their retirement is not going to be as particularity early or as carefree as they fondly imagined. Nope, we spent our money on buying a nice house with a bit of ground thinking that when the time comes we can downsize and realise a surplus to live on. Ha! what's a house in Ireland worth at present? Yep, probably less than the average pension fund but at least we have hope of recovery.
On the other hand I have a brother who has worked hard and done very nicely thank you out of pensions, savings and investments, but that's only because he sells them.
-
In fact, there's then the belief that those who never saved a cent were the ones with the good sense: what you didn't save they can't steal and when you hit the goo-goo stage of life, they keep you in a home for free, whilst if you were dumb enough to save, they then steal your house to keep you in that same playpen as you pay for yourself and your companions too.
Someone here on LuLa wrote something about fairness...
While there is some truth to savings vs going into debt, it is also tinted by the current economic climate. I started this thread with the view across generations, not some discrete point in time. The despair in 1920s and 1930s was much worse than it is now, and we are much better prepared to weather the storm than back then.
As for savings, inflation has been near zero for years in much of the western world, so those who've saved haven't lost nearly as much as those in debt or investing in stocks. So those who saved are better off. Saving (investing) in stocks and bonds is inherently risky, and most (all?) western countries require disclaimers whenever one buys them because of that. One has to only look at recent history (1999/2000) to see how real the risk is.
And fairness has very little to do with life.
-
My 91 year old Grandmother is at the center of our family's holiday celebrations.
She said that things were harder in the 30's depression because of what they didn't have.
She said they didn't need stuff so much because what she had at least would be well cared for.
Simply put they valued the needs of everyday existence.
A hot bath for my Mother consisted of boiling a few big pots of water a few times a week if she was lucky
Relationships then too would have proved the difference between success and failure.
In a world prone to obsessiveness in thought and deed,
one must choose the light.
I'm going to say the good old days are as good or bad as you remember them.
Certainly the bar is set to some absurd standard that will make you a ruin by comparison to the ideal.
Just remember,
even morons have successes
(sorry just thought the humor would be appreciated)
-
… Happiness has very little to do with the things that we have. It is first and for most an inner feeling, it comes from inside, not from outside...
It's from inside-out, and in our culture, we where trained that it is from outside-in. Big mistake...
Spot-on, Fred!
In the most simplified terms, happiness can be defined mathematically (yes, I know, a blasphemy ;)) = obtained divided by desired. Obviously, two ways to increase the quotient: by obtaining more (goods, success, sex, etc. - western philosophy and/or younger age) or desiring less (eastern philosophy and/or older age).
In relation to the age and happiness debate, I guess as we grow older we tend to desire less, and are more content/resigned with what we have, which, in turn, makes as happier. What is going on here is that, as we grow older, we are redefining the term.
Hence, Rob, you are both right and wrong at the same time ;) If you use the youthful definition of happiness, you can not possibly be happier as you get older. But all it takes to feel happier is to redefine the expectations. As certified curmudgeons, you and I can call it "lowering the bar" just as well.
-
Since I'll turn 81 in March, I suspect I can look back farther than most if not all of the folks who've posted on this thread. I like Slobodan's approach to the question, but I can tell you that what happiness really is is being able to look back and say, "That was a hell of a good run."
-
...to look back and say, "That was a hell of a good run."
Well the good old days are nothing more than the Hollywood remake of what actually happened.
And as for "happiness" I have enjoyed the many times the run was at some really twisting part more than the times when it was straight and gentle. Which is why I continue to needlessly beat my head against the wall making giant inkjet canvases for sale. Arthritic fingers will not tempt me into pseudo-happy indolence!
And their seem to be flavors of happiness. Eschewing classic blissful happiness makes me real-world happy, rather than merely Hollywood happily-ever-after happy.
Or as somebody famous once say, "happiness is being in the loop, doing something interesting, and getting paid for it."
Have a nice day, but don't let it get boring.
-
Since I'll turn 81 in March, I suspect I can look back farther than most if not all of the folks who've posted on this thread. I like Slobodan's approach to the question, but I can tell you that what happiness really is is being able to look back and say, "That was a hell of a good run."
Interesting; I do that every night and I can assure you that I am far from happy now. All that doing that proves to me is that the G.O.Ds were really, really far better!
'Or as somebody famous once say, "happiness is being in the loop, doing something interesting, and getting paid for it." '
That's also true, at the shallow end of its face, but utterly fails to take into account the difficulties and worries associated with ´staying in the commercial loop' even when you're in it, which is anything but smooth and hugely smile-inducing. Unless you are terribly famous, I suppose, whereupon others assume that responsibility on your behalf and create their own worries ad infinitum.
But look at it this way: 2011 is certainly another, fresh year in which to bloom, or just another nail in the numerical coffin. I think you are supposed to take your pick...
;-(
or, possibly, :-)
Rob C
-
Looking back and saying it was a hell of a good run doesn't imply looking back and wishing for the good old days. During my run I wrote poetry and saw a lot of it published; I flew the airplanes I wanted to fly; I went to war three times and made it home three times; I enjoyed commanding the air force units I commanded; I had a lot of profitable fun doing software engineering and teaching programming languages; and I captured the essence of it all through photography and, Christmas eve, opened issue #81 of B&W magazine and saw some of my favorite pictures of Korea. That's what I mean by looking back and being able to say, "That was a hell of a good run." Maybe best of all, I'm still running. I wouldn't go back to any of those eras and call it the good old days. Been there; done that. It's always time to move on.
-
Fred, as I've said before, I wish we were all fluent in French because your mind is very interesting desìte the fact that you are expressing it in a difficult, foreign tongue.
Russ, the trick you have discovered is how to install Duracell batteries where it matters; I still seek the place(s)!
Rob C
-
It took me a long time, and a lot of pain and frustration, to realize that the only real control is self-control. Anything else, as I think Fred pointed out, is varying degrees of bondage, with the blame always falling on something or someone else.
The most immature thing a person can say is: "I can't help how I feel."
-
To me, life is what is now. Thoughts and feelings go by as leaves on a river. They are just that - fleeting and insubstantial. They are not reality unless i try to make them become so. i can plan and scheme and worry, but none of that is reality. Sometimes i succeed, sometimes not. The past is history and i leave the future to take care of itself.
;)
Frank
-
This has certainly turned into an interesting thread, if a little fatalistic...
I think that a lot of what's being written is possibly semantic gamesmanship, but at the same time, it may well be the genuine thinking of some. I long thought that I was somewhat unique in that I believed, looking backwards, that more good things happen to me than do good things that I have sought; but I can't say that that implies I should be passive because, if I were, I'm sure that nothing would have happened at all.
To seek or to find? How can you find without first seeking? You may not find what you were seeking, but at least you were trying to induce momentum; inertia breeds more of the same. Ask those trees and rocks if I'm wrong! I do believe there is a kind of truth in the Scottish saying that what's for you won't go by you, but as with the lottery, you have to be in it to win it. I suspect that too much attention paid to 'oriental' religious or philosophical thinking leads to not a lot more than a personal overhanging equatorial region where your waist used to be.
It's very easy for the super-successful to coin sayings of their own: their fame and money lends their thoughts a gravitas that may be entirely spurious - their success may be as fortuitous as another's lack of same. Look at popular music, at modern art, and can you believe otherwise?
Maybe the best you can do is keep trying - you may strike lucky, or you may die in the attempt. In a hundred years, as Michael will soon learn to say, es igual.
Rob C
-
fatalistic - not in the least.
you are right - words are nothing. doing is everything :)
No navel gazing here... The more i look, the more i find the "oriental" ideas and "western" ideas are saying the same thing. So nothing foreign about it. Just different language - which presents problems of it's own.. :o
"It's very easy for the super-successful to coin sayings of their own"
i wouldn't count myself ... money only makes some parts of physical life easier.
"Maybe the best you can do is keep trying "
Trying is all one can do. Every day :)
regards,
Frank
-
… Maybe the best you can do is keep trying - you may strike lucky, or you may die in the attempt…
Rob, this reminds of the following saying: "Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up and knows that she has to outrun the fastest lion in order to survive… every morning a lion wakes up and knows he has to outrun the fastest gazelle in order to survive… so, whether you are a lion or gazelle, you better start your day running"
-
Rob, this reminds of the following saying: "Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up and knows that she has to outrun the fastest lion in order to survive… every morning a lion wakes up and knows he has to outrun the fastest gazelle in order to survive… so, whether you are a lion or gazelle, you better start your day running"
Slobodan, that's exactly the sort of myth that confuses the western mind.
Lions are certainly up early, but they do take their time before breaking into any sort of a run! In fact, they tend to leave that sort of thing to the women...
I've just been working on an old shot of a Cadillac insignia and part of the hood - a tightish closeup, but still makes me feel that those G.O.Ds (mine) were around in the 70s at least, when the shot was taken, so the car being already a faded blonde, it was itself a memorial to better days. Peeling onions comes to mind, and the tears could be just as easily induced, but not tonight: I feel quite spry, for some unknown reason! Must be careful about things like that.
But I'm about to revive a 50s love affair: Mogambo is on Spanish tve2 at ten tonight - twenty five minutes or so to go - and I shall watch it for the umpteenth time - I use to be in love with Ava Gardner before Brigitte swept me away. Plenty of lions there, tonight!
Rob C
-
Of course even the "poor" today at least in many first and second world and even third world countries have much better health care, shelter, food, recreational time and devices, you name it than people before. Yet they and even the rich can also be unhappy because things are not spiritually satisfying. They only make you feel good temporarily and then you need more or something different. Hmmm. Just like cameras. More pixels, more fps, more DR, higher ISO, more zoom, etc. And we argue endlessly about it. "hey you can see the grain, you can see the noise, the....". Well step back a little and enjoy the photo. Don't stand so close. Does the shot work better now?
Life's like that. Stand back a little.
-
...would that flames of hidden and lost in this nocturnal gaining
ignite clarity in caverns carved of life spent full...
portals open to receive...
-
It seems to me that the lion only need outrun the slowest gazelle.
-
seance anyone ?
-
This thread has been the most interesting I've read on any photography forum.
Maybe we don't all become happier as we become older, but it appears we all become philosophers.
-
Of course even the "poor" today at least in many first and second world and even third world countries have much better health care, shelter, food, recreational time and devices, you name it than people before. Yet they and even the rich can also be unhappy because things are not spiritually satisfying. They only make you feel good temporarily and then you need more or something different. Hmmm. Just like cameras. More pixels, more fps, more DR, higher ISO, more zoom, etc. And we argue endlessly about it. "hey you can see the grain, you can see the noise, the....". Well step back a little and enjoy the photo. Don't stand so close. Does the shot work better now?
Life's like that. Stand back a little.
The balance (or lack thereof) between progress and being satisfied with what we already have is something I've struggled with over the years. Contentment is the death of progress, as dissatisfaction with what we have is one of the strongest drivers of change. But it's also unhealthy and counterproductive to not recognize progress that has been already made, and lament current state of affairs just for the sake of lamenting. This goes for camera technology as well as life in general.
-
And time for change is even quicker than the keyboard: as I wrote so happily that I would, I settled down last night to watch Mogambo for the umpteenth time, and all because of a young love affair I had (in my mind only, needless to say) with Ava Gardner. I watched twenty minutes and couldn't take a second more: it stank. She was as beautiful as I had remembered, but the acting, the locations, the whole scene degenerated from the beginning, and when Gace Kelly appeared that was terminal. On the plus side, Central Casting had done a great job for I also realised that Clark Gable was indeed a good choice for elephant movies.
ronkruger - yes, it is interesting, in my opinion and yours, at least, because it has very little do do with electronics and technology and a hell of a lot to do with people. People are far more interesting than equipment or grading it according to price, taste, size or brand!
;-)
Rob C
-
And time for change is even quicker than the keyboard: as I wrote so happily that I would, I settled down last night to watch Mogambo for the umpteenth time, and all because of a young love affair I had (in my mind only, needless to say) with Ava Gardner. I watched twenty minutes and couldn't take a second more: it stank...
That is called Redemption. As we grow heavy in wisdom we have the chance to redeem ourselves for the foolish acts of our youth, and that is just one example.
edit...but who can blame you!
(http://www.arts-wallpapers.com/classic_star/ava-gardner-photo/ava-gardner800600.jpg)
-
I know its currently politically incorrect to talk about God. But many of the delusions and unhappiness today stem from our distance and lack of connectiveness to something beyond ourselves, something that a belief in God gives us. As long as we think, I think, that getting more pixels and less noise will make me happier, so long will the unhappiness return. We, I, have to have a purpose greater than myself and only God can give me that purpose. Everything else as it's said is vanity and therefore meaningless.
I think our current society has lost much of this that was understood in the "good old days". And yet, today, because of this sense of loss, there is a new push from many directions towards returning to this understanding of our fathers. I think that's a good thing. Certainly it's helping me.
-
I eschew classic religion. In recent history religious belief has too easily been adapted to justify acts of war and terror. We need something much better, if only to survive.
Religion and other forms of absolute dogmatism is a sort of moral thermostat that can be manipulated by those in power to license good people to do not only good, but also to commit ugly acts totally contrary their innate natures. A person who can be convinced of the absolute moral authority of religion can be convinced to do anything, which for instance is how suicide bombers are groomed. And how leaders sometimes justify wars to their followers. We need something better than unquestioned belief in the archaic God's of old, if we are to survive the abuses of those who use religious faith to capture human minds for their own purposes.
Also, modern religion castes God as a kind of simplistic Santa Claus for grownups, making a list of our good and bad behaviors and checking it twice. If He She or It actually exists, I hope this type casting is taken as amusing rather than insulting.
When I personally abandoned my early Catholicism, I finally found my self underneath the locks and keys and erasures and overwrites put their by priests and nuns during my formative years. And you know what? Substituting enlightened self interest and the desire to be socially accepted proved to be as noble a moral compass for me as the fire and brimstone of religion. That is my prescription for those who justify religion as source of morality...you really don't need it, and it can sometimes turn ugly and hurt people.
And for those seeking spirituality, close those hoary old books and listen very carefully to what is going on in your mind. But if you simply subscribe to ordinary religious beliefs, that's like taking a spiritual narcotic. Oh you'll feel fine...immortality guaranteed and all the questions neatly answered and you can just kick back, it's all very seductive...but you're substituting fantasy for spirituality. IMHO if their is such a thing as sin, it is surrendering the rational mind, our greatest gift, for the unquestioned tenets of doctrine. Reason is for humans, faith is for farm animals. If I believed in Satan, and I were He, I would be working hard to shut down rational human minds with heavy doses of faith.
And doesn't Ava look good! Thanks, God!
-
Ava, what have you done?
Organized religion, I think, has a lot for which to answer, but I do think that's more to do with man and his way of trying to gain exclusivity - it's my club you all should join. Like Mick said: can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me...
However, because man eventually fucks most things up doesn't mean that the basic tenet of religion is flawed. As I see it, the ten commandments cover most of the human interfaces, and provide a wonderful template for civilized existence together. Regarding even more basic questions, yes, I do believe in some form of a god because whilst 'science' claimed one origination theory after another, it always failed to come to a satisfactory explanation of the very first factor in the equation that's life: what was it? No use expounding about big bangs, because for them to happen, something has to be there to go bang. That, in turn, leads to the question of whence did it come? I think the reality will always be that it's beyond us to figure it out, that some sort of higher power is at play (or work?) and we simply can't understand or imagine it.
I have no trouble imagining an afterlife as a distinct possibility, probability, even. It makes some sort of logical sense, after all: what would be the point of growth, improvement of the self and the combined knowledge in the world if it were all for nothing? Most things, I note, do have a purpose in nature; we are part of that nature and I think it's a bit rich to hop in and out of the bits that suit the mood, circumstances and surroundings and deny the rest of the whole because it may not suit a personal conviction?
Physical immortality doesn't happen, as we know, but as for the spiritual part of us, why not? The world of dreams, of hopes and inner conflicts, emotions, all chemistry and nada mas? Sorry, can't buy that one, however plausible the arguments may be. We come in many parts.
Rob C
-
I'm one of those people who had a profound death experience, and what I experienced didn't jive with the dogma of any western religions. I can assure you all wholeheartedly there is an afterlife and a higher power, but not the brutal tyrant people have invented to control other people. It is A Higher Good, which is the title of the book I wrote about it.
-
I pity those who have somehow lived a life unexposed to experiences which should cause them to question the rather arrogant assumption of science to having, or at least potentially holding, all the answers to life the universe and everything. Patterns within nature repeat themselves over and over again and at least science has the grace to admit this into its revered hall of logical thought and we can thank Benoit Mandelbrot for that. However, one pattern that the good doctors and professors of this world refuse to recognise is that whenever they discover something small it would immediately appear to be made of something smaller still, little fleas have littler fleas upon them and so on and the search for the ultimate truth gets further bogged down in a quagmire of assumptions and well, it must be said, beliefs! The particles and forces that are invented to explain phenomena get ever more esoteric and fantastic and this pattern of creative thinking to justify observed results pretty well matches much religious thought over the centuries. I've no objection to this industry as it keeps many intelligent minds from doing something more harmful still but I for one have lost the innocent wonder and marvel of science that I held in my youth with the accumulation of 'illogical' experiences accelerating the process. As yet it is not enough to cause me to have a total faith in afterlife but it certainly holds the door open to that option and a recent episode concerning a member of my family pushes the door further still.
The thought has not escaped me that should I embrace a new set of spiritual beliefs then I may in fact be happier or more content with life, but that is a huge internal swing and one that I have resisted to date for it suggests a cop out, an abandonment of the belief the we hold our destiny in our own hands.
-
… should I embrace a new set of spiritual beliefs then I may in fact be happier or more content with life..
Hence the saying: "ignorance is bliss" ;)
-
...an abandonment of the belief the we hold our destiny in our own hands.
Well, this IMO would be a great abandon. And as you pointed it is a beleif.
No one has never hold his destiny in his/her own hands.
The only thing that we have is being responsable for our own acts, conscious or unconsious. But our destiny, as being able to direct and control the events of our life, our "choices" etc... has never been in our control.
-
Indeed we don't control much in our personal destiny. We may certainly make very active choices for ourselves, but the outcome is always beyond us. The most we can do is roll the dice in the direction we think right for us.
Personally, I have no doubts left that there is more after death. I lost a wife but I can tell you I've gained a guardian angel. That's not in any religious, denominational meaning of the two words, but an appreciation based on extraordinary things that have happened in my life since I lost her. It is something coupled with the Scottish belief that what's for you won't go by you, and what isn't you may as well forget.
So easy to mock; so much more easy to experience and then believe. Just like cigarettes: I used to smoke, even in the darkroom where the but would burn down and bring the tears to my eyes as wet fingers couldn't reach up to pull the damned thing out of my mouth. I couldn't stop for long periods: I'd get a sore throat, stop smoking for a while and the throat would go okay, only to be abused with fresh Luckies (always the show-off in those things, but you had to live in the UK to understand). I'd start another cycle of stop/go, and then an uncle of my wife's died of thoat cancer; it became very easy to stop, right there and then.
Sometimes we can't see what's been right under our noses all the time.
Rob C
-
From studying religions and people, I have determined people can believe just about anything, but they only know for sure what they have experienced. That's basically why we are here: for the experience.
In this realm, we are subject to the laws of physics and of cause and effect, which are much grander than we can fathom fully, but what we experience is greatly influenced by the choices we make and the attitudes we bring to the view and interpretation of it all. We don't see the spritiual side of things if we refuse to look, and it usually takes a dramatic and obvious experience to divert our gaze from the physical to the spiritual realities.
-
...would that flames of hidden and lost in this nocturnal gaining
ignite clarity in caverns carved of life spent full...
portals open to receive...
Beautifull picture!
It lights my fire.
-
From studying religions and people, I have determined people can believe just about anything, but they only know for sure what they have experienced. That's basically why we are here: for the experience.
In this realm, we are subject to the laws of physics and of cause and effect, which are much grander than we can fathom fully, but what we experience is greatly influenced by the choices we make and the attitudes we bring to the view and interpretation of it all. We don't see the spritiual side of things if we refuse to look, and it usually takes a dramatic and obvious experience to divert our gaze from the physical to the spiritual realities.
Absolutly.
And the planet that we are seeing now, complete spoilation of ressources with zero care for nature but profits, people exploitation, mass manipulation to the extreme, etc...is the result of that separation.
-
Well, at least some of us believe things are getting worse, so by default, they must have been better at some earlier period: QED.
I like my conclusions simple, if only so I can understand them.
More seriously, I think mankind as a whole is in its advancing middle-age; space dreaming, outer or inner, is simply the era where second-childhood begins. Not long to go, so buy and run that '59 Cadillac if you can find/finance it! At worst, it'll make a pretty bomb when the time comes.
Rob C (in happy mode).
EDIT: no idea what vintage this is, but it was shot in '79 on glorious Kodachrome 64 Pro.
-
it's timeless ;D