Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I recall that when I was studying photography as an undergrad at the University of New Mexico, one of the instructors insisted that we choose only 2 or 3 images out of every 36 or so to bring to class. I've seen a lot of discussion, much of it interesting, on the LUG relating to different 'editing' techniques. I suppose it *is* "elitist" to cull some images from others according to some [fill in the blank] criteria, just as I suppose that, "do you want to see the slides of my vacation," became a symbol for the most boring conceivable evening in popular American culture precisely *because* the proud photgrapher failed to do so. I don't wish to suggest that there's some transcendent standard against which all images must or should be judged: different horses for different course, chalk and cheese, and all that. I am curious to learn why *some* of us agree that some images are more compelling than others, and, more important, what do we think we're doing when we take photographs. I can appreciate the process of using fine equipment as an end in itself, but if this were the only end, why not carry an M6 empty and click the shutter just for the pleasure of the sound it makes? One does, I supect, *usually* load the thing--and even here one makes an "elitist" choice: B & W, chrome, what speed to be developed in what way. It seems to me that it's nearly impossible to use a tool without previsualizing the object it was designed to realize. I built a desk for a friend last week. I used a bandsaw for some things, a planer for others, a tablesaw, and what often seems like an astonishing array of hand tools to "realize" my sense of how wood should be joined, finished, how it should look. The best-sharpened hand plane is nothing but a weight of steel and iron until it shaves wood and a camera is merely a complicated device until one captures light with it. The issue I've tried to raise here, after reading thousands of LUG posts over the last several months, is to open some consideration of the sight we bring to the world and our motives for recording it. *Everyone* on this list, persumably--though I'm not sure at times--burns film. Some do it for a living, others to it for the love of art, and yet others for satisfaction from the processes, both mechanical and chemical, it entails. Yet we share in common at some level what Veblen called the "instinct for workmanship." I'm just curious to know a little about what we can imagine that "instinct" to be. For raising this consideration, I am condemned as a "snob," "elitist," the arrogator of "rights" of interpretation that I am unlicensed to claim. Strange . . . Chandos - -----Original Message----- From: Nathan Wajsman <nathan.wajsman@euronet.be> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Date: Saturday, June 13, 1998 2:15 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Photos on the Web >I guess I am one of the guilty amateurs putting uninteresting pictures on the >Web. Well, the beautiful thing about the Internet is that it is the most >democratic medium ever invented, allowing non-professionals like myself to >publish my work at very little cost. If certain elitists find that work >undeserving of their attention, I can live with that. Nobody is forcing you to >look at mine or anyone else's web site. I personally have derived immense >enjoyment and inspiration from looking at other LUGgers' web pages. On the other >hand, much of the work of celebrated photographers and other artists leaves me >totally cold. C'est la vie--to each his own! > >-- >Nathan Wajsman >Overijse, Belgium > >Photography page: http://members.tripod.com/~belgiangator/index.html >Motorcycle page: http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/downs/1704/index.html > > >