Clock of Jean-Claude Lemagny

[Ivophoto]

I get the gist of the clock, but once you place the images on the face, then what? It seems like it is a slide sorting exercise, not unlike genre assignment. Which makes sense as it arises from a curator's need to organize a large collection of diverse images.

It is effectively not a genre assignment. That is what makes it interesting. It is about reading photographic art or content.

[faberryman]

It is effectively not a genre assignment.  That is what makes it interesting. It is about reading photographic art or content.

3 o'clock is not a genre? Landscape is not about reading content?

[Ivophoto]

3 o'clock is not a genre?

No. The genre given is only an example. Nan Goldin is definitely not the same genre as Capa but it fits on the same side of the Clock.

[RSL]

The problem with you, Russ, is that you ignore given examples. You ignore arguments not stroking with your ideas.
You consider everything what is not to your taste as ‘off the wall’
That makes it impossible to have a discussion with you.

You are rude. Not in the sense of using brutal language. You are rude in how you ignore the intelligence of others. You are eloquent rude. A kind of white collar rudeness.

Instead of using the word Bullshit, you post a picture. That kind of smart ass. And why is that rude? Because you deliberately sabotage entertaining conversations of others.

You are sabotaging this topic.

Stop it.

Hi Ivo,

I think the real problem is that when I ask for examples to support the opinions I see on LuLa, some people see that as an insult. “After all, I said it! Are you questioning me?” Actually, yes. I am. There’s no way to discuss opinions unsupported by facts and reasoning without spinning your wheels, which is what you seem to want to do. Again and again I’ve asked you to support an opinion with an example. You’ve never come back with an example. You’re certainly free to have any opinion you want to have, but you’re not free to expect that opinion to be taken as gospel. Or as Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts.” It’s not that I “ignore given examples,” Ivo; it’s that I haven’t seen any examples to ignore. All I’ve seen is unsupported opinions.

Yes, I see that you believe I’m rude. Apparently you feel that way when I ask you to support one of your opinions with facts – examples. You see that as ignoring “the intelligence of others.” In other words, as I said earlier: “I said it! Are you questioning me?” Damn right I’m questioning you. If you have an opinion, give some support for that opinion. Intelligence isn’t illustrated by off-the-wall opinions. It’s illustrated by conclusions supported by facts and reasoning.

So you thought my bull was a way to say “bullshit.” Well, that was a case of supporting an opinion with an illustration. The facts already were there. You had made them very clear.

Oh, and thanks for the “eloquent rude” vote. “Eloquent” is something observable. “Rude” is a personal opinion.

[Ivophoto]

Hi Evo,

I think the real problem is that when I ask for examples to support the opinions I see on LuLa, some people see that as an insult. “After all, I said it! Are you questioning me?” Actually, yes. I am. There’s no way to discuss opinions unsupported by facts and reasoning without spinning your wheels, which is what you seem to want to do. Again and again I’ve asked you to support an opinion with an example. You’ve never come back with an example. You’re certainly free to have any opinion you want to have, but you’re not free to expect that opinion to be taken as gospel. Or as Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts.” It’s not that I “ignore given examples,” Ivo; it’s that I haven’t seen any examples to ignore. All I’ve seen is unsupported opinions.

Yes, I see that you believe I’m rude. Apparently you feel that way when I ask you to support one of your opinions with facts – examples. You see that as ignoring “the intelligence of others.” In other words, as I said earlier: “I said it! Are you questioning me?” Damn right I’m questioning you. If you have an opinion, give some support for that opinion. Intelligence isn’t illustrated by off-the-wall opinions. It’s illustrated by conclusions supported by facts and reasoning.

So you thought my bull was a way to say “bullshit.” Well, that was a case of supporting an opinion with an illustration. The facts already were there. You had made them very clear.

Oh, and thanks for the “eloquent rude” vote. “Eloquent” is something observable. “Rude” is a personal opinion.

Whatever.

[Rob C]

Whatever.

So, Ivo, would you consider your response here rude, polite, casual or just dismissive in a white collar sort of way?

:-)

[faberryman]

So, Ivo, would you consider your response here rude, polite, casual or just dismissive in a white collar sort of way?

I would characterize it as frustration, and an unwillingness to get involved in a protracted argument over something that, in the end, is not worth the effort because no minds will be changed. The thread is quickly being derailed from a discussion about Lemagny's clock metaphor. How does Russ's narrow view of street photography have any bearing on the topic.

[Ivophoto]

So, Ivo, would you consider your response here rude, polite, casual or just dismissive in a white collar sort of way?

:-)

 It serves the purpose.

[Rob C]

It serves the purpose.

Which purpose is that?

[Ivophoto]

Which purpose is that?

I’m done with the energy sucking behavior of Russ. And  it adorns you to  stand up for your friend, but you shouldn’t on this matter.

[Rob C]

I would characterize it as frustration, and an unwillingness to get involved in a protracted argument over something that, in the end, is not worth the effort because no minds will be changed. The thread is quickly being derailed from a discussion about Lemagny's clock metaphor. How does Russ's narrow view of street photography have any bearing on the topic.

Minds are seldom changed when people think themselves right. Trouble is, who is to say when they are or are not?

Derailed? By whom? Are you sure? Who is throwing around the dirt and the verbal attacks?

Rob

[Rob C]

I’m done with the energy sucking behavior of Russ. And  it adorns you to  stand up for your boyfriend, but you shouldn’t on this matter.

You really should retract that.

There is no right of libelous defamation of character enshrined in Internet conversation. I am not, and never have been a gay.

Rob

[Ivophoto]

You really should retract that.

There is no right of libelous defamation of character enshrined in Internet conversation. I am not, and never have been a gay.

Rob

?
This is a language thing, I don’t want to suggest that.
Probably I should have written ‘friend’. I will edit.
Apologize.

And at the end, again, An interesting topic has subtile been murdered.

Quo Vadis?

[Peter McLennan]

Before this gets any worse and to return to the OP:  Regarding the clock diagram, in photographic definitions, what's the difference between "subject" and "object" ?

This is a serious question, not bait.

[elliot_n]

Hi Evo

Huh?

[RSL]

Right you are, Elliot.

[elliot_n]

Right you are, Elliot.

What's your idea? With 'Evo', I mean.

[Ivophoto]

Before this gets any worse and to return to the OP:  Regarding the clock diagram, in photographic definitions, what's the difference between "subject" and "object" ?

This is a serious question, not bait.

Is I understand it, Peter,

Object: about the picture as material
Subject: the ‘about’ of the picture

That differentiation make sense to me.

Example:

- An image beamed to a wall, just the image to look. Only the content of the image is of any interest.

- An image crafty silver halide printed. The print itself becomes an interest as well.

Next step, where concept jumps in:

-A Visual show with different beamers on different projection screens, a kind of walkable labyrinth, walking ‘in’ the images. Maybe walking over a floor projection.

And add to this the content of the images them self. Do you walk between brutal war scenes? Or Erotic content? Or maybe nature? Or static snaps of a room?

Or the Halide print: prints the size of a postcard with a huge matting? Or wall sized prints?
Exhibit under spots or in subdued lighting?
This makes a huge difference in how the print should be crafted.


About the image: p.e. clearly recognizable situations vs impression.
Bare registrations vs in scene.

Next, the technicalities:
Clair obscure or high key
Composition
Color vs bw

And add all what can said about visual language.

And so on and so on.

I’m not sure if my explanation fits all the clock, but that doesn’t matter. It are exercises as the clock that gave me insights to explore more than just a picture in a genre.

There is so much out there.

[elliot_n]

Is I understand it, Peter,

Object: about the picture as material
Subject: the ‘about’ of the picture

But the materiality of the image is already taken care of by the category - 'MATTER-ABSTRACTION'

And if 'subject' is the 'about' of the picture, then how does this differ from 'content'?

I understand his four main categories, but I'm puzzled by the four diagonals. Do they actually exist in his original 'clock', or were they added later?

[Ivophoto]

But the materiality of the image is already taken care of by the category - 'MATTER-ABSTRACTION'

And if 'subject' is the 'about' of the picture, then how does this differ from 'content'?

I understand his four main categories, but I'm puzzled by the four diagonals. Do they actually exist in his original 'clock', or were they added later?

Good questions. Maybe I took to easy conclusions, is quite possible.

I will try to translate the explication given in a book I have on my shelve. Maybe this evening.

(Subject and content are not the same to my feeling)