The Changing Landscape

[josh.reichmann]

People make mistakes.  Mistakes can be corrected, or left unattended.  Computers make mistakes/typos, etc., that are rarely corrected except by proof reading, then correcting.

As has been said, or at least alluded to, Josh is swamped trying to keep the ship afloat and chart a new, yet similar course as his father. Big shoes to fill, as though he doesn't already know this. From what I've seen, he seems willing to take council, to learn, but has no other choice but to move on.  And the direction and course he has charted is ambitious.

In so many ways, websites can become schools (as in school of LuLa, School of FM, etc.), and the work shown and discussed for the most part fits within that school or oeuvre, and also, for the most part rarely deviates.  It appears there is a "new school" taking form, now, under the hands of Michael's son.

I have learned over 50 years of mucking about in the art world that artists/artisans come in many forms of correctness/incorrectness and that in many cases people are handicapped in one way or another such as having dyslexia, bipolar disorder, some form of  physical or mental defect that gives rise to their artistic prowess. What we might think a weakness becomes their strength and eventually these perceived flaws become accepted, overlooked or literally stylized.  The world is full of superstar performers that have defects, and in many cases the defects don't define them, they propel them to unexpected heights. 

So I am less quick to judge, having multiple defects myself which I recognize now as character, even having had to overcome several issues, and leveraging others.

Mistakes have been made.  More will be made in the future.  Any one here thinking they can do a better job, might then, should go do that. Anyone devoid of error, might then, should offer help or support.

How could we not all benefit from a new direction from a volunteer committed to leading in a new direction?

When I wrote an article called Landscapes of the Mind I expected a lot of flack from many LuLa members who would be offended by an article dealing with a subject matter that wasn't strictly "Landscape Art". I think of this article as being more aligned with the new direction LuLa is taking than what it has always been. I was surprised that the article was well received and in some cases appreciated.

So though this thread is actually about a lot of insecurity, it is also about second guessing leadership, and little about appreciation for what Josh is doing and trying to do.

So I state unequivically that I am for what Josh is doing and support his quest for change, while at the same time appreciating the past direction and all that entailed.

Walk that mile in another person's shoes and see from a different perspective, perhaps, before criticizing....

Ciao -

Mark

Deeply appreciated.

Josh

[Chris Kern]

It may be a cultural matter. The word "ass" has no particularly offensive meaning in English English: it means either a donkey or someone behaving in a foolish manner. . . .  On reflection, it may be that you were using the word as what, in English English, would be rendered as "arse".  Even that, in English English, would probably not warrant reproach, being so very mild as to be close to usable in polite company.  Perhaps in American English the tone is more insulting and less acceptable . . .

There is no more compelling evidence for the proposition that Brits and Americans* are two peoples separated by a common language than our respective choices of epithets, and sensitivity thereto.

Having said that, "ass" is no more offensive on our side of the ocean than yours.  "Arse" is rarely heard hereabouts except when uttered by as-yet-unassimilated Brits and Australasians.

A thread on the most colorful (colourful?) derogatory terms used in various countries and cultures would be interesting and most instructive.

———
*"Estadounidences," for anyone who may be reading this from south of the planned structure about which I must not speak disparagingly for fear of becoming caught in the site management's moderatorical clutches.  (I don't know what term Canadians use to refer to us these days—it is sometimes asserted that they are also inhabitants of America—and am hesitant to ask.)

[LesPalenik]

I have learned over 50 years of mucking about in the art world that artists/artisans come in many forms of correctness/incorrectness and that in many cases people are handicapped in one way or another such as having dyslexia, bipolar disorder, some form of  physical or mental defect that gives rise to their artistic prowess. What we might think a weakness becomes their strength and eventually these perceived flaws become accepted, overlooked or literally stylized.  The world is full of superstar performers that have defects, and in many cases the defects don't define them, they propel them to unexpected heights. 

...

When I wrote an article called Landscapes of the Mind I expected a lot of flack from many LuLa members who would be offended by an article dealing with a subject matter that wasn't strictly "Landscape Art". I think of this article as being more aligned with the new direction LuLa is taking than what it has always been. I was surprised that the article was well received and in some cases appreciated.

Mark

Mark,

thank you for posting the link to your most interesting article, accompanied with many amazing images.
This took me to your website and from there I travelled to the video with you and Dr. Sara Robinson on spalted wood artwork, equally interesting. You are indeed a multi-talented artist and craftsman.

BTW, that article alone is worth the $12 annual subscription to LuLa.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Amazing what one can learn in an international forum. Does that extend to down under? So when an Aussie sends me a PM and tells me I am an “aRsehole” I shall take it as a term of endearment?

I wouldn't presume to say; I don't speak Australian. I have, however, gained the impression that robustness of language and a wide-ranging vocabulary of invective is not entirely un-Antipodean.

Your post on the use of "it" and "they" may be correct in the US, but is not applicable over here. I act for and against corporate bodies every day, and always refer to them in the plural, both in conversation and in formal documentation. On the other hand, I refuse to use "they" to refer to a human individual.

Isn't grammar wonderful?

Jeremy

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Isn't grammar wonderful?

Don't you mean: "Aren't grammar wonderfuls?"    

[jeremyrh]

Haemorrhoid, on the other hand, is never acceptable, whether or not correctly spelled.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hemorrhoids/symptoms-causes/syc-20360268

Apparently it was. I was surprised too.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... "ass" is no more offensive on our side of the ocean than yours...

So, if I call you a dick, that wouldn’t be offensive either? After all, they are just two sides of the same coin? On both sides of the ocean?

[Chris Kern]

So, if I call you a dick, that wouldn’t be offensive either? After all, they are just two sides of the same coin? On both sides of the ocean?

It depends on the continentext.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It depends on the continentext.

Well done! 🙃

[Mark Lindquist]

Mark, maybe it didn't strike you that many LuLanders don't have access to the zone where your missive was placed?

I, for one, currently do not and perhaps never again will. I could not access it just now through your link. I consider the thousands of posts I've bothered to write for LuLa more than make up for twelve bucks a year. If they don't, then why am I bothering at all?

This very perspective was mooted when the idea of making the site pay-for was first broached. Without the few people who regularly contribute something, this place would be dead. Come to think of it, many pros who posted great stuff have stopped posting images or given up completely. There is a difference, not such a subtle one, between sharing your work freely (as a pro) when nobody else is making money from it, and doing so when your supplied content becomes marketed as part of the site even though, technically, within the free zone of said site. You can't separate the two: those who come to see a particular person's images come for that chap's content, whether or not they pay to read some other stuff on the home page. That a site requires income is beyond dispute; the problem is sourcing that support wisely, and not by creating first- and second-class citizens.

Maybe LuLa is trying/planning to do too much and to be all things to all men. That has never worked.

Rob

Rob, you have a point which is taken, and for your benefit and others who are equally objecting to the $1.00 per month toll, you may visit Landscapes of the Mind (Free)

I agree with several of your points, particularly finding revenue resources that don’t involve a pay wall, but I’m afraid it’s easier said than done. I guess $12 bucks is a year is a hardship for some, and/or a point of order for others....

I for one don’t have a dog in this fight, I sprang for the $12 bucks even though I’m a contributing author and didn’t get the free-bee membership (maybe because I haven’t contributed an article in a while). It’s worth it to me because I’m intersted in where the site has been and where it’s going. Not having this particular axe to grind is a nice unencumberance, for me, actually, however.

As for having contributed and thinking that LuLa might be making money off of my article, I say: “more power to them.” I would be glad if it was the case, yet I know it is a small contribution in light of the whole that LuLa represents. It may be a mindset of entitlement or a principle that I am missing, perhaps that creates the divide. I believe in supporting, ie, giving, without expectations or strings attached.

On that note, I thought that Michael’s Luminous Landscape Endowment was a great idea, (and I put my money where my mouth is), but I see precious few who have also made a committment to supporting the endowment which is now floundering. (See sponsors list)

But hey - live and let live.  I’m not criticising you for your position, but I’m not apologizing for mine either.

I guess I would be interested in your alternatives to a pay wall, specifically, that would generate the funds requied to pay for the infrastructure, servers, tech support, actual running costs, etc., that would be more efficient or at least generate the same income or better to enable LuLa to tear down the wall.

I’m a pretty good businessman, but a much better artist, I’ve been told, so it’s just not in my wheelhouse to supply an answer. I’d love to see the paywall come down and have Lula go back to a free state, so if you have answers, definitely please don’t hold back.

Thanks Rob -

Mark

[Mark Lindquist]

Mark,

thank you for posting the link to your most interesting article, accompanied with many amazing images.
This took me to your website and from there I travelled to the video with you and Dr. Sara Robinson on spalted wood artwork, equally interesting. You are indeed a multi-talented artist and craftsman.

BTW, that article alone is worth the $12 annual subscription to LuLa.

Thanks Les -

[Ray Cox]

Mark,

thank you for posting the link to your most interesting article, accompanied with many amazing images.
This took me to your website and from there I travelled to the video with you and Dr. Sara Robinson on spalted wood artwork, equally interesting. You are indeed a multi-talented artist and craftsman.

BTW, that article alone is worth the $12 annual subscription to LuLa.

My sentiments exactly!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... There is a difference, not such a subtle one, between sharing your work freely (as a pro) when nobody else is making money from it...

There is a hole in that argument: the site was making money even when it wasn't behind a paywall, via advertisers, or selling videos. Adding $12 to it is completely irrelevant as an argument.

[John R]

My sentiments exactly!

Enjoyed video with Dr Robinson and the Landscapes of the Mind article. Particularly how Mark described developing his ideas for abstract photography.

JR

[jeremyrh]

BTW, that article alone is worth the $12 annual subscription to LuLa.

It is, but on the downside, it makes me even more conscious of how little I have achieved :-(

[Rob C]

There is a hole in that argument: the site was making money even when it wasn't behind a paywall, via advertisers, or selling videos. Adding $12 to it is completely irrelevant as an argument.

That may be a hole for you, but it isn't for me.

Advertisers were doing the paying, not the readership, and whatever readers contributed they did for the commonweal or their own pleasure. That has changed radically. People buying how-to videos were buying a physical product made by LuLa management (and perhaps contribted to by people happy with the idea), not by unpaid folks like me.

And yes, twelve bucks is indeed irrelevant: it's the principle of the thing that grates.

But then I earned my bread from photography, so it's no laughing matter to me, and is echoed in my disgust at the shamateur and the penny-stock ethos that destroyed a great industry.

And no, I am sure there are no tears for that sentiment; on Lula, how could there be?

Rob

[Rob C]

Rob, you have a point which is taken, and for your benefit and others who are equally objecting to the $1.00 per month toll, you may visit Landscapes of the Mind (Free)

I agree with several of your points, particularly finding revenue resources that don’t involve a pay wall, but I’m afraid it’s easier said than done. I guess $12 bucks is a year is a hardship for some, and/or a point of order for others....

I for one don’t have a dog in this fight, I sprang for the $12 bucks even though I’m a contributing author and didn’t get the free-bee membership (maybe because I haven’t contributed an article in a while). It’s worth it to me because I’m intersted in where the site has been and where it’s going. Not having this particular axe to grind is a nice unencumberance, for me, actually, however.

As for having contributed and thinking that LuLa might be making money off of my article, I say: “more power to them.” I would be glad if it was the case, yet I know it is a small contribution in light of the whole that LuLa represents. It may be a mindset of entitlement or a principle that I am missing, perhaps that creates the divide. I believe in supporting, ie, giving, without expectations or strings attached.

On that note, I thought that Michael’s Luminous Landscape Endowment was a great idea, (and I put my money where my mouth is), but I see precious few who have also made a committment to supporting the endowment which is now floundering. (See sponsors list)

But hey - live and let live.  I’m not criticising you for your position, but I’m not apologizing for mine either.

I guess I would be interested in your alternatives to a pay wall, specifically, that would generate the funds requied to pay for the infrastructure, servers, tech support, actual running costs, etc., that would be more efficient or at least generate the same income or better to enable LuLa to tear down the wall.

I’m a pretty good businessman, but a much better artist, I’ve been told, so it’s just not in my wheelhouse to supply an answer. I’d love to see the paywall come down and have Lula go back to a free state, so if you have answers, definitely please don’t hold back.

Thanks Rob -

Mark

Mark, there was an answer, which was what LuLa was doing under the guidance of Michael. I gather he did it for love, not for turning a buck, which is a completely different matter.

Of course, I am not privy to any insider information about that, whether it was a sustainable situation or not; Michael died and Kevin represented a totally different mindset, and now, in his turn, Reichmann Jr a different one too. I even wonder why he took this place on/over/or whatever the case was. If it's to make a living, I'd do something else.

It is said that the slow death of the dslr market is killing off the camera sellers too, in which case it could well be that those companies that might have backed a site such as LuLa with ads, find it isn't worth the candle any longer.

If that's so, then perhaps it's time to accept that sites such as this have outlived their time as have some of us individuals, too.

My attitude to paying or not paying into photography-based websites is perhaps not shared by many. I come to it from my current interest in the photographic world, which is thus:

a. my last camera, bought new, was a D700, and I have absolutely no wish to replace it, and in fact, I use my even older D200 a lot more then the D700. I have zero interest in other cameras and therefore, tests and reviews. My photographic limitations are not with equipment, as I suspect is true for almost all LuLa readers;

b. having spent my life making photographs I find no pleasure in other people's suggestions of how to improve my own pictures, the reason I started the Without Prejudice space. I don't look at many published images in LuLa because after a while I realised that most of them are not relevant to my mind, and I saw that very few people understand anything about genre - it's almost impossible for many to recognize that photography is not just some massive, sticky goo of anything goes and everything is equal. Basically, that's pretty damned depressing for me;

c. today, the best I get from photography online is finding golden nuggets from photographers whose work I have admired for as long as I can remember; most of them are/were in the world of fashion/advertising. The so-called concept and art world of photographic trendies leaves me pretty damned cold.

So yeah, I can come up with no workable way to magic up money either. As I sort of asked, is LuLa to be a money machine or a bit of fun for its publisher?

Rob

[KLaban]

Having been gifted a subscription for 3 years during Michael's stewardship - I'm not sure why but I'm very grateful - it is only recently that I've had to make the decision on whether to continue to be a subscriber. I'm here for the Forum, only occasionally visit the Home Page and rarely read the articles. The subscription fee was not an issue, a buck a month is not going to break the bank.

I decided to subscribe for a number of reasons, not least of which was the feeling that if the site fails to attract enough paying punters then it is likely that LuLa and the Forum I value would in turn fail. I also felt that it would be difficult to monitor and assess the direction of the site under the new management without being able to access the content.

I'm under no illusion that my contributions to LuLa matter to anyone other than myself, I contribute merely because over the years I have enjoyed doing so and hope to continue. I wish LuLa well. 

[Krug]

I decided to subscribe for a number of reasons, not least of which was the feeling that if the site fails to attract enough paying punters then it is likely that LuLa and the Forum I value would in turn fail. I also felt that it would be difficult to monitor and assess the direction of the site under the new management without being able to access the content.

I'm under no illusion that my contributions to LuLa matter to anyone other than myself, I contribute merely because over the years I have enjoyed doing so and hope to continue. I wish LuLa well.


+1 !

[kers]

I visit Lula now for several years and still enjoy visiting it. Also for me the forum is most important, but even to keep that up costs money.
In a world everything on internet seems to be gratis, we know it is not. I try to avoid facebook and google for that reason.
Instead i am happy to give little support to some websites that matter to me and give real information, like Lula and Wikipedia.