male photographers talk about gear because they can't talk about emotions

Freakscene said:
On the weekend I shot some ducks (legally with a registered firearm) and had a long conversation with two men, one my age, one six years old, about the ethics of killing and the complex feelings killing brings up in many people.

Tonight, I am having duck with blood orange sauce, field mushrooms I foraged on the way back from the duck swamp stuffed with home grown herbs and fennel, cheese made by a neighbour, baby zucchini from the garden, and a nice glass of 2004 red that just happened to be in the cellar.

I find Leicas stirring, as I do many nicely made exquisitely designed machines. I have seen terrible, depressingly ordinarily bad, surprising, decent and wondrously amazing things. They all influence me. I particularly dislike being told what makes me how I am and how it influences me when the author is generalising and knows nothing about me specifically or what it means.

Marty
Click to expand...

Oh no not the baby zucchinis!!!
You murderer
 
aizan said:
This article from Harper's Bazaar was going around social media last week. I got to thinking about how it related to photography, and it adds a lot to our understanding of why we talk about gear so much and about photography and art so little.

Men Have No Friends and Women Bear the Burden

The basic argument is that guys suck at relating emotionally to other men because of contemporary homophobia, so they turn to women to take care of them instead.

This behavior affects the world of photography by us not facing up to our anxieties about creativity. It's a lot easier to focus on gear and distract ourselves with GAS than it is to deal with artistic risks and challenges, especially when most of the photographers on forums are men who are no help when it comes to certain things. It's a trap!
Click to expand...

BS and ignorable.

Photographers talk about gear because they haven't learned how to articulate translate the expressive side of their work into words. The same is true of female photographers. Gear and techniques are much easier to quantify and articulate. Some portion of the point of producing photographs is that the photos are the expression that words fail at for many.

And what about gay men? Most do not look to women to take care of them emotionally: They rely upon other men to be their friends in need and support net when things are tough.

Armchair psychologists...

G
 
Some people have said that they don't have any problems talking about creative problems that require emotional support. So why don't we see more threads here on RFF, on APUG (ok, Photrio), on DPreview, on Facebook groups, on Luminous Landscape, etc. where guys are offering emotional support on their photography, whether it's related to the business side of things or to the artistic side of things? Because I don't see the threads. Where are the threads?!

On the contrary, I do see flame wars about gear (camera company 1 vs. camera company 2, what's the right way to do X?, film vs. digital, mirrorless vs. DSLRs, etc.) and people getting touchy about the photography industry (company A is going to go out of business because XYZ, company B should go out of business because XYZ). I'm betting that internet forums would be a lot nicer and more creative if guys were more emotionally supportive and could deal with their emotions together.

peterm1 raises the topic of stoicism, which is something that I want to learn more about. I'm not sure that stoicism underlies mens' behavior in general these days; I thought peoples' renewed interest was based on it having been forgotten.
 
aizan said:
So why don't we see more threads here on RFF, on APUG (ok, Photrio), on DPreview, on Facebook groups, on Luminous Landscape, etc. where guys are offering emotional support on their photography, whether it's related to the business side of things or to the artistic side of things? Because I don't see the threads. Where are the threads?
Click to expand...
Because they are primarily camera sites not photography sites. Even when images are posted, they are posted secondary to equipment, e.g., "Show me your images with a 50mm Summicron" or "Fun with Sony Cameras".
 
Also, if anyone's weary of homophobia's impact on male relationships in the 20th century (the focus is on America), there's this NYT article you might want to read:

The Power of Touch, Especially for Men

It happens to mention an Art of Manliness blogpost with lots of tintypes, "Bosom Buddies: A Photo History of Male Affection," which cites a photobook, Picturing Men: A Century of Male Relationships in Everyday American Photography.

male-1.jpg
 
I think this post is proof enough that man can talk about emotions not just gear :)

I think oversimplifying a person (or worst, a sex) character or behavior is pretty silly. Everyone is different and does what he/she does because very different reasons, the least of them because they can't do otherwise. Most does what they do because they choose to do so.

I can be very emotional in most fields (relationships, politics, religions and yes, gear) so I don't think that article hold much true.

Like many on this forum, I like good crafted equipment, being a camera, lens, a car or a Cello. Handling, using, and talking about them shows the respect and admiration to the work and creativity that went into them, so in a way, it jus show how emotional we can be.


Best regards

Marcelo
 
"The basic argument is that guys suck at relating emotionally to other men because of contemporary homophobia, so they turn to women to take care of them instead"

I read the whole article and oddly this is not the basic argument I discovered.

EDIT - after reading the article a second time I only found 1 word relating to homophobia and it was in quotations. I did find, by clicking on various underlined words, a whole bunch of clinical and academic evidence supporting the "comedians" position.
 
I have to be honest, in other "Art" industries in which I engage, it is often women who are the coldest and most focused on "winning" than on anything actually having to do with artistic expression. Cynically manipulating fans for maximum profit, undermining competitors, etc. I see more men talking about creating work that will support or inspire readers than women, who seem largely more interested in marketing and profit (and when they do talk about the "feelings" side of things, it is almost always tethered to "here's an audience we can exploit").

Not surprisingly such types get lots of support from female audiences who view "thing make money!" as the only measure of work's value these days (don't get me wrong, male audiences are just as bad in this respect). Some of these people are remarkably unaware that they've become gross caricatures of the men they purport ruined the art form, and others are perfectly aware of what they do. Men will get called out for the same behavior constantly. I've only seen one woman editor get called out for her abuse of artists (in comics), and it's likely it only happened because her artists were almost exclusively all women (said editor was responsible for the departure of almost all men from staff of this company, btw).

I don't mention this to have a gotcha "women are hypocrites" take. I mention it because different mediums attract different personalities. There are more than plenty of men in comics publishing who act the same way. In fact, from my experience no industry is more jam packed with cynical A-holes than the comics industry. If you look at one medium and expect it to reflect, generally, truths about society at large, you're misleading yourself.

The tools of photography are more accessible now than they have been at any time in the past. Understanding of art on the other hand, is not much more accessible now than it was 20 years ago. Every camera comes with an instruction manual from which people can memorize specifications. Every camera does not come with an appreciation for the history of art, nor a good eye for composition, nor a mind for concepts. Photographers are, in my estimation, more amateur than any other group. The number of people on this planet who grab a camera just to take pictures is an order of a magnitude (or two, or three) higher than the number of people who pick up a paint brush just to make a painting. I have often complained about the lack of understanding and the consequent lack of discussion about art on photography forums, but while there are few women on these forums, I have had plenty of discussion in real life with women photographers, who look at me like I just said I got back from a walk to the moon if I start talking about art concepts (this is not the case when talking to women who are writers or painters though!).


Edit: I have to add here, another can of worms to open, that photography, like illustration, is not inherently artistic, nor does it have to be to be good. One can be an excellent photographer without any artistic ambitions at all. There is no real reason to expect every photographer to be an artist, and therefore discussion about photography to be inherently interwoven with discussion about art.
 
Godfrey said:
Some portion of the point of producing photographs is that the photos are the expression that words fail at for many.


G
Click to expand...

And fail probably for most; from LensScratch today:

The works represented a wide range of visual narratives, conceptual perspectives and thought processes. It was inspiring to see stories artistically reframing topics at the core of human inquiry and quotidianity contributing to their originality.
 
tunalegs said:
I have to be honest, in other "Art" industries in which I engage, it is often women who are the coldest and most focused on "winning" than on anything actually having to do with artistic expression. Cynically manipulating fans for maximum profit, undermining competitors, etc. I see more men talking about creating work that will support or inspire readers than women, who seem largely more interested in marketing and profit (and when they do talk about the "feelings" side of things, it is almost always tethered to "here's an audience we can exploit").

Not surprisingly such types get lots of support from female audiences who view "thing make money!" as the only measure of work's value these days (don't get me wrong, male audiences are just as bad in this respect). Some of these people are remarkably unaware that they've become gross caricatures of the men they purport ruined the art form, and others are perfectly aware of what they do. Men will get called out for the same behavior constantly. I've only seen one woman editor get called out for her abuse of artists (in comics), and it's likely it only happened because her artists were almost exclusively all women (said editor was responsible for the departure of almost all men from staff of this company, btw).

I don't mention this to have a gotcha "women are hypocrites" take. I mention it because different mediums attract different personalities. There are more than plenty of men in comics publishing who act the same way. In fact, from my experience no industry is more jam packed with cynical A-holes than the comics industry. If you look at one medium and expect it to reflect, generally, truths about society at large, you're misleading yourself.

The tools of photography are more accessible now than they have been at any time in the past. Understanding of art on the other hand, is not much more accessible now than it was 20 years ago. Every camera comes with an instruction manual from which people can memorize specifications. Every camera does not come with an appreciation for the history of art, nor a good eye for composition, nor a mind for concepts. Photographers are, in my estimation, more amateur than any other group. The number of people on this planet who grab a camera just to take pictures is an order of a magnitude (or two, or three) higher than the number of people who pick up a paint brush just to make a painting. I have often complained about the lack of understanding and the consequent lack of discussion about art on photography forums, but while there are few women on these forums, I have had plenty of discussion in real life with women photographers, who look at me like I just said I got back from a walk to the moon if I start talking about art concepts (this is not the case when talking to women who are writers or painters though!).


Edit: I have to add here, another can of worms to open, that photography, like illustration, is not inherently artistic, nor does it have to be to be good. One can be an excellent photographer without any artistic ambitions at all. There is no real reason to expect every photographer to be an artist, and therefore discussion about photography to be inherently interwoven with discussion about art.
Click to expand...

Excellent points here... Thank you for a informed opinion and thoughts...
 
emraphoto said:
"The basic argument is that guys suck at relating emotionally to other men because of contemporary homophobia, so they turn to women to take care of them instead"

I read the whole article and oddly this is not the basic argument I discovered.

EDIT - after reading the article a second time I only found 1 word relating to homophobia and it was in quotations. I did find, by clicking on various underlined words, a whole bunch of clinical and academic evidence supporting the "comedians" position.
Click to expand...

After the "Dog Park" academic pranksters I would take a lot of these gender research articles with a very large pinch of salt. Still, its better than a lot of them who tend to reference their own articles as proof as to how they are right.
 
al1966 said:
After the "Dog Park" academic pranksters I would take a lot of these gender research articles with a very large pinch of salt. Still, its better than a lot of them who tend to reference their own articles as proof as to how they are right.
Click to expand...

Certainly. It would seem, in this particular case, the OP has misrepresented the authors intent and I am unsure many commentors read the linked article.
 
I personally think that our tendency to talk about gear comes down to our origins. Way back when, when the men weren’t out hunting, they were sharpening their arrows, restringing their bows and tightening their loincloths. Having the right gear, finely tuned was the difference between eating and going hungry. Golf, shooting, photography... it’s all the same.
 
aizan said:
This article from Harper's Bazaar was going around social media last week. I got to thinking about how it related to photography, and it adds a lot to our understanding of why we talk about gear so much and about photography and art so little.

Men Have No Friends and Women Bear the Burden

The basic argument is that guys suck at relating emotionally to other men because of contemporary homophobia, so they turn to women to take care of them instead.

This behavior affects the world of photography by us not facing up to our anxieties about creativity. It's a lot easier to focus on gear and distract ourselves with GAS than it is to deal with artistic risks and challenges, especially when most of the photographers on forums are men who are no help when it comes to certain things. It's a trap!
Click to expand...


That's why I didn't see it. And I'm not about to read it with a title like that.
 
Archiver said:
Absolute trash, yet another example of third wave feminism vilifying men and upholding women as paragons of martyrish virtue. Of course that article is going to be in Harpers Bazaar, it's a magazine that has always catered to women. In the same pages, you'll find articles about style, gossip and beauty tips. That's the market Harpers is playing to.

No, we don't talk about gear because of contemporary homophobia, that's just nuts. We talk about gear because we like it! I get a thrill from seeing and handling a well crafted instrument of any kind, be it a watch, a knife, a gun or a camera. I also love the artistry and craftsmanship that goes into a fountain pen.

I have no qualms talking about my artistic challenges with likeminded male photographers, artists and film makers. I'm not saying that many women aren't doing the emotional work in a lot of relationships, but to say that we talk about gear because we're afraid of appearing to be a homosexual is just wrong.
Click to expand...

Correct. Well stated. Even my wife agrees that men are under siege. This is another example. And this article is offensive and flat out stupid. She (we) is (are) concerned because we have a son. If you really want to see another glaring example, look up the controversial Gillette's "toxic masculinity" ad that came out last winter. No Gillette product will enter my home. And no Procter & Gamble product will either if I can help it.
 
Too many people here are basing their opinion on their own experiences ... "I'm here talking about my emotions therefore it's rubbish!"

That's right up there with ... "It's snowing outside so whatever happened to global warming?"

Emraphoto is the only person who has grasped that article in my opinion!
 
I was originally drawn to cameras because I’ve always been fascinated by all things mechanical. From clockwork to steam engines to anything with wheels and cams and gears. And, from a very young age, lenses, of any kind.
So, what embodies those two things? Fine precision mechanical cameras of course. This explains why from the mid to late 70’s, when electronics started to take over, even the film cameras of that later era leave me cold. I.E., the original Canon F1 is a thing of beauty whereas the EOS line with their ‘plastoblob’ styling, while entirety competent picture machines, stir absolutely no feeling at all in me. And digital!?! Okay, I’d just better shut up now.
Talking about photo gear covers a lot of ground, and hobby photography is a large house.
Took me awhile, but I finally admitted to myself that I’m certainly no artist.
.
 
zuiko85 said:
I was originally drawn to cameras because I’ve always been fascinated by all things mechanical. From clockwork to steam engines to anything with wheels and cams and gears. And, from a very young age, lenses, of any kind.
So, what embodies those two things? Fine precision mechanical cameras of course. This explains why from the mid to late 70’s, when electronics started to take over, even the film cameras of that later era leave me cold. I.E., the original Canon F1 is a thing of beauty whereas the EOS line with their ‘plastoblob’ styling, while entirety competent picture machines, stir absolutely no feeling at all in me. And digital!?! Okay, I’d just better shut up now.
Talking about photo gear covers a lot of ground, and hobby photography is a large house.
Took me awhile, but I finally admitted to myself that I’m certainly no artist.
.
Click to expand...

The actual article, if you take the time to read it, makes no reference of mens tendancy to fascination with well exectuted devices of any nature. Not only is it not criticized, it isn't even mentioned. Nor is homophobia explored in any depth.
 
Again...

'You will not promote, belabor, or condemn any political or religious ideology during forum discussion.'

Enough with the digs at feminism. We do not all share the same politics or viewpoint here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom