• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Dealing with criticism of one's own work.

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Please how you feel your work should be critiqued and what guidelines should folk give for their own work. We need to get on the same page as to what is expected.

Joni Mitchell's words, "All I want of love to do, is to bring out the best in me and you too", might inspire us here too!

Thanks,

Asher
 

Jean Henderson

New member
I welcome ALL comments AND criticism on my images as I am seeking to grow. While some are hard to take, I have never questioned the motives of posters here on OPF. I post in order to gain knowledge about how my work is being recieved by others who have the knowlegde of aethetics (in general) and the history of photography ( more specifically) already under their belts as I want to be the very best photographer I can be. As always, though, my quest continues to be the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. Any words that can bring my work closer to these ideals is what I always hope for.

Jean
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I welcome ALL comments AND criticism on my images as I am seeking to grow. While some are hard to take, I have never questioned the motives of posters here on OPF. I post in order to gain knowledge about how my work is being recieved by others who have the knowlegde of aethetics (in general) and the history of photography ( more specifically) already under their belts as I want to be the very best photographer I can be. As always, though, my quest continues to be the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. Any words that can bring my work closer to these ideals is what I always hope for.
Jean,

It's worth repeating that the job of the reviewer here is very, very different for a newspaper "critic" reporting on an exhibit for the public.

The newspaper critic is vested with some influence and authority so as to guide us needy people how to not spend our money on inferior movies art and the like. In truth, they are only right 55-70% of the time at best!

Here the job of feedback is to tell us all how the picture impacted us and what feelings it evoked and thoughts it brought to mind. We're only rarely asking how each of us would choose to make the picture, but we could suggest how to better achieve goals, if they are articulated.

When the picture is just shown, with no introduction, how does it fit in?

The conflating problem is that none of us are world recognized academic, trade or collecting experts. These types as well as everyone here can steer you wrong. So here's the warning. Don't take what we say as better advice than coming from your own head, but rather as samples of what others like us might feel and think about pictures we share.

If we don't "get it", it could be for so many cultural or other reasons and your work could be fine - unchanged! So, for all the good will and intent of all of us here, it's our individual duty to protect our own offspring!

IOW, take what we say with more than a singel pinch of salt. :)

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
I missed this thread somehow. I should pay more attention.
I have noticed over the years how those who deep themselves somewhat knowledgeable in a craft such as photography willingly present their critique or criticism (or whatever you like to call it) whether it has been solicited or not.
I see this quite different to the 'like' that we often flippantly utter when we see an image that appeals to us for some reason, even if its just to appease a pleading student or connect with a good friend.
For those who seek criticism, so be it. Take it as it comes. Some, like me, can be blunt and to the point but that's usually because we are in a hurry, lacking social skills and don't want the perpetrator of rubbish to miss the point.
But there are some, again, such as myself, who do not seek criticism. The motivation for this is personal. It has nothing to do with ego or arrogance. It has to do with why we photograph. I, personally, do not photograph to please others, only to share my experiences. I se them as a part of a conversation; filling in the missing bits. As with a conversation, we are less concerned with grammar and more with content. We can be sloppy in our pronunciation, stutter and stammer, be repetitive, shout, whisper, laugh at our own jokes, choose to be politically incorrect, blaspheme, stop midway and change the topic, interrupt and talk over, under and in between others. We accept this among friends, relatives, acquaintances and even enemies. The last thing we expect is someone telling us how to pronounce a word or not to end a sentence with a preposition. In fact, its usually a good way to end a conversation.
I like sharing photos. I like looking at other people's photos. I have taught myself to avoid being critical when casually looking at photos. If someone asks I give my opinion quick and sharp, but only when I am asked.
That's just good manners.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I missed this thread somehow. I should pay more attention.
I have noticed over the years how those who deep themselves somewhat knowledgeable in a craft such as photography willingly present their critique or criticism (or whatever you like to call it) whether it has been solicited or not.
I see this quite different to the 'like' that we often flippantly utter when we see an image that appeals to us for some reason, even if its just to appease a pleading student or connect with a good friend.
For those who seek criticism, so be it. Take it as it comes. Some, like me, can be blunt and to the point but that's usually because we are in a hurry, lacking social skills and don't want the perpetrator of rubbish to miss the point.
But there are some, again, such as myself, who do not seek criticism. The motivation for this is personal. It has nothing to do with ego or arrogance. It has to do with why we photograph. I, personally, do not photograph to please others, only to share my experiences. I se them as a part of a conversation; filling in the missing bits. As with a conversation, we are less concerned with grammar and more with content. We can be sloppy in our pronunciation, stutter and stammer, be repetitive, shout, whisper, laugh at our own jokes, choose to be politically incorrect, blaspheme, stop midway and change the topic, interrupt and talk over, under and in between others. We accept this among friends, relatives, acquaintances and even enemies.


Tom,

What you write makes sense. I would hope that most here are photographing, (outside of work for paying clients and their insurance losses), for similar very personal reasons. That alone makes for good viewing. Pictures dont have to be clean or perfect. Only the sound in a movie theater has to meet high standards. Pictures however can be scratched, half dark, at an angle and still give a good experience.

So we agree that feedback is most valuable not in recreating the picture, just sharing one's reactions. I'd add .... helping deliver what the photographer says needs to be delivered.

As for crops, , LOL it's like licence to hug someone or taste their french fries. That's a very individual matter, but always out of place for a print/gallery-ready picture!

We might welcome knowing other folks reaction to our work, but the risk is always that someone will trash work that's intended for sale. Some folk won't take that risk. :)

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I, personally, do not photograph to please others, only to share my experiences. I se them as a part of a conversation; filling in the missing bits. As with a conversation, we are less concerned with grammar and more with content. We can be sloppy in our pronunciation, stutter and stammer, be repetitive, shout, whisper, laugh at our own jokes, choose to be politically incorrect, blaspheme, stop midway and change the topic, interrupt and talk over, under and in between others. We accept this among friends, relatives, acquaintances and even enemies. The last thing we expect is someone telling us how to pronounce a word or not to end a sentence with a preposition. In fact, its usually a good way to end a conversation.


But then, why would anyone but your friends be interested in the experiences you want to share? Or I want to share, it is not about you in particular.

A conversation is something one has with friends or, generally, people one knows beforehand. You don't stop unknown people on the street to strike a conversation with them, I suppose. I know I don't. The appeal of a conversation is that people know you and are, generally, interested in what you have done recently or what opinion you have. They are interested in you, because they know you personally.

Extended to photography, it is like sharing the pictures of your kids or of your latest vacations. People you know are interested in the pictures, because they are interested to know how your kids are doing or what country you have visited recently. This kind of photography is immensely popular and I am not criticizing it, but the limitations are there: people are interested in the pictures of people they know, but they are not interested in the pictures of the kids and vacations of people they do not know. Why would they be?

If you want to do "photographic conversations" over the Internet, then sites like Facebook or Google + are for you. They are designed with this very idea in mind: you bring in friends and acquaintances you already have in the system and you can share a "conversation" with them over pictures about what you have been doing: your family, travel, work, parties, pets, latest food, hobbies, etc... I am sure you know how the average Facebook account looks like.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
......A conversation is something one has with friends or, generally, people one knows beforehand. You don't stop unknown people on the street to strike a conversation with them, I suppose. I know I don't...........

Jerome,

You strike up a conversation with folk that enter your railway carriage or that you meet on vacation. That's what we do here.

But if all we did is show mementos, then we'd run out of conversations. The special interest here, I'd have thought, is that we see not only folks kids, but also their unique points of view. That makes for stimulating exchange with characters you get to appreciate and want them to come back and share more.

Asher
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Jerome,

You strike up a conversation with folk that enter your railway carriage or that you meet on vacation. That's what we do here.

But if all we did is show mementos, then we'd run out of conversations. The special interest here, I'd have thought, is that we see not only folks kids, but also their unique points of view. That makes for stimulating exchange with characters you get to appreciate and want them to come back and share more.

Asher

I'll add to Asher's above that also we do share here real conversations with people from all the planet, even if mostly Americans and Europeans, being able to exchange with so many cultures with our real names is quite unusual on the net, on the contrary of social networks each one of us have no control on who will come into our debates, friends and strangers in each one homes! I love that!
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
You strike up a conversation with folk that enter your railway carriage or that you meet on vacation. That's what we do here.

Not at all. Pay attention to the next conversation you strike up with folk that enter your railway carriage and you will notice it is very different to what we are doing here.

But if all we did is show mementos, then we'd run out of conversations.

Not at all either. People never run out of mementos to share. Some people's Facebook timeline appears to be almost infinite, for example.

The special interest here, I'd have thought, is that we see not only folks kids, but also their unique points of view. That makes for stimulating exchange with characters you get to appreciate and want them to come back and share more.

What is different between an Internet forum and random people met in a railway carriage or on vacation is that people come to an Internet forum to have an exchange of views on a specific subject (photography, in the case of OPF). The conversations are not random or simply exchanged to discover the particulars of a stranger met on a train, they are constrained by the subject of the forum. It is more akin to, e.g., an evening class or a club meeting.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I'll add to Asher's above that also we do share here real conversations with people from all the planet, even if mostly Americans and Europeans, being able to exchange with so many cultures with our real names is quite unusual on the net, on the contrary of social networks each one of us have no control on who will come into our debates, friends and strangers in each one homes! I love that!

I love that as well and indeed this was, for me, the main interest of the Internet: being able to share opinions with people I would never have met in real life. But this is not what the new Internet is about.

Now, try to think about when and why things have changed.
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
But then, why would anyone but your friends be interested in the experiences you want to share? Or I want to share, it is not about you in particular.

A conversation is something one has with friends or, generally, people one knows beforehand. You don't stop unknown people on the street to strike a conversation with them, I suppose. I know I don't. The appeal of a conversation is that people know you and are, generally, interested in what you have done recently or what opinion you have. They are interested in you, because they know you personally.

Extended to photography, it is like sharing the pictures of your kids or of your latest vacations. People you know are interested in the pictures, because they are interested to know how your kids are doing or what country you have visited recently. This kind of photography is immensely popular and I am not criticizing it, but the limitations are there: people are interested in the pictures of people they know, but they are not interested in the pictures of the kids and vacations of people they do not know. Why would they be?

If you want to do "photographic conversations" over the Internet, then sites like Facebook or Google + are for you. They are designed with this very idea in mind: you bring in friends and acquaintances you already have in the system and you can share a "conversation" with them over pictures about what you have been doing: your family, travel, work, parties, pets, latest food, hobbies, etc... I am sure you know how the average Facebook account looks like.


Hi Jerome.
You might be surprised at who I talk to. Christine will quite often catch me talking to some stranger in the street or generating a conversation on a bus with the person opposite. I know quite a few blokes like that.
As for pictures, I'm addicted to looking. Anything at all. What does grate on me a bit is people asking me for an instant critique. I would much prefer to hear about the contents and circumstances around the taking thereof. It's my insatiable appetite for stories. It's about listening to others and taking an interest in what they do.
You're right, Jerome. It is all about me. What else could it be about?
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I love that as well and indeed this was, for me, the main interest of the Internet: being able to share opinions with people I would never have met in real life. But this is not what the new Internet is about.

Now, try to think about when and why things have changed.

The reason why things have changed has nothing to do with conspiracies. Simply put:
-Internet demographics have changed: it used to be mainly a small number of geeks, now it's everyone and their dogs
-Internet financing has changed: a forum like this one can be financed by a private person as a hobby. Facebook is a commercial enterprise, trying to finance itself with advertisements
-the way people interact with the Internet has changed: we did not use smartphones to take pictures and directly post them 10 years ago.

This "Web 2.0" did not really evolve from the original Internet. It is more an evolution of the sms. 10 years ago, people use their cell phone to text their friends, now they use their cell phone to post pictures on facebook and twitter. It is basically the same thing, because the intended recipients are the same group: friends and relatives.

Only the original Internet demographics were interested in reaching people they did not know beforehand (some argue because they had no friends in real life...). The new demographics are not.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Hi Jerome.
You might be surprised at who I talk to. Christine will quite often catch me talking to some stranger in the street or generating a conversation on a bus with the person opposite. I know quite a few blokes like that.
As for pictures, I'm addicted to looking. Anything at all. What does grate on me a bit is people asking me for an instant critique. I would much prefer to hear about the contents and circumstances around the taking thereof. It's my insatiable appetite for stories. It's about listening to others and taking an interest in what they do.
You're right, Jerome. It is all about me. What else could it be about?

You are not answering the question, you are answering the opposite question: why you are interested in other people's "conversation". But we already knew that from your photography. You are obviously interested in discovering things you did not know about. I can relate to that, but it is not the question.

The question was "why would anyone but your friends be interested in the experiences you want to share?" A conversation should go both ways, shouldn't it?

I think that this is the problem most amateurs photographers have: we can listen and watch at what other people want to say and show to our content. That is never a problem. But the opposite is not true: no-one is interested in what we want to say and show. Why would they be?
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
....I think that this is the problem most amateurs photographers have: we can listen and watch at what other people want to say and show to our content. That is never a problem. But the opposite is not true: no-one is interested in what we want to say and show. Why would they be?
Bingo! I agree fully. Regarding the opposite, they (i.e. everybody and their pets) are only interested when they can share the awesomeness or as flickr calls it the "interstingness" of our pictures with their family and friends.

Jerome what you have written on this topic in the past few days have been very informative and eye opening, even for an old hand like myself. Thank you.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I did not start that reflexion here and actually wrote something a bit more detailed a month ago. I'll cite it here:

One aspect that is essential in this discussion, yet has not been mentioned yet, is the aspect of publication. Taking pictures (or producing any form of art) is only half of the equation: you also need a public. Without somebody to actually watch the picture, the picture itself is meaningless. You also want to communicate what you have seen to somebody else. Without the ability to show your pictures, without someone to appreciate them, taking pictures becomes a pointless exercise. As somebody told me once: "I take pictures because I enjoy taking pictures, but sometimes I wonder why I put a film in the camera. It would be much easier without it". Yet, taking pictures that nobody ever sees is like throwing bottles into the sea and never getting any message back.

Some amateurs, probably a lot more than one would believe, still take pictures and never show them. Think about Vivian Mayer and 50 years of undeveloped film in cardboard boxes. That is a good illustration to your saying: "you do it because you have no option".

Of course undeveloped film does not exist with a digital camera. And, in our modern world, it would appear at first sight that the problem of publishing pictures is largely solved: the Internet makes it easy to publish.

The problem has not been solved, the second part of the journey is still no completed. It is easy to put up pictures for people to see. It is still difficult to have people actually watch them. For that, the pictures need to be of interest to them. Now, "interest" or "interesting" are overused words in the English language, but I am using the word in its original meaning here: the viewer needs to find something in the picture that belongs to what he or she is interested in. For a pro, that problem does not exist: if someone is hiring you to take a picture, that person is per definition interested in the result. A pro photographer is someone producing pictures of interest to the clients (and not necessarily of interest to him or her). For an amateur, the opposite is true: you are producing pictures which interest you, but there is no reason that they would be of interest to anyone else. And it has nothing with the photograph being aesthetically pleasing, impressive, artistic or anything of that kind. The world is full of very nice pictures which interest nobody.

Bridging the other half of the journey is dependent on finding people interested in what interests you. A bit like the Bechers did: they liked to photograph water towers and found out that there were people regretting that those disappeared without leaving a trace. Could you do that? Could you find people interested in what interests you? What are you interested in?


Maybe I should add that Tom solved that problem in a very elegant way: he is a teacher. That makes people who come to his courses automatically interested in what he says or shows, because it is part of the course they paid for. Maybe not as interested as he hopes, but you get the idea.
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
You are not answering the question, you are answering the opposite question: why you are interested in other people's "conversation". But we already knew that from your photography. You are obviously interested in discovering things you did not know about. I can relate to that, but it is not the question.

The question was "why would anyone but your friends be interested in the experiences you want to share?" A conversation should go both ways, shouldn't it?

I think that this is the problem most amateurs photographers have: we can listen and watch at what other people want to say and show to our content. That is never a problem. But the opposite is not true: no-one is interested in what we want to say and show. Why would they be?

I understand what you say, Jerome. That is the case with many people, and with me from time to time.
That doesn't stop me from talking to strangers or showing my pictures. Not everyone will be interested in having a conversation or commenting on my photos. But I do know one thing. I didn't wait for someone to ask.
There's not much point in being disappointed or even pissed off because people don't respond in the way you would like. A mate of mine had a philosophy about girls when he was young. He figured if he asked enough girls for sex one would eventually answer the way he wanted. He knew damned well he wouldn't get his leg over sitting at home watching tv and complaining about not getting enough.
Was he ever disappointed with the rejections? I never heard him say but I do know he was one very happy young man.
It may take two to have a conversation but it takes one to start it.
I have this sense that photos shared on Flickr and the like have a lesser value that those posted on places like OPF. If you believe that then I could only consider your thoughts as arrogant, self-centred and egocentric. A single snap of the new grandchild or a favourite bloom shared on Facebook with a friend or family member has just as much value in the social context as an arty farty shot of a brick wall or a blonde stretched out on a silk sheet and shot from atop a ladder.
I know Cem gets a bit frustrated when people don't respond to his images and I know I get fed up with people 'liking' my photos but that's something he or I have no control over so we say something crude and get over it.
My old man used to save stamps. He was passionate about it and had, according to him, some very valuable and interesting stamps. When he was showing his latest acquisition it was compulsory viewing by all and it was necessary for us all to listen intently and show a modicum of interest. When he presented such prizes to his philatelic mates there was no question about the interest level. Different audience, different reaction.
As a post script, when my father died it was discovered that he had been slowly selling all the stamps in his final years. It was his retirement fund. Amazing how things have different value at different times as well.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
A mate of mine had a philosophy about girls when he was young. He figured if he asked enough girls for sex one would eventually answer the way he wanted. He knew damned well he wouldn't get his leg over sitting at home watching tv and complaining about not getting enough.
Was he ever disappointed with the rejections? I never heard him say but I do know he was one very happy young man.

He would not have been if no woman had answered positively, ever.



I have this sense that photos shared on Flickr and the like have a lesser value that those posted on places like OPF. If you believe that then I could only consider your thoughts as arrogant, self-centred and egocentric.

I never talked about "value".
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Jerome,

One aspect that is essential in this discussion, yet has not been mentioned yet, is the aspect of publication. Taking pictures (or producing any form of art) is only half of the equation: you also need a public. Without somebody to actually watch the picture, the picture itself is meaningless.


To have a shoe business, one cannot only invent the shoe. One must also invent the shoe store.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
He would not have been if no woman had answered positively, ever.



I never talked about "value".

I don't know about that, Jerome. He may have decided the challenge was enough and if continually rejected he could always take thinks into his own hands - so to speak.

I know you didn't talk about value. That was me jumping to conclusions. I do that quite a bit. It brightens up the conversation.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I don't know about that, Jerome. He may have decided the challenge was enough and if continually rejected he could always take thinks into his own hands - so to speak.


We are breaking the analogy here. I was only considering discussions and publishing photographs. You took the example of a man who figured if he asked enough girls for sex one would eventually answer the way he wanted. Interestingly, the Internet is full of men who say that no girl ever answers the way they want, at least on online dating sites. I am not a specialist of online dating sites, but it seems that there are vastly more men than women on some sites and, therefore, lots of men don't get a date. Simple number game.

Taking the parallel back to photography, showing photographs on flickr or on any photographer's site is the equivalent of an online dating site with no women. On flickr, etc... there is no audience, there are only photographers. Showing the pictures there in the hope of finding appreciation is like trying to pick up women in a gay club: there aren't any.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
To have a shoe business, one cannot only invent the shoe. One must also invent the shoe store.

There is a difference here: people need shoes. Nobody want to walk barefoot, at least not on rough terrain. This is why one can sell them (with or without a store): there is demand for shoes.

There is no demand for "conversation" or, more specifically, there is no demand for certain types of "conversation", talks, texts or photographs on some subjects. There is high demand for some photographs, scantily clad women or celebrities, for example. Photographers interested in producing this kind of pictures have no problem finding an audience.

Now, you may argue that I (or Tom, or Cem, etc...) should take the kind of pictures that people are interested in. However, that would make us professional photographers, in the sense that we would do pictures on order and not amateur photographers, who make pictures of subjects of interest for themselves.

I'll give you another analogy: you are interested in relatively obscure subjects yourself. The audience for explanation on train suspensions or plow function is relatively small. You could set up a store to sell books about these subjects, you would still not sell millions. Wouldn't your time be better invested if you wrote articles on how to diet without effort or on the sex life of celebrities? Maybe it would, since you would have a much bigger audience all of a sudden. But would you want to do that?
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Too many analogies here. I'm lost. I don't know if I should buy shoes, drive a plow or ask my neighbor for sex, even if he is a bloke.

As they say in the business " if you won't a guarantee, buy a toaster" ( another analogy ).
Just post your photos, or not, and get what comes your way. It's not that hard.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Let me offer that the best art/street/landscape/nature photography comes from folk dedicated to doing their best in that bubble of values. That's my belief, at least my hope that we'd get the most out of our work, (apart from work for hire, when we make what we feel we need to make. so at the least there's the satisfaction of having built the picture one imagined.

The next step, publication is really not so hard. Chance are if we're were honest and fully dedicated and with talent to apply, our pictures will be valued by others. Why am I so sure? Well, there are simply millions of other people who are not as focussed but want to purchase photographs for their walls.

That's why many "fine art galleries" now weight their collections to photography. Theres' good money to be made! Not everyone has the dedication to be a pilot, ham-radio operator, fly fisherman or gemologist. However, if one is steadfast and have talent, we have a fair chance, (1 in 4 perhaps), of some commercial success.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
It may take two to have a conversation but it takes one to start it.
I have this sense that photos shared on Flickr and the like have a lesser value that those posted on places like OPF. If you believe that then I could only consider your thoughts as arrogant, self-centred and egocentric. A single snap of the new grandchild or a favourite bloom shared on Facebook with a friend or family member has just as much value in the social context as an arty farty shot of a brick wall or a blonde stretched out on a silk sheet and shot from atop a ladder.

"Just as much value"? Where do you get that from? Here in OPF we celebrate each others mementos and there are never complaints, TTBOMK!

This is a straw man you've created!

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
What the **** is TTBOMK, Asher?
And 'straw men'? Are they characters from Alice in Wonderland?
You'll need to talk in monosyllables for us ignorant bastards down under.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
What the **** is TTBOMK, Asher?
And 'straw men'? Are they characters from Alice in Wonderland?
You'll need to talk in monosyllables for us ignorant bastards down under.

Tom,

Enough hiding behind this pretense of being a simple working man from the Northern Territories who's not sophisticated enough to check out meanings of words beyond his aboriginal neighbor's vocabulary. You create a false argument here that we'd choose "art", (whatever that might be), over friends' or family pictures. You know that we know that's such nonsense, LOL! You just project this ruse to create some dramitc basis for mocking so-called "art", specifically "photos of a woman on silk from a ladder".


A single snap of the new grandchild or a favourite bloom shared on Facebook with a friend or family member has just as much value in the social context as an arty farty shot of a brick wall or a blonde stretched out on a silk sheet and shot from atop a ladder.

You keep repeating this jibe and it's not only bad-mannered but tiresome to the nth. What part of this dismissive attitude against the "artsy fartsy", (or my own work on nudes from a ladder), do you think we have failed to grasp the first time you came up with this tack?

Here

here

here

here or

here?

You've your own private forum, where such jabbing might perhaps be considered great incense from you as some guru, to be savored. No doubt, you have a lot to teach. I admire your work. Here, however, we don't have teachers or gurus, or their attitudes but aim to treat each other with respect.

In fact we've all welcomed and shown respect for your work. The latter I see as an unique view through your own "personal window". That's what we value and enjoy. Allow each of us that same courtesy! If you don't like my pictures of nudes, fair enough. Their success, (or not), is inherent in what they are, as they are and our own individual sense of esthetics. Theres' no need for any extra approval. Still, I'd hope you'd enjoy seeing them but don't depend on any favorable reception from you. However, personal ill-mannered jibes are hardly acceptable and foreign here and you already know this. Remember also, there's young women who posed for these pictures. They too deserve our respect.

Again, you're not a "simple working man" as you keep announcing, but a sophisticated photographer, an articulate observer with years of teaching experience. You've as much in common with a "simple working man" as a the Scythian Gold Necklace does to to a hangman's rope!

Please be nice to the other folk in the tour bus!

Asher
 
Top